It was in April of 1994 when the mountains and valleys of Rwanda became a killing zone.When the world sat and watched as the last massive Genocide of the 20th Century took place and left a million lives destroyed in its wake.What happened in Rwanda was a catastrophic failure in securing International Peace and in the protection of international Human Rights by the United Nations.Yet,this was the moment for the UN to act,an opportunity for the world body to assert itself as more than just a discussion forum,a chance for it to save a million lives and maintain world order.Needless to say,this opportunity the UN disasterously squandered,much to the detriment of a million of Rwandans.
The question that many asked and still ask is why was Rwanda left to burn?How could a million people die in 3 months as the world looked on and the UN DID VIRTUALLY NOTHING??Did they not see the carnage as it erupted?Did,if they saw it not have the resources to act to prevent it or did they simply not care about a tiny African country with no exploitable wealth?Did they expect the belligerent Internal forces in Rwanda to deal with the explosive situation themselves or where they flumoxed at the thought of interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state?
Did they believe that state sovereignty was more important than the Human Rights that they had so fervently propagated before?
I ask the latter question because five months ago the UN Security Council,through Resolution 1973 authorised an armed millitary intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds.They gave NATO the authority to take any necessary measures to protect the civillian population from its sovereign ruler,the erstwhile Colonel Muamar Gaddaffi.
NATO subsequently enforced a No-fly zone as authorised by the security council and began bombardment of,initially,millitary targets necessary to prevent the flight of the Libyan air force.This however later expanded to include any millitary target of their choice ,then even later still,to include the bombardment of civillian compounds of the Gadaffi family and known affiliates.Immediately after the latter event,opposition to resolution 1973 grew exponentially.The first questions raised where whether NATO had been authorised to carry out all the millitary excursions it was now conducting.Then they moved to whether the specific targetting of Gadaffi was mandated.Ultimately though ,the greater question of the day,that remained and indeed remains unanswered is the question of sovereignty.
Was it legitimate under International Law in this case, to intervene militarily in the affairs of a sovereign state on Humanitarian grounds?Did NATO go beyond the parameteres of a legitimate intervention and engineer an invasion for regime change?
At the epicenter of all these questions,insinuations and inferences raised so far lies one of the most challenging contemporary problems in International Law today..how to determine when Human rights violations,alleged or actual,warrant the over throw of the doctrine of sovereignty and the initiation of Humanitarian Intervention.
There exists no International LEGAL framework that determines when the need for such intervention arises and there are no Treaties to govern such intervention.The UN security Council,acting under its chapter VII powers has sole discretion as to when and how intervention can take place...the results are appalling...with the above countries as example.
Both Libya and Rwanda have suffered,albeit differently, due to the non regulation of Humanitarian intervention:
For Rwanda, one million People paid the price of delay with their lives,as the UN argued whether a Genocide was present or not;whether the violence was at a high enough threshold or not and who if the former were to be answered in the positive should intervene to stop the butchering.
For Libya,or a part of its citizens thereof who still support Gadaffi ,they have suffered from an unusual alacrity by the UN in ordering Intervention.Resulting in their streets being bombarded and foreign forces now dictating the future of their country.
The result for International Law though is that State practice of non intervention,embedded in it since The Peace of Westphalia is significantly being altered.Decisions to intervene are made politically and with bare regard to the situation on the ground,infact,decisions to intervene or not are made more on geo-political grounds,than on reason of morality and the conscience of man kind or human rights protection as is averred by its instigaters..the big powers give great idealistic justifications for their actions,yet on face value,is it not seen as being about gain?about gain..of any sorts...no gain in Rwanda?so no intervention...lots of oil in Libya?so lets intervene and tell the world we are doing it for democracy....a great friend of mine who currently Prosecutes at the ICC,drew my attention to the following legend that he saw ascribed to a certain trophy and it reads
"...be nice to America...or we will bring democracy to your country."
That is intervention,the UN way...
It is therefore proposed that an independent International Tribunal be established to govern and determine all aspects of humanitarian Intervention.Mainly so that it may decide in an impartial and expedient manner when intervention should be allowed and how it is to be executed.This body must set out clear rules on Intervention and must be binding on all the members of the United Nations including the five permanent members.
This treaty body must outline the parameters of state sovereignty and must build an authoritative structure for determining where and when sovreinity can be undermined legally.
Of-course this is a controversial proposition,that some veto wielding members of the security council will surely oppose and that will be at best difficult to implement,but in the circumstances and in light of past carnage in Rwanda and current chaos in Libya,the alternative are unpalatable...Moreover international revolution takes time to gain acceptance,yet at the end reason always over comes might and power..after all the resistance to the ICC was immense,yet do we not see its presence today..?
No comments:
Post a Comment