.
 .

 .
 .
.
 

"Helping the Innocent" using "Humanitarian Military Intervention"

Shenali Waduge

One would have thought the 1389 Treaty of Westphalia & the Thirty Year War would have sufficed to depict the catastrophic uncertainties that would surface when external involvement enters the stage of an internal strife inevitably broadening the conflict altogether. Coupled with this theme & creating to the confusion has been a topic now referred to as the "responsibility to protect" (R2P in short) translated to mean "humanitarian military intervention".

To add to the fiasco of the past cases of "military intervention" is an equally important question of "terrorism". That someone's "terrorist" is another one's "freedom fighter" has certainly added to the confusion of justifying the "war on terrorism". States who identify their "responsibility to protect" their civilians & seek to nullify the "terrorist" element internally are having to deal with the calls to uphold "humanitarian" element for the "terrorists" above & board the "civilian" factor. Does this not sound like a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Occupation by force is nothing new - using military or otherwise, the world has witnessed such invasions through time memorial. Following the cold-war & the norms of modern politics the rights & duties of states came into shape. The natural laws that paves way for rights for all human beings as well as the right of the sovereign nations has definitely changed with time. This was one of the first arguments used during the 13th century when the question of Christians invading non-Christian land arose.

This however changed in 1648 following the Treaty of Westphalia which witnessed the Thirty Year War. Immediately afterwards natural law was replaced by a more positive law that paved the way to the modern international system on the principle that international law would be determined by the joint will of sovereign states. Thus moral law was replaced with political reasoning & entered a phase where sovereign governments had the right to rule within its own territory without fear of any external intervention. The present century is however seeing a rise in tensions between state sovereignty & individual human rights as held under the governing body charged with maintaining international law - The United Nations Charter.

As per the UN Charter the use of military force except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council is prohibited. The UN Charter also recognizes the status of individual human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However, that universally accepted agreement is seeing distinctive changes of late. Added to this has a plethora of questions. What happens if human rights & state sovereignty clash & what would be the role of international systems in such cases? Are states' rights always morally and legally superior to individual rights, or are there circumstances in which states forfeit certain rights in favour of individual rights?

Should the international systems comply with the restrictive "natural laws" or should they take action? There have been some exceptions.

Following the killing of over 1 million people & driving out of millions more from Pakistan, the Indian army intervened in East Pakistan in 1971. Indian representatives in the UN first justified Indian military presence but withdrew following objections from members who quoted principles of noninterference of sovereign states. Other examples of intervention overruling human rights were the overthrowing of Pol Pot from Vietnam in 1979 & Tanzania overthrowing Idi Amin in Uganda, needless to say that both were brutal dictators. Turning towards the 1990s issues in Iraq, East Timor were enough to promote the need for justifiable humanitarian intervention in the light of the inability of the state concerned to protect individual human rights. The cases in Rwanda, Srebrenica were also no different.

This then turned into the need for group intervention rather than intervention by a single state thus promoting legitimacy for collective authorization for intervention. It was the Kosovo issue that signaled the first international intervention without the UN Security Council authorization when the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) entered Kosovo in 1999 to free it Serbian rule.

The mighty USA decided to invade Iraq not once but twice - the latest exercise has left 4272 coalition deaths, 3966 being American, 174 British, 13 Bulgarians, 1 Czech, 7 Danes, 2 Dutch, 2 Estonians, 1 Fijian, 1 Hungarian, 33 Italians, 1 Kazakh, 1 Korean, 3 Latvian, 22 Poles, 3 Romanians, 5 Salvadorians, 4 Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, 2 Thai & 18 Ukranians since occupation of Iraq in 2003 (Upto 18 Feb, 2008) & in addition to over 150,000 Iraqi deaths (including civilians) It is also estimated that over 29,203 US troops have been wounded in action as well. Despite the intervention of the largest & most sophisticated military force in Iraq the war seems far from over.

Today the arena for debate transpires over human rights & humanitarian concerns having a legitimate cause for war. Writers Ramsbothan & Woodhouse, Nicholas Wheeler, Walzer are a few proponents of the "just war" theory where they place human intervention as a rightful norm in the light of a states inability to protect its citizens' human rights.

