- As a general role, the principle of non-interference in another states internal affairs should apply.
- There are instances, however, when a national government may take actions against its peoples that are so egregious that they cannot be ignored.
- In such instances, there may be a moral imperative for the international community to act.
- Objective verification of the crimes is a prerequisite, as is a determination that internal self-policing or self-correcting mechanisms are not available. This requires an impartial verification mechanism.
- Even in such instances, the use of military force, while not precluded, should not be the first or only option. Diplomacy is the first tool, along with political and economic external pressures as appropriate.
- Should all other means fail or if the human suffering intensifies, then military intervention cannot be ruled out. Such intervention should, if possible, be applied through the United Nations or, failing that, through regional organizations or an ad hoc grouping, preferably with UN backing.11
APEC Leaders' Meeting
There is one other multilateral gathering that deserves brief mention and that is the annual Leaders' Meeting associated with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) "gathering of economies." While APEC is focused solely on economic and trade issues, the mere fact that many of the region's leaders come together for talks has potential political and security implications. This was underscored during the 1999 meeting in Auckland where the gathered leaders, outside the confines of the APEC meeting, convened to discuss humanitarian intervention to end the carnage in East Timor. With Indonesia's reluctant acquiescence, an international task force was arranged under Australian leadership to end the fighting. This represents the concept of humanitarian intervention at its finest. Critical here was Indonesian President Wahid's agreement to the intervention force, which then permitted China and Russia, among others, to agree without violating the non-interference principle.
A Word About American Policy
Promotion of democracy and protection of human fights have long been American national security objectives. Kosovo has not changed this but has underscored the pro-active, internationalist viewpoint inherent in US global and regional strategic goals and objectives. The White House's December 1999 definitive statement on this subject, A National Security Strategy for a New Century, notes that America's national security strategy for the new millennium has three core objectives: to enhance America's security, to bolster America's economic prosperity, and to promote democracy and human fights abroad.12
While the first two are stated in US-centric terms, they are preceded by an acknowledgment that, in an interconnected world, "events halfway around the earth can profoundly affect our safety and prosperity." President Clinton then continues:
Americans benefit when nations come together to deter aggression and terrorism, to resolve conflicts, to prevent the spread of dangerous weapons, to promote democracy and human rights, to open markets and create financial stability, to raise living standards, to protect the environment to face challenges that no nation can meet alone.13
In Asia, US security strategy is centered on bilateral security alliances and the forward military presence that both underscores US alliance commitments and is made possible by them. As the National Security Strategy points out, "our military presence has been essential to maintaining the peace and security that have enabled most nations of the Asia-Pacific region to build thriving economies for the benefit of all."14 It notes that the US continues to maintain about 100,000 military personnel in the region "to deter aggression and secure our own interests."
