Humanitarian Intervention and International Non-Intervention
by Paul B. Stares
NATO's intervention in Kosovo cast in stark relief the dilemma of humanitarian intervention. On the one hand, is it legitimate for a regional organization to use force without a UN mandate? On the other is permissible to let gross and systematic violations of human rights, with grave humanitarian consequences continue unchecked? The inability of the international community to reconcile these two competing interests in the case of Kosovo can be viewed only as a tragedy.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, (1999)
I: Introduction
Kosovo was not the first conflict to expose the tension between evolving norms of humanitarian intervention on the one hand and established international legal precepts of non-intervention on the other. Crises in such far-flung corners as Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and Bosnia had all in varying ways exhibited this tension beforehand. The Kosovo crisis, however, bared the complex challenges and vexing dilemmas associated with humanitarian intervention like no other. As a consequence, it succeeded in generating a level of international friction that had not been present in earlier crises of this kind. And by precipitating a highly divisive debate among all the great powers, the Kosovo crisis resonated on a global scale, the repercussions of which are still being felt today.
Although Kosovo propelled the question of humanitarian intervention or more broadly human rights versus states rights to the diplomatic center stage, it can hardly be said to have resolved the key issues to anyone's satisfaction. To some, NATO's actions arguably made them worse. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, there is considerable resistance to revisiting and addressing these issues head On. Nobody relishes reopening wounds that have still not healed properly, least of all harried policy makers who, regardless of the issue, would rather put off until tomorrow whatever need not be addressed today. It is simply too controversial and charged a subject.
Yet it is just a matter of time before the international community once again has to wrestle with this question. Underlying trends in the nature and dynamics of global society make this largely inevitable. Indeed, subsequent events in East Timor and West Africa to say nothing of the still unfinished business in the Balkans, are proof of this. The reluctance to engage the issues may be understandable but unless the international community―or certainly the key players―reach some kind of a general understanding or working compromise that goes some way to ameliorate the main sources of contention, there is a very real prospect that their differences will spill over into other areas of cooperation with calamitous consequences.
Those of us who have the luxury to debate the issues dispassionately can help encourage and guide a process of mutual understanding and compromise-building. In particular, we can help in the general appreciation of the trends that are making such crises more likely. We can also help frame the issues in ways that clarify the key areas of contention.
