Committee: Special, Political, and Decolonization Topic: Rights of Intervention Study guide: History of the Committee When the United Nations was established in 1947, the task of dealing with the world s contemporary issues was divided into a system of committees. The first committee was called the Political and Security committee, and dealt with the regulation of armaments as well as organizing and managing the membership of this newly formed world political apparatus. In 1956 the committee was upgraded to a permanent committee of the General Assembly. These other political issues soon became too much for the first committee to deal with, and in 1965 the Fourth Committee, to be called Special Political, was created to ease the load of issues on the first committee and deal with entirely political matters. The First committee then became the committee to deal with disarmament and international security, and in 1993 was renamed Disarmament and International Security (DISEC). Ever since the establishment of DISEC, we, the fourth committee, which had been dealing with issues that were mostly in overlap with the issues before the Security Council, acted as an overflow both for issues put on the back burner but also for issues that the Security Council figured should be debated in a more world-wide forum. The mandate of the Fourth Committee came to include both regional issues, such as the Palestinian question and the wars in Central Africa, as well as more general issues such as the peaceful use of outer space, and regulations on transferring information internationally. It dealt increasingly with regions coming out from under former colonial powers, and issues that stemmed from these conflicts, and so the Fourth Committee became Special Political and Decolonization in 1993. The Committee serves a special function within the General Assembly. It passes resolutions that are handed over to the General Assembly and makes recommendations to the GA and the Security Council for the creation of commissions for special research. Statement of the Problem The debate over the question of rights of intervention is one that will dominate the world stage for decades to come. With the military action the past few years has seen in Iraq carried out by US and allied forces without the consent and support of the United Nations Security Council, the questions of who has the right to intervene, where, and when, will most likely reoccur for 1
international institutions and sovereign states. What constitutes a reason to meddle in the affairs of another nation? What grounds can justify any sort of action, be it forceful or not? Can intervention be made on ideological grounds, or because of direct interest of the intervening country, or neither? Who is to define and decide a just cause? To what extent are interventions appropriate, be it achieved by means ranging from economic sanction to military action? How does the concept of intervention clash with sovereignty, and how are these two notions to be reconciled? We shall also discuss whether or not an outside party has the ideological and legal right to interfere, forcibly or not, with the domestic affairs within a sovereign state. Violations of human rights, as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, are among the strongest reasons that would lead an outside actor to intervene in the happenings within a nation s borders. These violations may be due to many things, from civil war and lack of law enforcement to a tyrannical government with repressive and cruel domestic policy, and are seen as grounds upon which to deprive the offending state of its right to sovereignty. Unfortunately, although human rights have been declared to be universal, intervention is carried out usually not solely in the name of human rights. When the situation in country B exacerbates and threatens to have an effect, domestically, on country A, should country A interfere B for the sake of its self- interest? The question we must ask and answer is whether these kinds of interventions are justified? Is intervention based on ideological concerns possible, without risking moral imperialism? When a state s interests are interwoven with the pursuit of universal human rights, is a gray area created that may lead to the pursuit of all kinds of domestic interests in the name of human rights intervention? The principle of non intervention as developed by the Treaty of Westphalia regards the sovereignty of a nation to form a sort of wall around its borders preventing outside agents from imposing views or plans upon the national ground and its citizens. This point of view, though somewhat outdated and currently replaced by a sense of responsibility to intervene, must nevertheless be taken into consideration when navigating a discussion of the ethics and philosophy of intervention. The most pressing and practical aspect to be addressed is when and how intervention is to be justified, and by whom. Upon what grounds is intervention of any kind to be accepted, under whose jurisdiction, and finally what kind of intervention, military or otherwise, is to be chosen, and by whom? 2
Case Studies The Treaty of Westphalia and the Theory of Sovereignty Europe in its near entirety was pulled into a century of internecine conflict due to cross-country intervention, ending with the Thirty Years war at the beginning of the 17 th century. In 1648, the powers of Europe signed the Treaty of Westphalia to end the conflict that had begun as a domestic dispute between the Catholic Hapsburgs and the Protestant Bohemians, and ended up involving all the major European powers of the time. Territory was redistributed to align with direct regional powers more so than with distant rulers and the feudal system. This monumental treaty involving many leaders from all levels of existing government was to have profound effects on the organization of peoples all over the world and to be the founding philosophy of nation state and national sovereignty. The power of the Holy Roman Empire was broken and the nation state became the most powerful and