I would argue to the contrary that the US experience in Kosovo―most specifically, Milosevic's failure to immediately yield to the bombing as many anticipated (hoped), the compounded effect in terms of even greater human suffering and displacement, and the staggering costs of the extended military operation, to name but a few―makes similar intervention less, rather than more likely.
The decision to use military force in Kosovo was not taken lightly and, the early October 2000 expulsion of Milosevic from power notwithstanding, was a limited and costly enough success to argue for greater, rather than less emphasis on diplomacy in the future. Nonetheless, critics of US "unilateralism" will use this as "proof" of US arrogance and a heavy-handed approach to foreign policy. The fact that they do not have to look too hard for other pieces of supporting evidence gives their argument increased resonance.2 This is an image the next US president most work hard to overcome.
Humanitarian Intervention
No area of non-traditional security is more fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty than the issue of humanitarian intervention and the protection of basic human or civil fights. This issue touches on the very core rights of a sovereign state and, largely because of Kosovo, has become a most controversial issue in East-West relations. Here are some emerging factors:
- Several shocking series of crimes against humanity in this century have raised questions about the responsibility a state may bear for failing to act against crimes being committed within another state―the most blatant Asian example being Cambodian leader Pol Pot's atrocities against his own Khmer people. Leaders reluctant to intervene may be judged to be in collusion with the abusing government.
- A review of these events raises serious doubts as to whether sovereignty confers an acknowledged ruler or government unlimited fights to abuse, deport, starve, or kill national subjects, especially minority populations. In an increasing number of countries worldwide, national leaders (and their respective publics) are expressing the belief that limits must be set on outrageous national behavior, a view apparently shared by the UN Secretary General as well. Not to be lost in the decision by Britain last year to release General Pinochet (due to his deteriorating health) was the legal precedent confirming that rulers can be held accountable internationally and in other countries for crimes committed against citizens.
- As a practical matter, modern communications can offer subjects an unprecedented ability to compare the quality of their rulers with that of other sovereigns. This can have the effect of challenging the legitimacy of a ruler or government.
- Modem media flood the world with information. Much of the information is contradictory and some of it is loaded with emotion. Strange new pressures are generated on governments. Yet attempts to tightly control the flow of information come at great cost to a state's development, and attempts to select or manipulate information can lead to unintended consequences.
There are no simple answers as to how to deal with these emerging circumstances. It is possible to conclude, however, that both the international community in general and the US in particular are in a period of assessment regarding what constitutes permissible activity of states, but toward their own citizens and toward the actions of other states. The result will certainly affect the norms of international law and practice but reaching an international consensus on this issue will undoubtedly take a long time, given the broad range of national positions on the topic of non-interference and humanitarian intervention. Complicating the debate from a US perspective is the fact that no nation is more strongly in favor of non-interference, when it comes to its own activities, than the US
Until such day as national and international consensus is achieved, practical limitations are likely to continue to be an important determinant over when to intervene or not intervene. Geography and distance surely limit an outsiders ability to intervene in bloodbaths or other abuses, as does the nature of a nation's alliances and its international reputation or ability ultimately to police itself.
