SPECIAL - A global need for consens

[TheTruth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: SPECIAL - A global need for consensus

SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST - Published on Sunday, September 19, 1999

A global need for consensus

Timely intervention: United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan

KOFI ANNAN

The tragedy of East Timor, coming so soon after that of Kosovo, has
focused
attention once again on the need for timely intervention by the
international community when death and suffering are being inflicted on
large numbers of people, and when the state nominally in charge is
unable or
unwilling to stop it.
In Kosovo a group of states intervened without seeking authority from
the
United Nations Security Council. In East Timor the council has now
authorised intervention, but only after obtaining an invitation from
Indonesia. We all hope this will rapidly stabilise the situation, but
many
hundreds, probably thousands, of innocent people have already perished.
As
in Rwanda five years ago, the international community stands accused of
doing too little, too late.

Neither of these precedents is satisfactory as a model for the new
millennium. Just as we have learned that the world cannot stand aside
when
gross and systematic violations of human rights are taking place, we
have
also learned that, if it is to enjoy the sustained support of the
world's
peoples, intervention must be based on legitimate and universal
principles.
We need to better adapt our international system to a world with new
actors,
new responsibilities, and new possibilities for peace and progress.

State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined - not
least
by the forces of globalisation and international co-operation. States
are
now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples,
and
not vice versa.

At the same time, individual sovereignty - by which I mean the
fundamental
freedom of each individual, enshrined in the charter of the UN and
subsequent international treaties - has been enhanced by a renewed and
spreading consciousness of individual rights. When we read the charter
today, we are more than ever conscious that its aim is to protect
individual
human beings, not to protect those who abuse them.

These changes in the world do not make hard political choices any
easier.
But they do oblige us to think anew about such questions as how the UN
responds to humanitarian crises, and why states are willing to take
action
in some areas of conflict, but not in others where the daily toll of
death
and suffering is as bad or worse.

I believe it is essential that the international community reaches
consensus - not only on the principle that massive and systematic
violations
of human rights must be checked, wherever they take place, but also on
ways
of deciding what action is necessary, and when, and by whom.

First, "intervention" should not be understood as referring only to the
use
of force. A tragic irony of many of the crises that go unnoticed or
unchallenged in the world today is that they can be dealt with by far
less
perilous acts of intervention than the one seen this year in Yugoslavia.
And
yet the commitment of the world to peace-keeping, to humanitarian
assistance, to rehabilitation and reconstruction varies greatly from
region
to region, and from crisis to crisis.

If the new commitment to humanitarian action is to retain the support of
the
world's peoples, it must be - and must be seen to be - universal,
irrespective of region or nation. Humanity, after all, is indivisible.

Second, it is clear that traditional notions of sovereignty alone are
not
the only obstacle to effective action in humanitarian crises. No less
significant are the ways in which states define their national
interests.
The world has changed in profound ways since the end of the Cold War,
but I
fear our conceptions of national interest have failed to follow suit. A
new,
broader definition of national interest is needed in the new century,
which
would induce states to find greater unity in the pursuit of common goals
and
values.

THIRD, in cases where forceful intervention does become necessary, the
Security Council - the body charged with authorising the use of force
under
international law - must be able to rise to the challenge. The choice
must
not be between council unity and inaction in the face of genocide - as
in
the case of Rwanda - and council division, but regional action, as in
the
case of Kosovo. In both cases, the UN should have been able to find
common
ground in upholding the principles of the charter, and acting in defence
of
our common humanity.

Fourth, when fighting stops, the international commitment to peace must
be
just as strong as was the commitment to war. In this situation, too,
consistency is essential.

Just as our commitment to humanitarian action must be universal if it is
to
be legitimate, so our commitment to peace cannot end as soon as there is
a
cease-fire. The aftermath of war requires no less skill, no less
sacrifice,
no fewer resources than the war itself, if lasting peace is to be
secured.

Kofi Annan is United Nations Secretary-General.