March
14 , 1993 Serbrenica, Republic of Bosnia
“I deliberately came here, i have now decided to stay here in Serbrenica.
You are now under the protection of the UN forces.” declared
General Morillon of UN peace force in his thick French excent to a
huge crowd gathered in front of 6 floor building. The Crowd cheered
and applauded ; most cried with happiness.
Minutes
later ,
Reporter,
“Sir, will it work?”
General
Morillon replied back, “It will, i will make it work.”
Reporter
wrote, “Infront of UN armour vehicle with 6 men; 5 in arms and 1 un
armed, General Morillon took salute from his men. One of the soldier
hoisted UN flag. Somewhere in these mountains, Serbian commanders might
be seeing this through their binocular, reporting back to their infuriated leader Mladic.”
UN
, for all these years had played a fairly neutral role and had never
took side in the conflict. Before Morillon's announcement it was
still doing the same. But unknowingly UN General has taken side, the side
to protect the unprotected from the brutality of the invading army.
He thought , his action was in response to the humanitarian crisis
that was unfolding in front of his eyes. But little did he know that
he was establishing a new concept with respect to intervention and
national sovereignty.
Its
said that the meaning of Intervention and Sovereignty were know to every
kind of humans , from Cro-magnon to the modern man, but in different forms.
If Aristotle would have taught now, he would have said the same things
that modern scholar says. However there was a turn during medieval period , Rules and regulations regarding these 2 were
structured and it came to be known as “Treaty of Westphalia”.
Nation States have in past fought wars as response to the interpretations of these 2 words ie Intervention and Sovereignty.
Political legitimacy is one of the supporting concept that is linked with Intervention and sovereignty. Political legitimacy is double edge sword; a sword that cuts both ruling class and the ruled one. How ?...Ask Bush administration!!!! Bush Administration would have said "If its used against ruling, it leads to regime change and If its against ruled ,it leads to state oppression". Problem of legitimacy come into play whenever the state is weak; ie institution strength is low and Rule of law is under question. Effective governance in such a territory is nil. In Hobbesian term its in "state of nature". In this globalised world, there is disincentive, in allowing a state to be in “State of Nature”. Every country acknowledges the fact that intervention is necessary in "State of Nature". Woodrow Wilson was one of the first to advocate internationalism as base of intervention. League of Nation was and UN is the product of this thinking. However when and why to intervene has been the debate which has been going on for a century now.
Political legitimacy is one of the supporting concept that is linked with Intervention and sovereignty. Political legitimacy is double edge sword; a sword that cuts both ruling class and the ruled one. How ?...Ask Bush administration!!!! Bush Administration would have said "If its used against ruling, it leads to regime change and If its against ruled ,it leads to state oppression". Problem of legitimacy come into play whenever the state is weak; ie institution strength is low and Rule of law is under question. Effective governance in such a territory is nil. In Hobbesian term its in "state of nature". In this globalised world, there is disincentive, in allowing a state to be in “State of Nature”. Every country acknowledges the fact that intervention is necessary in "State of Nature". Woodrow Wilson was one of the first to advocate internationalism as base of intervention. League of Nation was and UN is the product of this thinking. However when and why to intervene has been the debate which has been going on for a century now.
In post WW2 world, 1 st successful intervention with international base
was in Korean war, but this didn't continue due to cold war polarisation. Next
success came only during 1st Gulf war ie when USSR was at its death bed. It was
during cold war that the question of "why" ? -to expand: why to intervene- was
answered; a theory of “Right to Intervene” was discovered. However during
the cold war both blocks used “Right to Intervene” to suit
their interests. Post cold war(1992) the world has changed; unilateralism
under US policemen-ship has been the intervening force. Somalia,
Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq are some of
post cold war intervention cases. Right to Intervene or “R2P(Right
to protect)” has been used in all cases. However i see a change in the tonality of the “why” question . Some have noticed this but most are ignoring it. My effort here to answer "Whats the changed tone?
" and Can intervention be legitimised in other way?
Below
argument is for Answer "yes". I would like to call it “Obligation To
Protect”, In IR(International Relations) , scholars use “Right to protect” and
“Obligation to protect” as one and the same. I would like to make
distinction between the 2. Classic case of “Obligation to Protect”
is what General Morillon did in 1993 in Serbrenica . 21 st century has
seen 2 wars in Asia; Afghan war and Iraq war. I would like to examine tonality of these 2 war. Tonality of
“Why” in Afghanistan war was different from that of Iraq war. We
need to ask why did the world support the war in Afghanistan but
hesitated and even opposed to support the war in Iraq .How 2 wars are different.
Afghan war :
Afghan war :
- Afghan war was a war for greater stability of the region.
- Afghan war emphasized obligation that world has towards the people of the region and the world, and also to protect world against future attacks from the terror state.
- Its is also the case of super state having obligation to intervene which i would refer as “Obligation To Protect”.
- The War was to change the regime and to prevent WMD(Weapons of Mass Destruction) from falling into hands of terrorist.
