Avoiding Humanitarian Emergencies

The issue of humanitarian interventions is a complicated matter; and as our ‘world society’ changes – the rules about humanitarian interventions also need to change. The reason why these military interventions are a complicated matter is because they “utmanar suveränitets principen” (Helena Lindholm Schultz, Krig I Vår Tid, 139:2002). Due to the United Nations non-violence principle (Art 2.4) there are only two exceptions for use of force and it is the right of self defence, or, if there is an agreement within the United Nations that an intervention is necessary. One can say that political will and practical circumstances have made it possible for humanitarian interventions after the cold war; due to the globalization process. But, up until today there has been no legal ground for intervention, since Art 2.7 actually speaks against humanitarian intervention; which means that humanitarian intervention can be looked upon as a crime. But, as Mikael Baaz claims in Statssuveränitet och Humanitär Interventions – (O)förenliga Principer I Dagens Globaliserade Värld; ”det [agerandet = humanitär intervention] kan också ses som en principiell legal utmaning mot den internationalla rätten” (Baaz, 17). When I am now going to compare the (so-called) humanitarian interventions in Kuwait 1992 and Kosovo 1999, some differences and similarities will be found which eventually will lead into a discussion about how important it is for the United Nations to formulate common grounds for humanitarian interventions, and to reform its charter.
Like mentioned earlier, during the cold war, there were no political will, legal ground nor practical circumstances for humanitarian interventions. But due to the globalization process that came about after the end of the cold war, there was a turning point in the way humanitarian interventions were looked upon by the political actors. The United Nations became more and more involved in international conflicts. Operation Safe Haven in Kuwait 1992, meant that it was the first time the Security Council decided to sanction the ‘Coalition of the Willing’:s military action to stop violations of human rights; at the expense of the sovereignty of Iraq. Here, political will and practical circumstances made it possible for an intervention, but there were still no legal ground for one. Also, the United States had total control of this intervention, regarding both politics and tactics. This made it obvious that the collective security system brought a problematic development; that interventions seemed to be exercised only in the cases where there are political and strategic interests.
Even though there was a “genuint trendbrott i säkerhetsrådets praxis avseende humanitär intervention baserad på kap VII I FN-stadgan” (Baaz, 17) due to the intervention in Somalia 1992; where the Security Council “för första gången någonsin klassifierade […] interna humanitära problem som ett hot mot internationall fred och säkerhet” (Baaz, 17) – it seemed that the will to perform these kind of interventions were not strong enough.
During the humanitarian emergency in Kosovo 1999, in difference to during the humanitarian emergency in Kuwait 1992; the Security Council was unable to agree on interventions, and therefore could do nothing. During Kuwait, there had been a political will and practical circumstances to perform an intervention, but now; even after the trendsetting legal grounds the intervention in Somalia brought; not enough political will existed. NATO intervened in Kosovo without sanctions from the Security Council; which means that this intervention also came to be an illegal action – just as the interventions in Kuwait. Both of these humanitarian interventions (if we call the Operation Safe Haven that in this case) can be viewed upon as crimes.
What becomes evident when reading about humanitarian interventions, is that the roll of the United Nations must become empowered in the future. It can not continue to function this ineffectively as it has done during recent years. Due to the globalization process, I believe, just like Baaz that common guidelines of “hur det internationella samfundet bör agera i situationer då en stat kränker mänskliga rättigheter” (Baaz, 18) needs to be implanted. I also believe that the way the veto-system functions in the Security Council must be reformed, and that the numbers of countries allowed in the Security Council also need to be enlarged. As Jan Eliasson said in Aktuellt:

[v]i behöver ett säkerhetsråd som reformeras; dels blir mer representativt I jämförelse med hur världen ser ut idag (och med hur det var på 60-talets mitt). Sedan behöver man också reformera säkerhetsrådets arbetsmetoder. Jag tycker t. Ex. Att säkerhetsrådet måste agera mycket tidigare, varför skall man vänta tills huset brunnit ner? (Eliasson, SVT, Aktuellt, 13/9:2005)

The importance of the top-meeting in New York last week can not be denied, since the other choice is a world order where any country can act as a world police (read “fear USA”…) with no countermeasures performed. Even though the human rights issue (which became more and more important during the 1990: s) now tends to be over shadowed by the issue of terrorism; the United Nations did agree upon the “Responsibility to Protect”! This means that there finally are common guidelines about that UN shall intervene if a state does not protect its population against genocide, war crimes and violations of human rights. This will make the United Nations more efficient. As long as there is a definition of human rights (and wrongs), it will be easier for the UN to intervene since the legal ground for humanitarian interventions now exists. Let’s just hope that there will be a return to focusing on human rights; instead of focusing on terrorism. There is a need for all kinds of definitions before one can agree upon the measures that should be taken to avoid humanitarian emergencies, but all I’ve seen so far from the top-meeting is the definition of a terrorist… But, I still believe this top-meeting was very important, and I believe there is hope for the future for a safer world.