highest authority over a certain territory. The notion of the sovereignty of nations was established in the Treaty of Westphalia, dictating that the structures of authority as established within domestic jurisdiction are independent of outside opinion and not subject to outside scrutiny and intervention. The underlying logic was that states are equal members of the international society, and because there is a lack of a power that transcends the authority of any nation, the territory upon which the nation state holds power is exclusively its own. This theory of sovereignty dominated Europe and its foreign policy ever since. The doctrine of non- intervention has been challenged over the past centuries with the rise of internal struggles of minorities, religious groups and other segments of a sovereign nation whose wish was to reject the acts of their sovereign leader. The cries of these people for help have been answered by outside parties, and the intervention of the outside party in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation are, under the stipulations of the Treaty of Westphalia, violations of sovereignty. Sometimes it has been determined, by the party whose intention it is to intervene, that the interests of peace, security and prosperity for all are best served by an act of intervention. A number of reasons for this best interest justification can be found throughout recent history, for instance, during the Cold War, the act of intervention was implemented by both sides as leverage for the reinforcement of their ideology and to fend off the possible influence of the opponent. When a government no longer holds control over its people and rogue groups are free to wreak havoc, or when a region is not under the control of any 3
recognized government, intervention has been or could be determined by any number of outside players to be the best solution for the good of citizens of the territory as well as to prevent the spread of anarchy outside the borders of the nation itself. The potential threat of a regime that operates within a sovereign nation upon its neighbors or the greater world community may be determined by its treatment towards its own people, demonstrating the regime s position on human rights, as well as its strength in brute force and technology, i.e. weapons of mass destruction coupled with intent to use them. The treatment of its own people, however, may often be viewed as a reason in itself to intervene. Gross violations of human rights and overt disregard for the principles laid out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may evoke in thirty party observers a sense of responsibility uphold basic human rights. These reasons and others will be seen through the study of incidents of intervention as carried out by single nations upon others, as well as in actions taken by international bodies such as the United Nations. Vietnam The Vietnam War was fought between 1954 and 1973 mainly in South Vietnam, between the Republic of Vietnam and its communist neighbor to the north, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. US involvement came in 1961 with military and intelligence support for the South Vietnamese. In 1964 a congressional resolution was passed by the Americans authorizing the United States to carry out full military involvement in the conflict, the first action of which was the bombing of northern Vietnamese targets in retaliation to a torpedo attack on US Naval ships. Despite enormous commitments of troops and intensive bombing campaigns, the United States and South Vietnam were unable to defeat the North and its fighters, as Soviet communist forces assisted the north, allowing continual dominance in the area. Negotiations between the Americans and the North Vietnamese were held in Paris in 1968. Five years later, despite ongoing fighting and bombing, a peace agreement was reached in 1973. US troops were withdrawn and prisoners of war were returned, and an international commission was put in place to monitor and ensure that peace ensued. Despite the measures taken and the peace agreed to, fighting did not cease. North Vietnam marched into Saigon two years later and the division between the north and the south were made one a year later. The United States denied South Vietnam s requests for military aid. The Vietnam War brings up a plethora of questions about the right and the wrong in international intervention measures. When a third party takes a role to address the injustices committed 4
by one group on another, what responsibility does the third party have directly to the party it is trying to help? What is the line between counter intervention, for example, coming to the aid of a suffering group to fight against its invader, and outright conquest? Quoting John F. Kennedy s famous conclusion on the Vietnam War, In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisors, but they have to win it- the people of Vietnam against the Communists. Kosovo In 1973 Josip Tito, then leader of Yugoslavia, gave the territory of Kosovo autonomy of near sovereign status, and the ethnic Albanian population began instituting all Albanian schools and observing Muslim holidays as official state holidays. Troubles concerning standard of living and ethnic disputes began and thrived through the years, until 1989 when the Yugoslav leader Slobadan Milosevic began to institute a state rule of anti- Albanian and pro-serb nationalism. The region of Kosovo was very important to Serbian nationalists as it was historically considered to be the cradle of Serbian culture and civilization. Milosevic stripped Kosovo of its autonomy and instated military rule to keep order. In 1992, war broke out in Bosnia as Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia- Herzegovina declared independence. Serb forces committed massive ethnic cleansing and the United States warned that if force was used by Serbian military in Kosovo, they would attack. In 1997 the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began raids against Serbs in Kosovo and Serbian police forces, driving