Then surfaced a Canadian initiated International Commission on Intervention & State Sovereignty producing a publication in 2001 titled The Responsibility to Protect following the Kosovo intervention (without endorsement of the UN Security Council). This was to be known simply as R2P or the right to "humanitarian military intervention". Aware of the debates centering laws governing a sovereign state, promoters of this new theory were careful to pinpoint the duties on a sovereign state & skillfully turned the issue "intervention for humanitarian protection" to the R2P theory of a States "responsibility to protect innocent lives". This report however, was followed by another in 2004 by a penal that too echoes the idea that governments have a duty to protect individuals & promulgated 5 criteria for Security Council authorization to the use of force : seriousness of the threat, proper purpose, last resort, proportional means & balance of consequences.

Countries of Asia & Latin America have been quick to see its hidden implications - legitimizing military intervention by strong states against the weak which really tantamount to another form of modern neocolonialism.

Since 1999 the world has seen such interventions in reality - Darfur, Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia & Herzegovina are cases in point. While mayhem did exist in no small measure, it is also prudent to note that all these examples were "easy cases" where the "decision" to "intervene" had no pressures from any majors quarters within the international community.

Towards 2003, we saw the US invasion of Iraq, once again citing humanitarian terms for its initial justification & then on to a falsified claim to weapons of mass destruction, which was however proved false. Another faux pas for Kosovo's intervention was the allegation that the Serbian leader was accountable for the genocide of 200,000 Albanians. During the trial it became known that only 5000 such deaths took place.

Let us view the scenario from different angles. The former UN Secretary General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges & Change endorsed the "emerging norm that there is an international responsibility to protect (civilians).... in the event of genocide & other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent". This consensus was accepted in theory but what about its practicality? What type of force is to be used? Is it a UN force or a coalition? Will they function as combat troops or mere peacekeepers? Who will define the type of force to be used & how far can the troops remain non-political & impartial? Plenty more questions are likely to surface.

Sri Lanka claims it suffers a "terrorist" problem; however the international community does not identify the LTTE as terrorists when it comes to the question of a "solution". While on international level, the LTTE remains a banned entity the international community puts compelling pressure on the Government to negotiate. This leads us to wonder why the case in Palestine or Burma should be different that it is yet to echo any need for humanitarian intervention.

But given the numbers of military interventions that have already taken place in Somalia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Rwanda, Iraq, East Timor & Kosovo - we beg to question which ones if any were ever effective leave alone successful & how neutral has the intervention itself has been.

In the light of a humanitarian military intervention taking place & the arrival of foreign forces to engage in relief work their humanitarian action can become politicized. This was evident in Afghanistan when soldiers began aid work wearing civilian clothes but carrying guns which ultimately led to the humanitarian workers (NGOs, INGOs) being targeted by the guerillas. Another flipside is the additional presence of troops, firepower which is likely to add fire to an already volatile environment.

The IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force) during the late 1980s presence in Northern Sri Lanka, Somalia in 1993 with UN & US forces are some examples while NATO's air campaign in Kosovo & Serbia in 1999 increased the expulsion of Albanians by Serb soldiers & physical destruction of Belgrade. Using this same argument, when a State Government (takes it upon itself the responsibility) to save the people of its country (using its military strength) from attempts by others (guerilla movements, terrorists etc) taking up arms to kill innocent lives, what difference is it from bringing outside forces to do the same?

Can military intervention succeed without the state governments backing? Does the intervention take a military line or does it remain as "peacekeepers"? Is the intervention itself based on disagreement with the State or with the forces that are creating unrest within the State that should warrant intervention? This again leads to a point where if the external forces were to have identified who was at "fault" in the first place, they could have essentially assisted the State to engage the "enemy" without having to engage another force in a foreign country that doesn't understand the environment, the culture, the language that exists.

While the foreign force may have sophisticated weaponry there are likely to be a weaker force than the local forces. There is also a likelihood that the aid agencies as well as the foreign military forces that do not recognize their political roles are definitely likely to add to the conflict. What then will happen in cases where the foreign force suddenly decides to pull out when the deaths of their soldiers become too hard to handle? This point once again clearly indicates Sri Lanka's own predicament.

While the LTTE is identified globally as a terrorist outfit, banned in the countries of the West as well as being wanted in India for the assassination of its premier, the UN as well as world leaders insist the Government engage in a negotiated settlement - when daily testimony of their gruesome & brutality is evident in the acts of guerrilla warfare, civilian killings added to the numerous other illicit crimes that make up their global terrorist enterprise. Thus, it becomes only justifiable before committing any allied force into conflict area bypassing the will of a State, that the external forces must first identify what is wrong in that State, help the State to nullify or bring to the correct path the factor that is barring peace before they should consider any action for military intervention.

