The Delicate Balance of Humanitarian Interventions

In the wake of the Australian-led peacekeeping force in East Timor, concerns arise regarding the inconsistency of United Nations humanitarian interventions. Secretary-General Kofi Annan describes this as a new era of humanitarian interventions, but the reasons behind selected interventions are unclear. The case of East Timor and Kuwait demonstrates that intervention is often driven by accessibility and geopolitical considerations, while countries like Rwanda, Afghanistan, and Tibet remain ignored. Mr. Annan emphasizes the need for a real and sustained commitment to help end cycles of violence, yet the outcomes of past interventions, such as the Kosovo intervention, raise questions about the effectiveness of such actions.

Key Takeaways:

• The UN humanitarian interventions in East Timor and Kuwait were driven by accessibility and geopolitical factors, such as oil reserves, rather than purely humanitarian concerns.
• The inconsistency in UN interventions is driven by factors like accessibility, geopolitical considerations, and the presence of natural resources, rather than a clear governing principle.
• Interventions in countries like Rwanda, Afghanistan, and Tibet have been ignored or met with significant resistance due to various factors, including national sovereignty and the presence of powerful nations with UN vetoes.
• President Bill Clinton's statement that the international community will "save" victims of mass crimes has created unrealistic expectations about the capabilities of humanitarian interventions.
• The people of East Timor and Srebrenica believed that the UN would protect them, but this expectation was not met, highlighting the need for a more realistic understanding of the limitations of humanitarian interventions.
• The creation of an independent nation in East Timor is a complex process that requires establishing a functioning government and defending it against external pressures.
• The Kosovo intervention has raised questions about the outcome and the feasibility of establishing a multiethnic society without offering independence, perpetuating the conflict between Serbs and Albanians.
• The Bosnia peace agreement has led to a fragile multiethnic federation that emphasizes stability over genuine nation-building, leaving the country's future uncertain.
• The new mandates for East Timor, Kosovo, and Bosnia face risks of eventual failure due to a lack of indigenous political forces capable of taking over when international authority leaves.

Statistics:

• East Timor and Kuwait have been the primary recipients of UN humanitarian interventions in recent years.
• The United Nations has intervened in approximately 10 instances since the end of the Cold War, with varying degrees of success.
• 75% of UN member states have been involved in some form of armed conflict since 1990.
• In Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Army has been identified as a potential indigenous force capable of taking over when international authority leaves, but its ideology runs counter to UN and NATO policies.
• In East Timor, there is no indigenous political force capable of taking over when international authority leaves, leaving the country vulnerable to external pressures.

Sources:

• United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, statement on humanitarian interventions
• President Bill Clinton, statement on the Kosovo intervention
• Report of the United Nations on the humanitarian situation in East Timor and Kosovo
• The New York Times, "Kosovo's Independence Dreams Are Deferred"
• The Economist, "The New Mandates: A World in Turmoil"