Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A Triumph for Decency at the U.N.

By Ian Williams, AlterNet. Posted September 19, 2005.


A new U.N. declaration grants the world community the right to intervene and prevent governments from committing massive crimes against their own citizens.
Advertisement

It was billed as the biggest gathering of heads of state and government ever, as most of the presidents, prime ministers and assorted potentates of the U.N.'s 191 members headed to New York for the 60th Anniversary Summit of the United Nations from Sept. 14-16.

Almost unnoticed in the coverage of the Summit was the most significant change in international law since the U.N. Charter itself -- the "Responsibility to Protect" declaration. Its survival is in some way a personal triumph for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, certainly compared with the mostly anodyne mush that was left after "the spoilers," as he called them, had watered down many of the original bold concepts he presented in his reform package.

The "Responsibility to Protect" declaration, hammered out by 191 delegations late last Tuesday and formally approved Friday, overturns the hitherto "inviolable" principle of absolute national sovereignty in the case of massive human rights violations and genocide. The declaration incorporates into international law the doctrine of humanitarian intervention -- the idea that the world community has the right to intervene, including with military action, to prevent governments from committing massive crimes against their own citizens.

It comes too late to help the untold thousands who have already died in Darfur. But it is a millennial change, an answer to the question posed by Annan at the 2000 millennium summit: "If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica -- to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?"

The view taken by North Korea was that, "The new concept of 'humanitarian intervention' was a grave challenge to the supreme principle of respect for sovereignty in international relations. Humanitarian intervention would distort relations so that the strong wielded their power against the weak."

Few others were quite so explicit, even if the North Koreans were almost vindicated by the retrospective -- and spurious -- invocation of the principle by Tony Blair and George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. But this week in New York, China, Russia, Sudan, and even North Korea, signed on for the general principal.

The continuing tragedies in Darfur, Sierra Leone and Liberia had united much of Africa behind the concept. The President of the General Assembly, Jean Ping, who had fought a rearguard action against the assaults on the original document, drew the line against naysayers and implied a loss of African support on other issues if they tried to dilute the document further.

In its modern form, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention was invoked to cover American, British and French action to support the Kurds in the wake of the first Gulf War. When I asked U.N. lawyers at the time what the precedent was, they shuffled their feet nervously and eventually admitted that the clearest precedent was Adolf Hitler's invocation of it to justify intervention in Czechoslovakia, because of alleged maltreatment of the Sudeten Germans. Clearly this was not the one case to conjure with.

The lawyers assured me that the other examples that came to mind -- the Tanzanian invasion and removal of Idi Amin, or the Vietnamese route of the Khmer Rouge -- were in fact justified as acts of self-defense against border incursions.

Even after the Kurdish example, in the Balkan wars, one of the reasons that Germany rushed to recognize the former Yugoslav republic's independence was to make the conflict international, since the concept of humanitarian intervention in internal affairs was not generally accepted. International forces were invited in by officially recognized members of the United Nations.

Rwanda tested the question even further; the genocidal regime actually sat on the Security Council 1994 -- the very time it was conducting massacres. The intervention in Haiti later that year pulled it further. It was difficult to construe Haitian refugees landing on the beaches of Florida, a swing state, as a threat to international peace and security, whatever their effects on Bill Clinton's political prospects. But it also helped that the legally elected government of Haiti, in the form of President Aristide, wanted the intervention.


Digg!

Ian Williams writes on the United Nations for AlterNet. His books include The U.N. for Beginners (1995) and Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776 (2005).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great News
Posted by: Sandra on Sep 19, 2005 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is great news. Now let's see how Bolton and the Bush administration frame this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dangerous news
Posted by: stevewilkesuk on Sep 19, 2005 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Humanitarian intervention" is a dangerous principle, simply because basically every invasion in history has claimed humanitarian intervention as the reason. Had this law been passed in 2003, would the Iraq invasion have been legal? Because if so (and it sounds likely, considering the way Hussein treated the population) it's an open door to invasion, rather than more justified and constructive routes to resolving conflict.

The references in the article to Yugoslavia and specifically the Srebrenica 'massacre' are particularly illuminating - see any of the many articles by Ed Herman (eg. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8244) for why. Yugoslavia was NOT 'humanitarian intervention', it was simply sold as such. Again, if this law had been passed back then, would the bombing of Yugoslavia (making things there far worse as we knew it would) have been legal? Seems likely to me.

This sounds like a law which will aid powerful states in excusing their use of violence rather than diplomacy - if nothing else it's another legal basis for violence - and I see no reason to celebrate it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dangerous news Posted by: decembrist
You would think people would learn, wouldn't you?
Posted by: Pepper on Sep 19, 2005 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, what have we just gone through in the past 4 years? We have experienced a malintended leader with evil tendencies at best to take a system we thought was pretty well protected, AND CORRUPT IT with impunity and with no concern how we feel about it. Haven't you noticed how those no bid contracts aren't even hidden? He is even so called "accountable" because we the people elected him, so we at least FEEL like we have some power to do something about it.