What is important to note is that all possible means must be advocated before any decision of humanitarian military intervention - who really are eager for humanitarian military intervention & WHY? This brings us back to the potential of indoctrinating the theory of "humanitarian military intervention" into global practice backed of course by international legal acceptance because it merely translates to offer powerful states to overwhelming abuse the smaller ones already weighed
down by internal strife.

The UN by its very Charter is mandated to involve itself in "non-military" solutions. However there are certain discrepancies - they tend to undermine local approaches of handling situations, their procedures are often too bureaucratic & concerned more with the safety of their own staff than with contributing towards peace. Since 1988, the UN has initiated 13 peacekeeping operations but of late we see an emphasis towards military engagement for peace enforcement & humanitarian intervention. It beckons to ask whether these to be deployed UN troops have military peacekeeping training, do they really know their role irrespective of political partiality? Hardly so, and through all the armed forces that are today deployed globally with the authorization of the UN we see a flourishing of "leisure activities"
namely prostitution, drugs, alcohol, rape etc.

It also becomes noteworthy to really address the "representative" power of the UN. Does the UN really represent "world opinion" or is it not just a forum of government representatives? Its actions or inactions are they not really to suit the interests of the most powerful nations which really make up the Security Council the body that is supposed to judge & decide on actions to be taken? We are well aware of the manner in which the US has been able to manipulate the UN systems - how their "war on terror" following the attack on US soil by terrorists has bullied countries across the globe into joining them on their crusade against terror?

"Prevention is better than cure" they say & governments, international community, aid organizations as well as the United Nations all stand guilty of turning a blind eye to potential strife until they enter stages that become irreversible. It is unfortunate how the powers that be resort to military intervention after neglecting or failing to persist with non-military means of action. There are enough & more examples : France's answer to action for rape camps was not in conducting any investigations or sending medical experts but to use military force similarly in Somalia, the US immediately stopped air shipments when one of their planes were in danger but returned soon afterwards with a mighty force of 30,000 troops.

However, there have also been instances in the past where well intentioned intervention resulted in repressing the very people it set out to protect & case of British troops in Northern Ireland provides a clear example, when in 1969, in response to a request by the Catholic Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement, the British Government sent its troops to Northern Ireland to defend the Catholics from Protestant attacks. It was found that the majority arrested without trial were in fact Catholics & in the 24 years 20,000 British troops ended up on duty in Northern Ireland. The same was in the case of Bosnia - where the Bosnians found themselves in conflict with the intervening force attacking UN posts to reclaim territory ceded to Croatian & Serbian forces. What then became of the Fijian troops who were stationed in Lebanon but went on to stage a coup on home soil?

The question of military intervention can also be approached by answering a few simple questions. Why does military intervention occur in some cases but not in others? Coupled to this is obviously the "why" surrounding intervention of countries that are "close concerns" for the world's super powers. The idea for intervention by the major powers itself obviously carries some important questions in the light of their military equipment & forces being engaged & leads to the question of the "self interest" by the party intervening. Is there any guarantee of success & what will be the long term implications?

This is not a healthy scenario at all especially so when in any call for intervention surfaces the UN ends up having to solicit the troops from member states - it not only delays deployment, coordination confusion arises since none of these troops have worked together possibly they don't speak the same language & most importantly they have not been given sufficient training or even a background summary of the situation. Therefore, all those advocates carrying placards for "humanitarian military intervention" must first for practical purposes work towards creating a impartial & well trained troop falling directly under the UN supervision - where are they to be deployed, what are their duties, how will they be chosen are all questions that immediately come to mind but above it is the question of why the UN would need to wait so long for any "humanitarian military intervention" is to take place. No sooner a likelihood of a conflict takes place does it not necessitate the UN to make dialogue with the State concerned to immediately address the conflict?

Having said that, the right to intervene still remains a conceptually obscure & legally controversial phenomenon, especially in the light of the promoters of "just war" wrangling through legal doctrines to espouse their case.

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com. .

BACK TO LATEST NEWS

DISCLAIMER

Copyright © 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reproduction In Whole Or In Part Without Express Permission is Prohibited.