them out. In 1998 Serbian troops re- entered the areas controlled by the KLA and the same ethnic cleansing restarted at the hands of the Serbs. In October, after the UN Security Council made a call for ceasefire and dialogue, NATO announced possible air strikes, to which Milosevic reacted with pledges to withdraw troops and accept international observers. The matter was important to the international community for many reasons: gross violations of rights and the commitment of war crimes, as well as a possible refugee crisis that would affect all of Europe. The ethnic and religious dimensions of the conflict held potential for a war large in magnitude, when Russians on the Serbian side and Muslims on the Albanian side would be called in for support. Perpetuating violence disrupts any kind of peace even under US and NATO diplomatic involvement. The killing continued. Kosovo Albanians agreed to peace deals and the injection of NATO troops, but Serbian powers continued to resist. NATO was not in favor of Kosovo independence, nor of Serbian occupation, but rather, the restoration of Kosovo as an autonomous territory within Serbia. 5
Diplomacy by NATO was declared a failure due to Milosevic s continued discord, shown through another offensive launched by Serbian military forces in Kosovo. NATO launched air raids on March 24 th, 1999 and by June, Yugoslavia agreed to begin the withdrawal of its forces from Kosovo. Iraq The Gulf War began in 1990 when Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait to settle disputes over oil rights and Iraqi foreign debt. Iraqi forces positioned themselves to pose a further threat to Saudi Arabia, and the United Nations demanded immediate withdrawal, with the threat of sanctions. A UN deadline for withdrawal was not met by Iraq, and air raids began two days later by an US led multinational military force. Sanctions were held in place even after a successful de- occupation was achieved, and were pledged to continue until demands were met. One of which was the complete stop of Iraq s weapons of mass destruction program. In 1995 the UN implemented the famous Oil- forfood program, which allowed Iraq to use proceeds from the formerly banned foreign export of oil to buy food and medical supplies for its starving population. In 1998 the UN declared Iraq to be in defiance of the conditions laid out at the end of the war with regards to the possession and development of weapon of mass destruction, and the United States carried out air raids on possible military and weapons production targets. The world community continued to have doubts on the integrity of Iraq s promises that they did not have or plan to make weapons of mass destruction, which led to an intensive United Nations weapons inspection, launched in 2002. This investigation concluded that prior to the air raids of 1998, there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The justifications for the 2003 air raid and invasion of Iraq have since suffered many skeptical blows, with allegations that the United States and Britain fabricated the just cause of weapons of mass destruction in order to serve purely national interests. The humanitarian crisis that was crippling the population of Iraq had practically been ignored by the Hussein regime, and the issue of Kurdish rebels being brutally squelched in their fight for freedom were among the justifications for the regime change that was to be instituted after the occupation of Baghdad and the entire nation, but these more humanitarian causes remained secondary to the main claim that the war was because of the imminent threat posed by such regime possessing weapons of mass destruction and the need for pre-emptive strikes. The US-UK led raids began without the consent of the United Nations and this event raised major questions and qualifications concerning the qualities and qualifications that a foreign led strike must have, in order to be 6
considered as an intervention rather than simply invasion. Past UN Actions The Charter The Charter of the United Nations bears a great controversy between the sovereign rights of states and the importance of international recognition and promotion of international values of human rights. The Charter states in Article 2(7) that Nothing shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter but continues to state that this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Ⅶ, leaving leeway for humanitarian and self defense interventions in this same domestic jurisdiction. Article 51 says that a nation can act in self- defense against another nation until the Security Council has mandated appropriate measures for the endurances of world peace. This part of the charter has been used to justify unilateral actions, such as the United State s bombing of a chemical plant in Kartoum in 1998. Article 52(1) states that regional authorities can act on issues that directly affect and are taking place within their region, while article 53(1) then states that this cannot be done without authorization of the Security Council. Chapter Ⅶ is to be paid particular attention in its entirety. Article 55 of Chapter Ⅸ goes on to outline the UN s dedication to policies of the universality of human rights and the promotion of international solutions to economic, social, health and related problems, and co-operation, as well as equality and respect for all people. Article 56 states that each nation is to pledge its participation in joint and separate action to promote the purposes set out in article 55. Resolutions for UN Interventions Resolution 1244, adopted in 1999, laid out definite and forceful demands of Yugoslavia and the Serbian government, and pledged to create and maintain peace in the territory of Kosovo. It condemned the violence committed against the population of Kosovo, and condemned acts of terrorist violence by any party. This resolution laid out definite plans for the reconstruction of Kosovo after the planned military and peacekeeping occupation, and stated that 12 months of continued occupation will become the norm for such peacekeeping operations. Resolution 1441 stated that the UN was ready, because of Iraq s noncompliance with previously laid out conditions and demands, to authorize the free coming and going of international weapons inspectors and gave Iraq 30 days to provide accurate and transparent information. The failure to do so, stated 7
