Topic B: Standards for Humanitarian Intervention

Transcription

1 UNDP Jade Zeng Novice Topic B: Standards for Humanitarian Intervention Introduction Since 1966, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been partnering with people at all levels of society in order to build nations that can withstand crises, and drive and sustain the kind of growth that improves the quality of life for everyone. UNDP is heavily engaged in linking and coordinating global and national efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). The MDGs are a set of eight goals set to be accomplished by 2015 including reducing poverty by half. UNDP focuses on assisting developing countries to find solutions in the following fields: poverty reduction and achievement of the MDGs, democratic governance, crisis prevention and recovery, and environment and energy for sustainable development. UNDP also administers the UN Capital Development Fund that helps developing countries grow their economies by supplementing existing sources of capital assistance by means of grants and loans. On the ground in more than 170 countries and territories, UNDP offers the global perspective and local insight to help empower lives and build resilient nations. In 2013, UNDP succeeded in creating 6.47 million jobs in 109 countries with half dedicated to woman.

2 What is humanitarian intervention? Humanitarian intervention has no formal legal definition; its definition varies dependently on the historical understandings of the idea. For this reason, there is room for underlying political motivation. The Danish Institute of International Affairs defines humanitarian intervention as a "coercive action by States involving the use of armed force in another state without the consent of its government, with or without authorization from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), for the purpose of preventing or putting to halt gross and massive violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Rieff states "that humanitarian intervention is at once an immensely powerful and a terribly imprecise idea. Its fundamental premise is that outside powers have the right and perhaps, under certain circumstances, the duty to intervene to protect people in other countries who are being victimized, even if what is taking place is a conflict within a state. As the Cold War came to a close in the 1990s, the concept of humanitarian intervention was re-considered by Mario Bettati, Professor of International Public Law at the University of Paris, and by the French politician Bernard Kouchner. Bettati and Kouchner explained that following the Cold War, the new world order would be based on democracy, rule of law and human rights as top priorities. The need to help people in distress would mean that everyone had a duty to assist those at risk, which would override traditional legal rules, such as the principle of nonintervention. Bettati and Kouchner defined this new concept as the right of intervention. The notion of responsibility to protect is also an important debate in international policy-making. Responsibility to protect refers to the idea that sovereign states have a "responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.

3 Case Study Rwanda: There have been a number of international interventions that have worn the mask of humanitarian intervention. It is also responsible for the death of a half a million people in the Rwandan genocide of This event must be viewed as an abysmal failure on the part of the international community to respond to a humanitarian crisis of proportions rarely seen. Inter-ethnic conflict in Rwanda has a long history and originates in social and political divisions between the country's two main ethnic groups, the minority Tutsis and majority Hutus. Prior to the events of 1994, the Tutsis and Hutus comprised approximately 14 percent and 85 percent of the population respectively. Both the Tutsis and the Hutus had demonstrated a willingness to use the instruments of the nation-state to oppress one another when they enjoyed power. Historically, the Tutsis occupied positions of power and influence in the country, a situation that was reinforced and codified under Belgian trusteeship following the First World War. Following independence in 1962, government by majority rule and, later, a military coup, ensured that Hutus controlled the country for the next three decades. In 1988, exiled Tutsis and opposition Hutus established the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a military and political group aimed at returning exiled citizens to Rwanda and establishing a national government based on power-sharing between the two main ethnic groups. Armed conflict between the RPF and the Hutu-dominated Rwandan Government Army ensued. On 4 August 1993, the RPF and the Rwandan government signed the Arusha Accords and requested a UN peacekeeping force to assist with the implementation of their negotiated peace agreement. Security Council resolution 872, passed on 5 October 1993, established the United Nations Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), a peacekeeping force under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. UNAMIR tasks were to establish a secure environment for a transitional government and planned elections, monitor compliance with the Arusha Accords and coordinate humanitarian activities. From the outset, UNAMIR was plagued by problems, due in large part to insufficient resources and a lack of cooperation from the parties involved, notably in their efforts

4 to establish a transitional government. In a country where the government usually served as a tool for one ethnic group to exercise power over another, cooperation was difficult to achieve. In addition, reports were received from the field that Hutu militia extremists affiliated with the government, known as the Interahamwe, were arming themselves and were plotting to kill a large number of Tutsis in Kigali. On 6 April 1994, one day after the UNSC had extended the mandate of UNAMIR, the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were killed when their plane was shot out of the air with a rocket as it approached the Kigali airport. Within an hour, the government-controlled Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines was calling on the Hutu population to seek revenge on the Tutsis. What followed proved to be a well-orchestrated slaughter of all identified Tutsis and opposition moderate Hutu in Kigali by the Rwandan Government Army and Interahamwe, actions that soon spread to other towns and the countryside. A day after the assassination of the president, fighting resumed between the RPF and RGA. This is the background to the Rwandan crisis that, between April and June 1994, was to see an estimated 500,000 people die as a result of the genocide and civil war. Past UN Actions The United Nations, founded in 1945, strives to provide peace, security, and justice for the global society. One way it tries to achieve this is through humanitarian intervention. Different from humanitarian aid, interventions employ military force within another country s territory to protect civilians from atrocities and/or the consequences of a humanitarian crisis. UN has agreed upon three basic principles for humanitarian intervention: uses military force, interferes in the target state s internal affairs, and responds to crises where states interests are not directly threatened. All acts of intervention that require the use of force are subject to approval by the UN. However, since humanitarian crisis is not explicitly recognized in the UN Charter as a legitimate reason for intervention, members of the Security Council have sometimes been able to block proposed interventions through the use or threat of their veto. The decision to intervene for humanitarian reasons is predominantly based on public opinion and pressure exerted on

5 intervening states, international activists, media coverage, and political consideration of Security Council members. In both Kosovo and Rwandan s cases, the United Nation failed to respond and predict the outcome. Problems that should be addressed 1. Do you think that distinctions between political and humanitarian intervention legitimate? How does each affect public support in countries proposing intervention during violent conflict? 2. Do you think that the UN Charter's rule that the Security Council can authorize military intervention when there is a "threat to international peace and security" is too broad? Why or why not? Do you think that having a broad definition makes it easier for states to intervene in the face of human rights violations? Support your answer. 3. In what ways does humanitarian intervention challenge state sovereignty? Do you agree with this limitation on sovereignty? Why or why not? 4. Is the wealth of a country related to its ability to engage in humanitarian intervention? What implications may this have for developing nations and developed nations? 5. Should new standards be set for humanitarian intervention? Should humanitarian intervention even exist?