COURIER ONLINE

THE STANLEY FOUNDATION

The Analysis

Eighteen experts from governments, the UN, and private institutions met this past June at a Stanley Foundation conference, "Getting Down to Cases: Enforcing Security Council Resolutions." The conference was held in Stowe, Vermont. The participants discussed three prominent cases (see adjoining story) from the past decade, focusing on what role the UN played in trying to manage and end the conflicts.

In each case, the Security Council's intervention was deeply flawed; and participants said, as a result, the institution's standing throughout the world has suffered.

A New Standard
There are many internal or civil conflicts today, and in some of those cases order has so completely broken down that it is clear state authority has failed. Rwanda and, to a lesser extent, the former Yugoslavia are examples of that. Many participants said the UN needs new standards for intervening in such situations.

The obstacle is that the UN, holding sovereignty up as a primary state right, defers to the prerogatives of its member states. However, as the conference reports states, "Many participants argued for a new norm that tempers the existing UN presumption that the right of states to nonintervention into domestic affairs preempts internal human rights concerns." They argued that where states have failed in their fundamental responsibility to protect citizen rights; e.g., where genocide is being carried out, the international community should respond.

Those who advocate that there be a new baseline standard for the behavior of states toward their citizens gave three reasons why it would be appropriate for the international community to intervene when the standard is violated. First, international law already requires intervention when there is genocide. Second, massive violation of human rights stands a good chance of creating conflict in a wider region. Third, the Security Council could decide that widespread human suffering is, of itself, a threat to international peace and security.

Security Council Reform
Most participants said that reforming the Security Council is another key to restoring the institution's credibility. The goal is to make it more representative and democratic. It was suggested by some participants that the council add more permanent members to include more regions (especially Africa and Latin America) and more great powers (i.e., Germany and Japan). As the report says, "There was a feeling that the Security Council should balance capacity (i.e., members with the most capacity) and representativeness."

Reforming council procedures would also help restore credibility. Many participants complained that the council now uses working committees and informal consultations to reach agreement on resolutions behind the scenes. The council's subsequent open session then is pro forma. Again, in the words of the report, "The lack of transparency in this system allows for under-the-table agreements and the inclusion of ulterior motives in council actions. Many participants said that opening up the informal consultations would increase the perceived honesty of the process and enhance credibility."

Other suggested council reforms include limiting the availability of the veto power and improving intelligence-gathering and analytical capabilities.

Other Reforms
Enforcement of council resolutions would also be enhanced by several other measures:

• Have clear and specific objectives for any intervention.
• Plan more thoroughly for possible military actions. While it is anticipated that the council will always have to call on member states to put together a military force, enforcement actions would go more smoothly with improved command and control systems and more advanced planning.
• Employ economic, military, diplomatic, and financial sanctions as an alternative to military force. But in order to make them more effective, they should be made situation-specific rather than using standard sanctions resolutions for every situation.

The Cases

Iraq
There are two parts to the Iraq story in this decade. In the first part, the UN Security Council demanded that Iraq reverse its invasion of Kuwait, and council action was instrumental in putting together the military coalition that enforced the demand. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm, the council played a leadership role in trying to control Iraqi aggression and particularly in efforts to dismantle its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capabilities. The latter effort has been troubled.

In reviewing the record, participants said that the case, in the words of the report, "Highlights one of the Security Council's recurring problems—inconsistency and the subordination of principle to the shifting interests of the permanent members." (The five permanent members of the council are Britain, France, China, Russia, and the US.)

One form of inconsistency, participants said, was that the UN countenanced Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War but made stopping those actions a priority when the target of the weapons was less of a pariah state than was Iran in the 1980s. Another is the fact that the major powers tacitly accept Israel's nuclear weapons program but won't allow one for Iraq. However, many participants said the important difference between Iraq and Israel is that Saddam Hussein has shown a willingness to use his weapons of mass destruction while Israel has not.

Some also noted that it is a fact of life that great powers will pursue their interests, and the UN needs to work better in spite of that fact.

The African Great Lakes
The most notorious incident in this region this decade was the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. As the conference report says, "This case demonstrates the council's inability to act...where the failure of a state has resulted in an institutional and power vacuum, creating conditions for massive human rights atrocities."

Participants knowledgeable with the situation said the UN seemed paralyzed by indecision as a 1993 peace agreement between rival Tutsis and Hutus unraveled after the plane carrying the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down. As ethnic violence and an ensuing refugee crisis unfolded, the council, still smarting from a failed mission in Somalia, deferred to the principle of state sovereignty ahead of the need to respond to a human rights disaster.

The Former Yugoslavia
Unlike Rwanda, when Yugoslavia began to fall apart the UN took a very active role, but to little avail. "That's because," participants said, "the organization was always confused about its purposes. What started out as an attempt to monitor a cease-fire became something else when the cease-fire failed." There were conflicting signals about trying to enforce peace while still trying to mediate.

Consequently, as the report states, "the UN tried to maintain a smooth political process...while trying to forcefully make peace on the ground—a pardox that lead to inconsistencies and tensions between and within the political and military operations." Ultimately, the UN's role in the region was largely supplanted by a NATO force put together as part of the Dayton Accords which ended the fighting in Bosnia.