ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION SUBJECT OF DPI/NGO CONFERENCE PANEL DISCUSSION

Press Release
NGO/378
PI/1277

ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION SUBJECT OF DPI/NGO CONFERENCE PANEL DISCUSSION

The elimination of humanitarian crises should be viewed as a priority, and required enhanced efforts to address the root causes of conflicts, the fifty-third annual Department of Public Information/Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)Conference was told this afternoon.

Speaking during a panel discussion on the role of civil society in humanitarian intervention, Patricia Durrant (Jamaica) said that it was in the process of addressing the root causes of conflict that the role of NGOs could be more useful. The availability of adequate, timely and accurate information was essential to the effectiveness of any humanitarian response. Both NGOs and civil society were in unique positions to make such information available.

Hibaaq Osman, President of the Centre for the Strategic Initiatives of Women, said that in countries where humanitarian interventions were undertaken, national NGOs were better informed about the particular crises, because many of those organizations dealt directly with the target populations. Transparency should also guide humanitarian intervention. If decisions to intervene were made purely to save human lives, then the NGO sector must be included in the process of decision-making, implementation and follow-up activities.

Gert Rosenthal (Guatemala), Moderator of the discussion, said that Latin America had been on the receiving end of a number of unrequested interventions. On the one hand, there was a cardinal rule that objected to intervention. But, during the past 10 years, it had been increasingly felt that impunity had to end, both at the national and international levels. The international community was not prepared to accept massive violations of human rights on the part of any government. The problems faced concerned decisions to be made about the effectiveness and timeliness of intervention, with the United Nations as the guiding force behind those decisions.

Holly Burkhalter, Advocacy Director, Physicians for Human Rights, pointed out that, in addition to supporting the United Nations in other areas, the United States Government must be involved in and committed to preventing mass genocide. There would be times when an American military presence was required and intervention should not be ruled out in places where the United States had no military or other strategic interests.

The Conference will meet again at 10 a.m., Wednesday, 30 August, when it will hold a panel discussion entitled “ Best Practices: Advancing our Shared Agenda”.

Conference Work Programme

The annual Department of Public Information (DPI)/Non Governmental Organization (NGO) Conference continued this afternoon, with a panel discussion on the role of civil society in humanitarian intervention. The panel is expected to focus on the policy of humanitarian intervention as it relates to NGOs and their interaction with decision-making bodies of the international community, particularly the United Nations. Central to the discussion will be ways to ensure that consistent and transparent decisions are taken in situations that require humanitarian interventions.

Panelists for the session will be: Holly Burkhalter, Advocacy Director, Physicians for Human Rights; Patricia Durrant, Permanent Representative of Jamaica to the United Nations; and Hibaaq Osman, President, Centre for the Strategic Initiatives of Women. Gert Rosenthal, Permanent Representative of Guatemala to the United Nations, will serve as moderator of the Panel.

The Conference is scheduled to conclude on Wednesday, 30 August.

For background on the Conference see press releases NGO/372 of 24 August and NGO/373 of 28 August.

Statements

GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala), moderator, said humanitarian intervention was put on the front burner by Secretary-General, Kofi Annan at the inauguration of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly last year and had also been included as part of broader approach to conflict prevention. Mr. Annan again revisited the topic his report on the “We the peoples Assembly”.

What did humanitarian intervention mean amid the changing concepts of sovereignty and international relations? he asked. What were its implications for the United Nations and civil society? Humanitarian intervention was certainly a concept that offered many avenues for debate. He hoped the panellists would be able to touch on different areas.

HOLLY BURKHALTER, Advocacy Director, Physicians for Human Rights, stated that the concept of humanitarian intervention was loathed by many sectors of society in the United States. It was perceived to be a bad idea, but the reality was different. The Kosovo experience had skewed perception of humanitarian intervention. Many other situations, such as Rwanda and Bosnia/Herzegovina could make the case for intervention and there were few occasions where military force was actually needed. Furthermore, the United States could make other contributions. For example, it could settle its financial debt with the Organization.

She pointed out that, in addition to supporting the United Nations in other areas, the United States Government must be involved in and committed to preventing mass genocide. There would be times when an American military presence was required and intervention should not be ruled out in places where the United States had no military or other strategic interests. It was because of such policies that places such as Rwanda suffered. Therefore, every occasion for intervention should be considered in the interest of stopping genocide and mass killing and that thinking should be guided only by human rights pragmatism. If there was an international commitment to intervention, then there would be few occasions that required unilateral action by the United States.

PATRICIA DURRANT (Jamaica) said the international community was divided on the issue of whether intervention on humanitarian grounds should be accepted as a legitimate and viable principle. During the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly the Secretary-General stated that the core challenge to the United Nations was to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights should not be allowed. While many welcomed the views expressed by the Secretary-General, others expressed deep concern at the implications of any acceptance of such a principle of intervention.

She said that in the arguments some felt that humanitarian intervention was not provided for in international law and that it could easily be abused by States to advance narrow political interests. Those in favour of intervention argued that there was an overriding need to improve the protection of individuals from large- scale human rights violations. Many found it important for State sovereignty to give way to the higher interest of protecting individuals under severe suffering and argued that increased emphasis should be placed on human rights. They also noted that the Security Council should, therefore, intervene in internal situations in order to avoid humanitarian crises.

She said that the clear point, therefore, was that while respect for sovereignty was a vital principle in international relations, it was necessary to take action in the face of massive human right violations. In March the Council also discussed the issue of intervention. Several delegations argued that nowhere in the Charter was the Council authorized to engage in humanitarian actions, and that such actions would not have the support of the wider United Nations membership. Notwithstanding, there were strong arguments in favour of ensuring that the Council could take effective action to respond to violations of human rights.

She said the main challenge would be to define the structure of cooperation and to promote effective, integrated action between the United Nations and other actors. The timing of intervention was critical. Equally important was the need to adopt comprehensive and flexible approaches that integrated political, humanitarian, human rights and development dimensions. In that context planning and prioritization among and between actors must be undertaken at the earliest possible stages. The Council had also, over time, come to recognize the importance of the expertise of those, who worked at the grass-roots level, and had been increasingly making use of such expertise.

She said the elimination of humanitarian crises should be viewed as a priority, and required enhanced efforts to address the root causes of conflicts. It was in that process that the role of NGOs could be more useful. Additionally, the strengthening of modalities of cooperation between the United Nations and NGOs could not be overstated and must be seen as one of the most critical areas in which the latter could provide support. The availability of adequate, timely and accurate information was essential to the effectiveness of any humanitarian response and both NGOs and civil society were in a unique position to make such information available. That mechanism of information exchange should not be underestimated and should be used to ensure that NGOs had an effective voice at the highest level in the decision-making process.

HIBAAQ OSMAN, President, Centre for the Strategic Initiatives of Women, stated that transparency should guide humanitarian intervention because if decisions to intervene were made purely to save human lives, then the NGO sector must be included in the process of decision making, implementation and follow-up activities. In countries where humanitarian interventions were undertaken, national NGOs were better informed about the crisis because many of those organizations dealt directly with the target populations. In addition, when troops were being sent, they must be sensitized about human rights and on the culture of the people of the country to which they were being sent.

She said the citizens of many countries in the South had been trained to oppose colonialism and would, therefore, have questions when human rights abuses were committed by peacekeepers. During the conflict in Somalia, troops from Italy and Belgium had allegedly committed atrocities against Somalis. In addition, a General of the peacekeeping force had also allegedly raped a 13-year-old boy. While it was important to intervene for humanitarian purposes, those persons did not have to be armed to the hilt to be able to carry out their functions.

Mr. ROSENTHAL (Guatemala) said that Latin America had been on the receiving end of a number of unrequested interventions. On the one hand, there was a cardinal rule that objected to intervention. But, during the past 10 years, it had been increasingly being felt that impunity had to end, both at the national and international levels. Evidence of that can be found in the arrest of General Pinochet of Chile in London some three years ago.

He emphasized that the international community was not prepared to accept massive violations of human rights on the part of any government. But, the problems being faced concerned the decisions to be made about the effectiveness and timeliness of that intervention. The United Nations should be the guiding force behind those decisions. Also, for future humanitarian interventions to have legitimacy, they must be supported by civil society and the NGO community. That was contrary to the doctrine being practiced some 15 years ago.

Ms. BURKHALTER said she agreed on the concept that interventions should be guided by the Organization. But, if the Security Council permanent representatives were the sole arbiters of international morality for saving human lives, then problems would certainly arise.

Questions and Answers

How could it be ensured that the Security Council made the right decisions on humanitarian intervention?

Ms. DURRANT (Jamaica) said there were ongoing discussions in the Council on the issues of its membership and working methods. Council members were sensitive to opinions being generated in their own countries. In that light, civil society and NGOs could play a role in Council decisions. The situations in Rwanda and Sierra Leone had made it clear that public opinion had not been sensitized on what was going on in those countries. If that had been the case, then action in that case might have been different. Furthermore, the actual effects of Security Council actions would hinge on a number of things, such as whether new members would have the power of veto in the Council. The ongoing discussions on the membership of the Council could not be separated from those on its working methods.

Why had no one mentioned the ongoing bombing of Iraq and the ongoing death of 5,000 children every month either due to the bombing and United Nation’s imposed sanctions?

Ms. BURKHALTER said the question of Iraqi sanctions was a tough one for both religious and pacifist communities in the United States who opposed force and hid behind embargoes. The Iraq sanctions were indiscriminate. One should not automatically assume that the use of economic pressure was always preferable to military pressure in achieving an aim.

Ms. OSMAN said no human being could support sanctions against anyone. Five thousand children were dying each month in Iraq. The United States supported the sanctions and even provided statistics. What was wrong with that picture? Civil society also had to look at itself and ask what it could do to get rid of bad governments.

Was there any body or entity within the United Nations system that was independent enough to guarantee the protection of civilians in armed conflict?

Ms. DURRANT (Jamaica) said that question was a loaded one. The issue was one of serious concern to members of the Council. While it was important to emphasize neutrality and impartiality, what did one do in a refugee camp when armed groups were masquerading as refugees? How did one separate from the refugees those who in some cases were responsible for the conflict? United Nations peacekeepers were often faced with situations like that.

Was the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a good idea and did it solve the problems?

MS. BURKHALTER said her organization had called for an intervention in Kosovo to force the expulsion of Serb troops. That call had been made based on prior Serb action in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The NATO intervention was not flawed. It had been a mistake of the United Nations not to authorize it. NATO, however, had done so and that was a good thing. A lot was accomplished and one million people were able to return home in a few months. Kosovo, however, should have been handed over to civilians. That was not done, and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), to date, had not done enough to protect Serb and Gypsy populations.

The issue of Kashmir was a serious one, yet no one had addressed the responsibility of both the Indian and Pakistani military forces in that situation.

Ms. DURRANT (Jamaica) said the countries concerned wished to solve the issue at a bilateral level. There was no propensity for the United Nations to intervene on every issue and the parties to the conflict must request international action. However, the issue was 50 years old and could not be lightly dismissed. The two countries should try to solve their differences at both the military and civilian levels. How could NGOs working in Iraq assist without funds and tangible United Nations support?

Ms. DURRANT (Jamaica) said the Council had adopted a resolution that established the “oil-for-food” programme for Iraq. It was hoped that through that programme the humanitarian situation in that country would be addressed. Currently, there was a growing propensity to have “smart” sanctions targeted at the leaders and for “time-bound” sanctions that could be reviewed.

How could humanitarian intervention be financed when certain Member States refused to pay their dues?

Ms. BURKHALTER said there was a significant difference between what American politicians thought and the perception of American citizens about the role of the United Nations. According to statistics and surveys the public was very supportive of humanitarian intervention and payment of dues to the Organization.

Ms. DURRANT (Jamaica) said it was important that all Member States honoured their obligations to pay their dues in full and on time, so that the Organization could undertake its activities.

Was there a movement within the United Nations to amend the Charter to enable the Organization to deal with the rise of intra-State conflict?

Mr. ROSENTHAL (Guatemala) said reform of the Charter was a good proposition, because there were many areas in the work of the Organization, that needed to be adapted to today’s world. One of the issues that was frequently referred to was reform of the Security Council. That action required modification of the Charter.

Should the United Nations intervene in the situation in Afghanistan?

Ms. OSMAN, responding in the affirmative, said the actions of the Taliban were in contravention to the Islamic religion and its treatment of Afghan women was inhumane. Maybe it was one time when military assistance was necessary.

How many human lives were being saved by United Nations sanctions, bombings and other incidents in Iraq?

Ms. BURKHALTER said the sanctions regime should be changed, but the international community should not lose sight of the wrongdoing in Iraq. The Government did not care for the human rights of its citizens.

Ms. OSMAN said the actions of the Iraqi Government were a separate issue from the plight of the Iraqi people. The United Nations must revoke the sanctions against Iraq because its people were suffering.

* *** *