Presentation on theme: "Geopolitics Today Humanitarian Intervention and the International Community."— Presentation transcript:
Geopolitics Today Humanitarian Intervention and the International Community
UN Charter and ‘territorial integrity’ Gulf War Somalia and Rwanda Yugoslavia –(Bosnia) –Kosovo East Timor Humanitarian Spaces Contemporary interventions – Libya, Sierra Leone
United Nations Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles Article 2.1 –“The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”. Article 2.3 -“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” Difference between external and internal sovereignty
Territorial Integrity Article 2 Para 4: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. It is also used in several UN Security Council resolutions – such as 353 (1974) “calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus”.
Article 2.7 “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll”.
Territorial Integrity 1. Borders inviolable, attempt to prevent other states from grabbing territory or promoting secessionist movements – territorial preservation 2. Principle of non-interference in internal affairs (within its own boundaries, within its own territory, the state is sovereign) – territorial sovereignty
Gulf War Invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, 2 nd August 1990 George Bush 5 th August: “This will not stand. This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait”.
I cannot predict just how long it will take to convince Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Sanctions will take time to have their full intended effect. We will continue to review all options with our allies, but let it be clear: We will not let this aggression stand... Let me also make clear that the United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Our quarrel is with Iraq’s dictator and with his aggression. Iraq will not be permitted to annex Kuwait. That’s not a threat, that’s not a boast, that’s just the way it’s going to be. President Bush, September 11 th 1990
Background Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s –Iranian revolution in 1979; US hostage crisis Arming Saddam as defense against Iran through 80s Henry Kissinger on the war – “it’s a shame they can’t both lose”
The Carter Doctrine (1980) "...an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
The UN and Military Context Economic sanctions from the UN (resolution 660) Operation Desert Shield –Troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, from five days after the invasion. –Protect Saudi Arabia, but also potential to build up forces there for a future invasion.
Resolution 678 (Nov 29 th 1990) January 15th 1991 deadline for Iraq to withdraw Authorizing “all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660”. ‘All necessary means’ allows force to be used to impose this. Violation of Kuwait’s ‘territorial integrity’
“While we had sought United Nations support from the outset of the crisis, it had been as part of our efforts to forge an international consensus, not because we thought we required its mandate. The UN provided an added cloak of political cover. Never did we think that without its blessing we could not or would not intervene”. Brent Scowcroft in Bush and Scowcroft, A World Transformed, 1998, p. 416.
Operation Desert Storm 17 th Jan -27 th Feb 1991 Aerial bombardment, limited ground forces used Ground war only lasted 100 hours ‘Highway of Death’ ‘Unfinished Business’ – stopped short of the overthrow of Saddam
Reasons… “in no way should we associate ourselves with the 60- year-old rebellion in Iraq or oppose Iraq’s legitimate attempts to suppress it”. White House policy paper “it would not contribute to the stability we want in the Middle East to have Iraq fragmented into separate Sunni, Shia, and Kurd political entities”. Colin Powell, 1996 memoirs
Key Questions Were the Allies justified in fighting a war to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait? Why did this event lead to such a reaction? Why, at this moment, did the international community act in such a way? Why did the Allied assault stop after the liberation of Kuwait, rather than go on to destroy Saddam? What implications did this intervention have?
Consequences: Iraq Saddam still in power Uprisings against Saddam in north (Kurds) and Shia Muslims in the south (Marsh Arabs) UN resolution 688 passed in response
Resolution 688 (5 th April 1991) Resolution 688 passed, condemning the repression of civilians, and demanding humanitarian access. This was taken to allow ‘no-fly zones’ in the north (1991) and south (1992) to protect civilian populations. In the north, allowed the Kurds to develop a largely autonomous region; less successful in the south Many bombing raids were launched against the Iraqi airforce and radar stations –Operation Desert Fox 1998
Consequences: Wider Somalia Rwanda 1994 (Bosnia ) Kosovo 1999 East Timor 1999 Post 2001 – ‘War on Terror’
A ‘New World Order’ President G.H. Bush, September 11, 1990 We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward a historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—can emerge: a new era—freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.
A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
UN Agenda for Peace (1992) preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace- keeping through the UN system given the end to ideological roadblocks Humanitarianism Assistance via international civil society and NGOs to those caught in the new conflicts; became rationale for new interventions, as well as a reason to avoid interventions
Somalia Civil War from 1991 No effective overall control in the state – non- recognized areas such as Somaliland Transitional Federal Government (TFG), recognized by UN didn’t control much land
Around 9m people and about the same size as France
UNSC authorized peacekeeping operation in Force limited to self-defense and of little effect. US proposed a broader military force to create a safe area in the south Operation Restore Hope entered in December 1992 Muamar Aideed challenged this force, leading to the ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident and US withdrawal.