- Case presented was to prevent proliferation of WMD.
- Iraq case is classic case of “Right to protect”. Iraq war highlighted the right of a country to intervene.
There is thin line that differentiates both. This differentiation according to me , is found in the concept “violation
of sovereignty”. Lets question our self can a nation's sovereignty
be violated?if yes, To what extent? under what condition? What
are grounds for it? Are they legitimate? Who provides that
legitimacy?
Sovereignty and Its Violation
Lets
have
brief answers for these. Internationalism is anti thesis to
National Sovereignty. Sovereignty is not absolute. We are part of
internationalism, being part is the indication that we are moving towards
dismantling concept of absolute National Sovereignty. Historically its
know that Nation state which feeds on the definition of territorial
boundary is part of imaginative fallacy. Sovereignty related to it,
has always been open to interpretation ;most of time interpretation has
been partisan based on nationalistic agenda. This Imaginative
fallacy of nation state have been violated by other nation or group
of nation or international coalitions . This type of interpretation and
violation has resulted in WW1 and WW2 . Internationalism was and is the
consented answer to the question of extent of violation of Sovereignty
of the Nation state .Should it be unregulated violation or should it be
a structured and
institutionalised violation . Internationalism can as solution to stop future wars . UN
and its organisations, ICC(International Criminal Court), INGOs (International NGOs) etc are instruments
of violation. The soft word to this concept is International
deliberation. It was solution to bring all Nation States from The "state
of Nature" to contact , but in a slowly and incremental manner by
establishing a international social
contract(Hobbsian).To which all Nation state will be bound. IMF(International Monetary Fund), WTO(World Trade Organisation),
World Bank etc are institution of this International contract.
International social contract has deliberators, enforcers,
legislators etc. International social contract has given sense of
stability in otherwise "state of nature", which persisted before
WW2(concept; war with all; peace with non). This sense of stability has
been
disturbed by various factors; cold war being the main. There were other organisation and grouping that went with Internationalism. NAM(Non-Aligned Movement) being the one.
Institutions
that got established to defined the extent of intervention : WTO in
trade, WHO in health crisis, UN peace keeping force in war. Its just
like federal structure intervening in the state's matter, when state
fails to address the issue. This extent is on rise; states all
over the world are sinking , which is good sign for Federalist and
internationalist like us. Initially UN interfered in Inter-national
matters and not in intra-national matter. However Congo (DRC(Democratic Republic of Congo) UNSC
resolution 1279 and 1291) case has changed the meaning. UN started
interfering in the civil wars as peace keepers; then it started
engaging in battles; this metamorphism is sign of moving from “Right
to Protect” to “Obligation To protect”. UN used to maintain
territorial integrity of Nation State however post cold war there is
metamorphism in that also. Establishment of Kosovo, South Sudan and
East Timor are result of this changed policy. Pre Cold-War UN mission
were to strengthen the institutions of Nation State but with
establishment of UNMIT in East Timor, then UNMIK in Kosovo,UNMIS in
South Sudan; Its beyond doubt that UN has found way to create new
basic structure of a Nation State and their institutions. Its a
revolutionary change in the mandate of UN; ie from its agenda of
improvement to agenda of creation. This will no doubt that this revolutionary change is the biggest
challenge for those who supports the idea of Absolute sovereign Nation
State. However for Internationalist, its 1 step nearer to world
stability.
Legitimacy:
But is it legitimate and who provides this legitimacy?
Any
action whether its taken by group of Nation States or UN, needs to have
legitimacy especially when it is related to violation of sovereignty of Nation State. Grounds of
legitimacy must be put forward before intervention. This is a highly
contested area. Should we interfere in civil war or should we
interfere in sub national conflicts like Darfur, Chechanya or Kashmir,
or in western sahara. Or should we ask the same question in different way , ie , why UN doesn’t
interfere in Kashmir or Chechanya or Quebeq, but , why did it enter
unilaterally in Kosovo, Timor and Darfur area of Sudan.
Each
case is complex one, but according to Huntington line of thought when
Nation State losses its legitimacy among the people of region than UN
can and should intervene;
There
are certain cases where there is clear case to intervene . Case of
Afghanistan is case of regional security as is Islamic State in Iraq
and Syria. These are best case of “Obligation to Intervene or
protect(O2P)”. Why ? Because States like Somalia , Afghanistan and ISIS are anti thesis to
the established system . These rouge state are threat to regional
stability. These create scores of problem both regional and global.
Refugee problem, cross border terrorism and organised crime,
indiscriminate killing, drugs trade, human right violation,illegal
trade, blood minerals, migration stress, etc are some of problems
these states produces.
Let us take recent example :
Let us take recent example :
- Syrian civil war has displaced 1.5
million refugees in the region; making it hotbed for various
criminal activities and internal hub for terrorism. Al Jazeera in
2012-13 did report the growth of these crimes and growth of
terrorism under shadow of civil war. Unintended consequence of not
intervening earlier gave birth of IS in 2014 ,Now IS is the greatest
challenge to the world .
- Absence of state in Somalia has lead
to dangerous growth of Piracy at sea which is a threat to shipping lane of
the world. Its also terror exporting base in the region. Kenya, Ethopia are effected by this.
- Afghanistan's failure is disincentive to the region. Its
terror base of the region; exporting terror to India, China and
other regional countries.
- Case can also be made
if a rouge state(North Korea) has proven weapons of mass destruction and if there
is high probability that it will use it on the neighbouring state
unprovoked.
To generalise ; UN can use “Obligation to Intervene or protect”
in case where:
- The Nation becomes state less and plunge into civil war with no effective government creating huge humanitarian crisis.
- State become a terror hub and active exporter of terrorism.
- State having WMD and their is high probability that it uses.
Now
let
us answer the question that has deluded many IR theorist. Ie Can a
nation state other than UN, intervene? ... I would answer it as “Yes”. There are lot of instances where concept of intervention is used.
Example: India's intervention in Bangladesh independence war. Its one
of the first cases of “Obligation To Intervene or protect(O2P)”. There was less incentive for India in Bangladesh's War of Independence but we intervened. Intervention was due to the migration
pressure , which civil war has created along India's border. India asked
world to intervene but world failed to intervene and stop
humanitarian crisis that was unfolding in Bangladesh. Its know fact that India had been preparing for Intervention in worst case scenario.
As worst case approached it intervened, while world called it as adventurism. Question arises, what did we gain? Was it at right time? This debate has always been shadowed by Nationalist literature in IR field. I will not address that, but i believe that Bangladesh saved a lot, it saved itself from becoming another Rawanda. Intervention of US in 1 st Gulf war can alsoo be counted in this. Nation States have
previously intervened in other state due to security region ie to
bring regional stability, which can be brought under umbrella of
"Obligation To Protect". However idea of intervention has lead to arbitrary use. 2003's , US coalition war on Iraq is one of the
numerous cases. Reason given by US and Its coalition partners for intervention was WMD and their
proliferation ;which were never found and never proved. This falsified intervention is
a classic case of “right to intervene” . This case show thin line
that exist between “Right to intervene ” and “Obligation to
intervene” . Not many nation supported the campaign in Iraq; hence
legitimacy was low and WMD were never found. Tonality of intervention
was much towards right of some countries led by US to fight against
terrorism and fight against state sponsoring terrorism . However if
US coalition was able to prove presence of WMD and intention of Iraq State to use it on the neighbouring countries beyond any doubt. And if
it had mandate of UNSC or UN general assembly then i could
have put this case as metamorphosed case of “right to Intervene” to
“Obligation to Intervene”.
Old Intervention: Right to Self Determination
In
cases like Darfur, kosovo, East timor etc , UN has in past used
“Right to Self Determination” to intervene. According to UN's
“Right to Self Determination” self determination is inalienable right of
community and hence UN is bound to help community to achieve it ,when called upon. UN rarely used
this during sub-national conflict during cold war period; however
post cold war, it has been used in kosovo, East Timor ,South Sudan.
Every nation in the world is the entity of self preservation. No nation
want it to be divided; however ,very presence in UN is indication that we
have agreed on “Right of self determination”. Its other matter that
some Nation State gives opportunity for community to exercise this
right(England, Canada) and some don’t(Like China, India, Russia, USA).
“Right to self determination” can be used only when people of
that region loses faith in the Nation State and states legitimacy
in that region is in question.
Problem that
exist to date is : how to test this legitimacy? Referendum is the
only possible solution so far used. It was used in Timor, Kosova,
South Sudan. UN facilitated these referendum. Referendum are used in
a sense to represent the "will of the people" on the assumption that it people of region has right to decide
their own faith; a new contract to begin with; It doesn’t give power
in the hands of elites of the society who are representative of the
society to decide on the behalf of general population. Timor, Kosova,
South Sudan ,All had bloody history of their own and suffered many humanitarian crisis . UN
intervened in these humanitarian crisis . Who legitimised it. It came from UNSC resolution. Legitimacy was further strengthened by referendum in which regions opted for independence. Now with UN help, all 3 new
nations are coming back to stability;Out of years of underdevelopment
and poverty and security nightmares. Usage of “Right to self
Determination” by UN in truest sense is another example of
metamorphism of “Right to Protect(R2P)” to “Obligation To
Protect(O2P)”
“Obligation
to Protect” is powerful interventionist concept of
internationalism. Legitimacy to this is and has to be provided by UN. There were
case in the world such as Rawanda genocide, Serbrenica genocide ;
during which world didn’t do any thing resulting in killing of score
of people. There are and will be certain cases which requires no
legitimacy; only the "will to confront" the terror is required. Presently
IS(Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) is one such case where world must not wait to see whether its
legitimate to intervene. People of world need security from rouge
state and its duty of UN to protect people. Its UN's “Obligation To
Protect”.
Dedicated to Francis Fukuyama
No comments:
Post a Comment