Modern media and the normal interactions of modern populations will frequently demand that "something" be done, but the intensity of that feeling varies and is often rather low, especially if the possibility of self-correction exists.The willingness to accept casualties or even monetary cost can also counter interventionist sentiments, as can simple nationalistic disputes over who should be in command. These factors contributed to the lack of development of former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's concept of "peace enforcement" as opposed to "peacekeeping."
It is much too early to draw any conclusions―for the Asia-Pacific or any other region―from the Kosovo campaign. But it is clear that even though weapons technology has developed some highly capable weapons, there are still real limits on the effectiveness of air warfare on ground objectives. This may make intervention or attempts to wage a limited war less likely in future situations.
On the other hand, there seems to be a growing belief that a country's military capabilities, and especially its ability to retaliate effectively against outside intervening forces, is also a key determinant in whether a nation is susceptible to humanitarian intervention. This, at least in part, explains why countries like North Korea and Iraq place so much importance in developing or otherwise obtaining weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery systems. It may also help explain China's adamant condemnation of national missile defense (NMD).
Debates over lessons learned notwithstanding, the fundamental issue remains. How does the international community balance the moral (if not legal) obligation to respond effectively to crimes against humanity with legitimate concerns about national sovereignty and non-interference. As the Kosovo case pointed out, the United Nations is not always the answer. In fact, until such time as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can find some common ground between their conflicting principles, the UN will become increasingly irrelevant. Yet neither side seems willing to seriously debate the issue and many continue to take unrealistic, totally uncompromising positions that are simply not in touch with today's realities.
Implications for Asia
While Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America appear to be the regions most susceptible to humanitarian intervention, one cannot role out similar situations arising in Asia as well. While Pol Pot is dead, concern over internal developments in Cambodia have not disappeared entirely and ethnic and religious conflicts throughout Indonesia are a warning that a repeat of the carnage that brought about international intervention in East Timor (albeit, in this instance, with host nation concurrence) could appear elsewhere in the archipelago. Ethnic tensions exist in the South Pacific as well.
Despite current rays of sunshine, Kim Jong-il's North Korea also remains a highly repressive state that has done little to alleviate the pain and suffering of starving masses. Chairman Kim's smile diplomacy not withstanding there should be few illusions about his potential for ruthlessness. Some would add concerns over China's treatment of its minorities, especially Tibetans and Uighers, to this list. Inappropriate for inclusion under the rubric of humanitarian intervention would be international involvement in a China-Taiwan confrontation. The geopolitics of cross-Straitrelations are such that this topic remains in a case by itself.
Role of Regional Institutions
ASEAN Regional Forum
Asia's primary regional security mechanism, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), may one day serve as a useful vehicle to address the topic of humanitarian intervention but has thus far been generally silent on this topic. The ARF, which annually brings together the region's foreign ministers for a day of security-oriented discussions, is a consensus-based organization and several of its members―China, Russia, and India in particular―do not appear any more likely to show flexibility on this issue on a regional basis than they do in global forums.3 The latest ARF Chairman's Statement, after the seventh ARF meeting, on July 27, 2000 in Bangkok, merely states that "in addressing regional security issues, the ARF should give due consideration to economic, social, and human components of security…"4 There has been no serious debate within the ARF on the subject of humanitarian intervention.