Rwanda 1994 Country in central Africa (Great Lakes region) Population of around seven million; slightly smaller than Belgium
Early 1990s Civil war between two main ethnic groups – the Tutsis and the Hutus 1990 Rwandan Patriotic Front (Tutsi) invaded from Tanzania; Rwandan government began training forces and anti-Tutsi propaganda UN force sent, but this was merely for peacekeeping and under-resourced
1994 April 6, 1994, President Habyarimana assassinated Led to massacre (or ‘genocide’) of large numbers of Tutsis (and some Hutus) UN refused to send troops or money Evacuation of foreign nationals (by French forces) RPF entered Kigali; Hutus fled fearing reprisals
Breakup of Soviet Union 1991 –Baltic States –Ukraine –Ethnic groups in Russia Breakup of Yugoslavia 1991-present –Ethnic maps of the area –Bosnian civil war –(Kosovo 1999)
Russia in Chechnya
Ethnic map of Yugoslavia according to Germans 1939
Map from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1990
Yugoslavia, a Country Study, Department of Army, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1982.
Yugoslavia Six republics - Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia (with two formerly autonomous provinces: Vojvodina and Kosovo), Montenegro and Macedonia. June 1991, Yugoslav federal army attempted to reestablish control over the breakaway republics of Slovenia and Croatia. Fighting between Croatian forces and irregular Serb forces, who were aided by the federal Yugoslav army. U.N. peacekeeping troops deployed in Croatia.
In April 1992, Bosnia-Hercegovina declares independence from Yugoslavia. Fighting between Bosnian Serbs (supported by Serbia) and others in the area, seizure of land, and ethnic cleansing. International attempts to mediate. In May 1995, Croatian forces successfully launched a limited offensive against Serb-held territory in one of the U.N. peacekeeping sectors, and followed with a massive offensive in August, re-taking most of Serb-held territory in Croatia.
On November 21, 1995, the presidents of Serbia- Montenegro, Croatia and BosniaHercegovina, as well as representatives of the Muslim-Croat federation and the Bosnian Serb republic, initialed a peace agreement for Bosnia-Hercegovina at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. U.N. Security Council authorized NATO Implementation Force and Stabilization Force [IFOR] to implement the military aspects of the agreement.
“Bombing for Peace” (Richard Holbrooke)
Kosovo 1999 Intervention by NATO within the boundaries of a sovereign state (Yugoslavia) No UN resolution Bombing of Serbian areas Debates in Germany Issues around ground troops (the ‘Somalia’ question; but also experience from 1991 Iraq war)
Robin Cook (British Foreign Secretary) said this intervention may be illegal… “I told him he should get himself new lawyers. If a UN resolution passed, we would have set a precedent that NATO required Security Council authorisation before it could act. This would give Russia, not to mention China, a veto over NATO” Madeleine Albright, Madam Secretary, p. 384.
“we agreed among ourselves that Kosovo would have to become an international protectorate after the war, with Yugoslav sovereignty retained in name only” (Albright p. 411).
East Timor Referendum 1999 Repression following desire for independence International support and became state in May 2002
Humanitarian Intervention ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Key issue in UN reform Kofi Annan, Tony Blair and ‘liberal intervention’ or ‘liberal humanitarianism’ Post 2001 – ‘contingent sovereignty’ of neo-conservatives and others
Safe Zones or Havens International Community involvement in the internal affairs of states Challenge to the idea of ‘territorial sovereignty’ Attempt to preserve the boundaries of states – ‘territorial preservation’
But… East Timor becomes independent state – key question concerns whether it is the ‘territorial integrity’ of Indonesia or East Timor that is at stake. Kosovo – intervention created a problem for the future status of the province, now independent but not universally recognised. South Sudan
States that don’t work… Yugoslavia post 1991 Afghanistan, before 2001 and after Somalia Sudan (Darfur region) (and now an independent South Sudan) Nigeria? Iraq, after 2003, and now? Mali? Egypt? Lebanon? Libya? Syria?
War on Terror What themes are at stake in the ‘war on terror’ that link back to these issues? And what is going on geopolitically today where these issues help to make sense of them? (Iraq 2014; Syria; Ebola…)
DISCONNECTEDNESS DEFINES DANGER Problem areas requiring American attention (outlined) are, in the author's analysis, called the Gap. Shrinking the Gap is possible only by stopping the ability of terrorist networks to access the Core via the "seam states" that lie along the Gap's bloody boundaries. In this war on terrorism, the U.S. will place a special emphasis on cooperation with these states. What are the classic seam states? Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia.