Global Policy Forum

By Lucy Webster
Executive Director, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction

As Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said, the universal sense of outrage that has been provoked by the present crisis in Kosovo should "give every future 'ethnic cleanser' and every state-backed architect of mass murder pause." It should also give us all pause as to how the international community acts to redress gross violations of human rights.

While the principle of humanitarian intervention seems laudable, most instances in history have been self-serving for the country undertaking the intervention and have not, on balance, benefited the people in whose name the intervention took place.

The principle of international action to stop or to prevent gross violations of human rights is nonetheless important because it puts people before states. This concept, putting people first, also needs to be honored in finding the means for taking action. Clearly the people of Kosovo have not benefited from the action that NATO has taken in the name of humanitarian intervention. No matter how many of the Kosovar refugees are able to return home in safety, the last months will always be a terrible tragedy for them. There is also a permanent tragic loss to the economy and culture of all Yugoslavia. Furthermore, the cost to NATO will prove to be many times the two billion dollars spent every year on the UN basic budget including its peace-keeping budget and its miniscule expenditures on preventive action. Economists Allied for Arms Reduction is planning to examine the costs and potential efficacy of security through alliances compared to security through global institutions. NATO was the wrong instrument; bombing was the wrong action

Bombing was wrong because it was predictable that it would increase the cover for the police and military of Yugoslavia to do whatever they chose to force ethnic Albanians to leave their homes. It was wrong because experience shows that bombing only stiffens the solidarity and resistance of those who are bombed. NATO was the wrong instrument for action to arrest gross violations of human rights in Yugoslavia because it is perceived by many people in Central and Eastern Europe and throughout the world as a military pact designed for Western control for the sake of Western international interests. It is not an impartial actor that could have provided the best way to implement a Security Council decision, even if there had been one. How the United Nations can be used to prevent war and degradation

The Security Council could have given a green light for preventive action, peace making, and some form of humanitarian intervention in Kosovo within the framework of existing international law. The discussion which has taken place in the UN Security Council during recent months provided a basis for UN action. What was needed was a readiness to act through the United Nations by the permanent members of the Council in a form that would have been strongly endorsed by most non-permanent members and not vetoed by Russia or China. This could have been done without a formal resolution, or with a Council resolution on which Russia and China abstained. Such a formula leading to action by the Secretary-General could have been activated at the time that negotiations in Rambouillet and Paris were grinding down, or at other points earlier.

If action is to be taken at the initiative of the Secretary-General when there is clear agreement on the part of most of the international community, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO HAVE AN ACTION-READY STANDBY UN PEACE KEEPING FORCE, which does not now exist. There are a number of admirable plans for UN Rapid Reaction Forces that have been developed by various governments and by concerned civil society scholars and groups. These plans have not been endorsed by the permanent members of the Security Council-A FACT THAT CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS CAN CHANGE. If those five key countries would give firm support to such a plan and offer to contribute logistic assistance, action would be possible once the will of the international community is clear. This would be in line with the long-standing practice of keeping the major military states out of UN peace-keeping units, but in for logistics. At the same time it would be different from the past IF THE GOVERNMENTS AND CITIZENS OF THE P5 AND OTHER INFLUENTIAL STATES WOULD MAKE A COMMITMENT TO ASSERTIVE INTERNATIONAL ACTION.

The support of most states in the Security Council is critical, but, even if it is not forthcoming, it is unwise to give up on the United Nations' legal mechanisms. If the Council will not endorse action to maintain peace, then it is possible to act legally through the General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950. This can be done with the Chapter VII rights normally enjoyed only by the Security Council, to act with or without the permission of the territorial state. The aim is to help the people

Humanitarian intervention with light forces designed to prevent violations of human rights on the ground would be able to do what bombs can not do. Such units would be able to deter coercive action against civilians by local police and military forces and keep records of clear crimes against humanity. Such action would curtail such crimes and could more readily lead to compliance with the norms of international law. These norms are recognized by the Government of Yugoslavia in principle if not in practice. Crimes that could not be denied would be less frequently committed.