What you are proposing, Sir, is to eliminate our accountable leaders and substitute those who have been pulling his chain and let them do their graft and corruption on us directly and if we make noices as if we were free, they can just invade us.

You don't believe it can happen????? Well, I have a few million Iraqis' who will disagree with you. NO ONE INVADES MY COUNTRY EXCEPT OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Humanitarianism
Posted by: Olympiada on Sep 19, 2005 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all Ian great vocabulary. I asked myself "Who is this guy?" and clicked on your name to see if I could find out more about you. I had to look up many words.

I am glad you mentioned that that Bush's attack on Iraq does not meet any of the criteria mentioned. It is as mochajava13 said we need to take the Bush administration to task at the international criminal court. Who would initiate something like this? I still have not written to any of my senators or congress people, but this is percolating in my brain...

In terms of genocide I wanted to raise awareness about what is going on in Gulu, Uganda right now.

I can verify there is. I have seen it through another's eyes.

"The former United Nations Under-Secretary General and Foreign Minister in the Okello regime wants Uganda to comply with the measures contained in a UN resolution that demands countries to end atrocities against children."

Ottunu says there is genocide in the north
I am a children's rights activist. Children have no voice. They are minors, and African children especially. I have seen a photograph of 500 6 year old girls sitting in a room at night because they are not safe at home. They will be kidnapped by the Lord's Resistance Army. I encourage everyone who cares about children to educate themselves on this matter. I have taught my 4 year old daughter about it. These children do not have a childhood. And they have no one to advocate on their behalf unless we do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Humanitarianism Posted by: Pepper
» What a bizarre reply! Posted by: stevewilkesuk
» RE: What a bizarre reply! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: What a bizarre reply! Posted by: stevewilkesuk
» No easy answers Posted by: Olympiada
» Oh - it is a woman thing Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Oh - it is a woman thing Posted by: stevewilkesuk
Genocide
Posted by: Olympiada on Sep 19, 2005 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The "Responsibility to Protect" declaration, hammered out by 191 delegations late last Tuesday and formally approved Friday, overturns the hitherto "inviolable" principle of absolute national sovereignty in the case of massive human rights violations and genocide. "

Well United Nations Gulu needs help right now. There is genocide taking place there right now. Stop neglecting this humanitarian crisis. 20 years? God have mercy. Get it together. Oust this guy Joseph Kony right now. What's your problem?

Museveni: stop trying to look good for the world community and the US. Take care of your own people. You and Bush are one and the same.

Lord have mercy.

Headstrong. Read :self will run riot. Museveni is probably an alcoholic too. LOL. Actually, not funny. Too much waraji eh?

And I am not kidding about Museveni wanting to impress Bush. Heck many of the Ugandan men are looking for white women! Which indicates to me Museveni is looking to white men for approval. Stop it! Africa for the Africans! Read Marcus Garvery for peet's sake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am suspicious of the UN
Posted by: johnny-boy2 on Sep 19, 2005 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any organization that seats Syria and Libya on a Human Rights commission is suspect.

The corruption within the UN's walls has been well-documented and admitted by Kofi Annan to be "widespread."

Say what you want about America, I'd take our rule of law to theirs any day of the week.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: stevewilkesuk
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: stevewilkesuk
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE:It can't Posted by: memememem
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: stevewilkesuk
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: stevewilkesuk
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: stevewilkesuk
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: johnny-boy2
» RE: I am suspicious of the UN Posted by: stevewilkesuk
Chavez Proposes That The United Nation Moves To Another Country
Posted by: mebadgett on Sep 20, 2005 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took President Bush to task in front of a global summit for waging war in Iraq without U.N. consent and won rousing applause for his critique.

The leftist leader told a U.N. summit on Thursday (9/15/2005) that fighting the war without U.N. authorization showed Washington did not respect the world body. He recommended moving U.N. headquarters to a country that has more regard for the organization.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/09/16/chavez.un.ap/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watered Down
Posted by: Whistler on Sep 20, 2005 3:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can depend on Ian Williams to click his heels for some watered-down flimsy law that Britain, Israel and the United States will laugh and piss on. It is clear that the above three are above the law. Period!

Secondly, just take a look around the world at all the slaughters. Look under the covers to find their sponsors. Yup. The usual suspects: the above three are the employers of the hit man. So as long as there's no one prosecuting the one who hires the hit man, what good is it to pass a law against the employees? As long as someone's hiring, there will ALWAYS be those who are willing to carry out their dirty deeds, especially when they are convinced that their bosses in Washington, Tel Aviv or 10 Downing street will protect them from prosecution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]