COURIER ONLINE

THE STANLEY FOUNDATION

Resources
Conference report(s):
"Cuba and the United States: Approaches to Engagement"
Acrobat PDF

Common Ground
radio program(s):
"Cuba Reacts"
Transcript
RealAudio

International relations scholars and policy analysts from Cuba and the United States are coming together for three meetings in 2000-2001. These events create an opportunity to exchange views and share ideas on a range of issues that are of interest to both countries but that are also outside the usual dynamics of the strained US-Cuban relationship.

The meetings are designed to bring together specialists in international relations who rarely get the chance to meet colleagues working on the same issue in the other country. The discussions are organized by the Stanley Foundation in cooperation with the Instituto Superior de Relaciones Internacionales in Havana.

The first meeting was held in St. Paul, Minnesota, in July. Scholars and policy analysts from both countries who specialize in international law, international organizations, and military intervention in international politics gathered together with comparative area specialists to discuss military intervention in the 1990s. They focused on three recent cases: Rwanda, Kosovo, and Haiti.

In the lively and open discussion, many in the Cuban group took on the role of making claims for sovereignty and national independence that often emanate from the developing countries of the global South. Many in the group from the United States took on the role of making claims for humanitarianism that often emanate from the developed countries of the global North. All participants agreed that the process was important in highlighting areas of common agreement as well as disagreement.

For most participants, military intervention meant the use of armed forces, the crossing of geopolitical boundaries, and the violation of sovereignty, and all agreed that in the 1990s the world saw a resurgence of military interventions in the name of protecting human rights, as well as calls for other interventions for the same reasons.

Much of the discussion centered on interventions led by the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United States, and other world powers. Most participants agreed that this new type of interventionism was, in the post-Cold War era, not happening by chance but orchestrated by a new world order in the political arena through a conglomerate of a few world powers.

The group reached a number of conclusions, though not all participants agreed with each statement.

• Most agreed that humanitarian intervention as it is currently structured legitimates intervention by world powers at any time and in any part of the Third World.
• Half stated that if humanitarian intervention is used as a precedent for any type of intervention, the sovereignty of states is at stake. This was of most concern for the people of the global South.
• Some participants stated that if the socioeconomic inequalities of the world are not solved, there would continue to be many humanitarian crises.
• Most agreed that there should be instances where humanitarian intervention would be permitted.
• The entire group agreed that a common definition of humanitarian crisis is needed.
• The entire group agreed that in Rwanda there should have been intervention.
• The entire group agreed that the military interventions in Haiti and Kosovo were undertaken not for humanitarian reasons, but for political ones.
• Most agreed that in Haiti and Kosovo military intervention should not have occurred and that in both cases negative effects on the civil population can be seen as a direct result from those interventions.
• Most agreed that military initiatives should be considered only when diplomatic, economic, and other options have been seriously attempted.
• Most also agreed that the term international community is problematic and that the term really identifies a core group of countries that hold a disproportionate share of global political and economic power.

• Restructuring international organizations (e.g., the United Nations) so they can address humanitarian concerns effectively.
• Developing new regional organizations to assist with humanitarian crises.
• Forging a new international community based on equality between nations.
• Addressing the long-term socio-economic causes of humanitarian crises.
• Defining both "humanitarian principles" and "humanitarian crisis."
• Defining rules of humanitarian intervention.