at the end of the resolution, would warrant serious consequences. The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states in its article Ⅷ that any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the UN to take action under the Charter as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article Ⅲ. Proposed Solutions With the past decades of increasing international involvement in internal affairs, and as the world begins to develop a sense of common humanity that bypasses regional rulers and governments in power, intervention has become more of a humanitarian maneuver than a military strategy. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was created in 2000 to present a report to the United Nations on the question of intervention in the coming century. In chapter 8 of their report, The Responsibility to Protect: The Way Forward, reiterates that the report has been about the responsibility of sovereign states to protect their own people from such harm-- and about the need for the larger international community to exercise that responsibility if states are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. This echoes the thoughts of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as expressed in the 1999 Annual Report to the General Assembly when he said, This developing norm in favor of intervention to protect civilians from whole scale slaughter will no doubt continue to pose profound challenges to the international community. Any such evolution in our understanding of state sovereignty and individual sovereignty will, to some degree, be met with distrust, skepticism, even hostility. But it is a process that we should welcome. Because despite its limitations and imperfections, it is testimony to a humanity that cares more for the suffering among itself, and proves that there are measures being taken to end such issues. The Commission urges in their report for the General Assembly to draft a resolution that reflects a commitment to the new world view on intervention as a responsibility to protect. They write that the General Assembly should adopt four basic principles as corner stones of a new century of diplomacy and conflict resolution. They are sovereignty as responsibility, the responsibility then of the international community to prevent, act, and rebuild when states are unable or unwilling to act with the responsibility they hold as sovereign nations, a common understanding of the degree to which a conflict must have escalated to deserve intervention, and finally, a commitment to certain principles by which military forces 8
intended for human protection are to operate. The commission recommended also that the permanent members of the Security Council consider a new responsibility when enacting their veto power: that they are not to be used in situations of intervention when their nation does not have direct and vital interest and when there is otherwise majority support. John Mill wrote that the distinct difference between self determination and political freedom must be considered, and that nations are to be self determined groups regardless of the political freedoms or lack thereof within the community. In the same way that Mill s philosophy says that an individual is responsible for his own cultivation, a society or community must evolve and develop on its own to fully embrace and establish its own freedom. If aided by an intrusive neighbor or outside agent, the community does not achieve the same kind of development and state of being that it would have had it fought and achieved its freedom on its own. Self- determination is the right of a people to make their own freedom. With a strict rule of non-intervention, success in this pursuit is not preempted and a failing people s revolution not artificially made to succeed. This kind of argument against intervention and for a strong policy of non-intervention must be considered when formulating and discussing interventionist guidelines and theory. Questions a Resolution Must Answer What stance is the United Nations prepared to take in regards to the next century of internal and international conflicts? What role does the UN see for itself as a global police force and enforcer of the just and the good? What does sovereignty mean in this new world order, and what definitions need to be brought about to determine when this sovereignty has been self-violated to the point that it can be declared null and void? When considering the role of the Security Council, what can be said for the new century of deliberations and veto power? Does the structure of the Security Council need to be changed in order to ensure a new and fair way of determining global interest instead of the precedent of a combination of national interests? A resolution should address all these questions as well as national concerns on the topic, such as the scope of regional powers in issues of intervention. The responsibility to protect, as presented in the report of the ICISS should be considered when formulating your country s response and position on this issue. Suggestions for Further Research This study guide is only to provide you with a starting point to help you delve further into the world of intervention politics. There are hundreds 9
of conflicts out there that have intervention elements that have not been mentioned in this study guide. Thorough understanding of the past conflicts and the evolving precedent that has been taking place over the past half century will be very beneficial to your participation in this conference. It is essential to think about what are the questions that world powers are facing at this point, as well as to find out the problems will develop over the next decades will also help guide discussion in the conference. 10