*** 06-Apr-0* ***
Title: POLITICS: Non-Aligned Movement Condemns Humanitarian
Intervention
By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 6 (IPS) - Amid strong criticism of the
unilateral Western military action in Kosovo last year, Third
World nations are now reiterating their opposition to a new
political concept gaining ground at the UN: "humanitarian
intervention".
At a meeting of foreign ministers in Cartagena, Colombia,
scheduled to take place this weekend, the Non-Aligned Movement
(NAM) will reaffirm one of the basic principles of the UN charter,
namely non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign
nation states.
A proposed NAM declaration, to be adopted at the ministerial
meeting, will "condemn all unilateral military actions or threats
of military action, including humanitarian intervention, against
the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the
members of the Movement (NAM)."
Since "humanitarian intervention" could be used as a pretext for
armed aggression, some NAM members have proposed that the
declaration should be amended to read: "so-called humanitarian
intervention." A final decision on this will be taken in
Cartagena.
Currently, NAM is the largest single Third World political body
consisting of 114 members, while the Group of 77, which deals with
economic issues, comprises 133 developing countries.
Western nations argue that the United Nations has a right to
intervene in domestic conflicts purely on humanitarian grounds -
with or without the permission of the host country - particularly
if there is massive human rights violations as in Kosovo last year
or genocide as in Rwanda in 1998.
The North Atlanic Treaty Organisation (NATO), led by the United
States, bombed the former Yugoslavia for about 78 days.
In an interview published in a London newspaper Wednesday,
former
South African President Nelson Mandela criticised the United
States and Britain, both veto wielding permanent members of the
Security Council, for their unilateral action in Kosovo and also
for not seeking "explicit permission" from the Council before the
bombings.
"The message they're sending is that any country which fears a
(UN) veto can take unilateral action," Mandela said. "That means
they're introducing chaos into international affairs: that any
country can take a decision which it wants."
Mandela also criticised the United States and Britain for their
continued aerial bombing of Iraq in the "no-fly zone" whose
creation was not authorised by the UN Security Council.
Addressing the 188-member General Assembly last year, Secretary
General Kofi Annan called on member states to unite in the pursuit
of more effective policies to stop organised mass murder and
egregious violations of human rights.
"Although I emphasised that intervention embraced a wide
continuum
of responses, from diplomacy to armed action, it was the latter
option that generated the most controversy in the debate that
followed," he said Monday.
In a report spelling out his vision for the 21st century, Annan
said that some critics were concerned that the concept of
"humanitarian intervention" could become a cover for "gratuitious
interference" in the internal affairs of sovereign states.
Others felt that it might encourage secessionist movements
deliberately to provoke governments into committing gross
violations of human rights in order to trigger external
interventions that would aid their cause.
Still others noted that there is little consistency in the
practice of intervention, owing to its inherent difficulties and
costs, as well as perceived national interests - except that weak
states are far more likely to be subjected to it than strong ones.
"I recognise both the force and the importance of these
arguments," Annan said in his report released Monday. "I also
accept that the principles of sovereignty and non-interference
offer vital protection to small and weak states."
Humanitarian intervention, he pointed out, is a sensitive issue,
fraught with political difficulty, and not susceptible to easy
answers.
"But surely, no legal principle - not even sovereignty - can ever
shield crimes against humanity," he said in the report which will
go before heads of state at the upcoming Millennium Summit in
September.
Where such crimes occur and peaceful attempts to halt them have
been exhausted, he argued, the Security Council has a moral duty
to act on behalf of the international community.
"The fact that we cannot protect people everywhere is no reason
for doing nothing when we can, he asserted. "Armed intervention
must always remain the option of last resort, but in the face of
mass murder it is an option that cannot be relinquished."
To critics of human intervention, Annan said he would pose one
question: "If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an
unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a
Rwanda, to a Srebenica - to gross and systematic violations of
human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity.?"
Last November the United Nations took much of the blame for the
deaths of thousands of Bosnian Muslims when Serb forces overran
the town of Srebrenica in July 1995. The fall of Srebrenica took
place despite the fact that it was under the protection of 150
Dutch peacekeeping troops and was also declared a "safe area" by
the UN.
"The cardinal lesson of Srebrenica is that a deliberate and
systematic attempt to terrorise, expel or murder an entire people
must be met decisively with all necessary means," Annan said.
(END/IPS/IP/td/da/00)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
