[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
SOVEREIGNTY
[NOTE FROM DAVID ARNOTT: THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THE CONCEPT OF
STATE SOVEREIGNTY RECENTLY. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO POST THESE
TWO STATEMENTS SIDE BY SIDE -- ONE FROM SEC-GEN KOFI ANNAN, THE OTHER FROM
LT-GEN KHIN NYUNT]
From: The Economist
18 September 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two concepts of sovereignty
by Kofi A. Annan
As heads of state and government gather in New York for the
annual session of the UN General Assembly Kofi Annan, the UN
secretary-general, gives us his thoughts on international
intervention in humanitarian crises, and the changes needed for
the next century.
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 Timor the council
has now authorised intervention, but only after obtaining an
invitation from Indonesia. We all hope that 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 learnt that the world cannot
stand aside when gross and systematic violations of human rights
are taking place, we have also learnt 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 adapt
our international system better 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 act in some areas of conflict, but not in others where
the daily toll of death and suffering is as bad or worse. From
Sierra Leone to Sudan, from Angola to Afghanistan, there are
people who need more than words of sympathy. They need a real and
sustained commitment to help end their cycles of violence, and
give them a new chance to achieve peace and prosperity.
The genocide in Rwanda showed us how terrible the consequences of
inaction can be in the face of mass murder. But this year's
conflict in Kosovo raised equally important questions about the
consequences of action without international consensus and clear
legal authority.
It has cast in stark relief the dilemma of so-called
"humanitarian intervention". On the one hand, is it legitimate
for a regional organisation to use force without a UN mandate? On
the other, is it permissible to let gross and systematic
violations of human rights, with grave humanitarian consequences,
continue unchecked? The inability of the international community
to reconcile these two compelling interests in the case of Kosovo
can be viewed only as a tragedy.
To avoid repeating such tragedies in the next century, I believe
it is essential that the international community reach
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. The Kosovo conflict and its outcome have
prompted a debate of worldwide importance. And to each side in
this debate difficult questions can be posed.
To those for whom the greatest threat to the future of
international order is the use of force in the absence of a
Security Council mandate, one might say: leave Kosovo aside for a
moment, and think about Rwanda. Imagine for one moment that, in
those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, there had
been a coalition of states ready and willing to act in defence of
the Tutsi population, but the council had refused or delayed
giving the green light. Should such a coalition then have stood
idly by while the horror unfolded?
To those for whom the Kosovo action heralded a new era when
states and groups of states can take military action outside the
established mechanisms for enforcing international law, one might
equally ask: Is there not a danger of such interventions
undermining the imperfect, yet resilient, security system created
after the second world war, and of setting dangerous precedents
for future interventions without a clear criterion to decide who
might invoke these precedents and in what circumstances? Nothing
in the UN charter precludes a recognition that there are rights
beyond borders. What the charter does say is that "armed force
shall not be used, save in the common interest." But what is that
common interest? Who shall define it? Who shall defend it? Under
whose authority? And with what means of intervention? In seeking
answers to these monumental questions, I see four aspects of
intervention which need to be considered with special care.
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 could
be dealt with by far less perilous acts of intervention than the
one we saw this year in Yugoslavia. And yet the commitment of the
world to peacekeeping, to humanitarian assistance, to
rehabilitation and reconstruction varies greatly from region to
region, and 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. In the context of many of the challenges
facing humanity today, the collective interest is the national
interest.
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.
As important as the council's enforcement power is its deterrent
power, and unless it is able to assert itself collectively where
the cause is just and the means available, its credibility in the
eyes of the world may well suffer. If states bent on criminal
behaviour know that frontiers are not an absolute defence-that
the council will take action to halt the gravest crimes against
humanity-then they will not embark on such a course assuming they
can get away with it. The charter requires the council to be the
defender of the "common interest". Unless it is seen to be so-in
an era of human rights, interdependence and globalisation-there
is a danger that others will seek to take its place.
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 ceasefire. 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.
This developing international norm in favour of intervention to
protect civilians from wholesale slaughter will no doubt continue
to pose profound challenges to the international community. In
some quarters it will arouse distrust, scepticism, even
hostility. But I believe on balance we should welcome it. Why?
Because, despite all the difficulties of putting it into
practice, it does show that humankind today is less willing than
in the past to tolerate suffering in its midst, and more willing
to do something about it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
State sovereignty is the foundation of United Nation; it must stand
for all members, not just for powerful and influential ones
Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt,
"The New Light of Myanmar" 25 October 1999 (online version)
YANGON, 24 Oct - The 54th Anniversary of United Nations Day observed at
Thabin Hall of Pyithu Hluttaw building on Pyay Road at 6 pm today, was
attended by Secretary-1 of the State Peace and Development Council Lt-Gen
Khin Nyunt.
Secretary-l Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt delivered an addresses.He said: "Today, we
celebrate the 54th Anniversary of the United Nations. For the people of
Myanmar this is a particularly auspicious day since it coincides with one
of the holiest days in the Buddhist Calendar--The Full Moon day of
Thadingyut (the end of the Buddhist Lent). Myanmar is a multi-religious
country where the people of various religious faiths, be they Buddhists,
Christians, Muslims or Hindus, live in harmony and tolerance with one
another. People of one religious faith join others in celebrating the
other's religious day. Therefore, the people
of Myanmar celebrate today not only its holiest religious day but also the
birth of the world Organization that has dedicated itself to world peace
and security and to bring progress and prosperity to the people of the
world."
"Myanmar since it regained its independence has consistently
followed a foreign policy, the cornerstone of which is cooperation with
the United Nations. Today, as we celebrate the 54th Anniversary of the
United Nations we would like to reiterate our readiness to continue this
cooperation, whether it is in promoting international peace and security,
in the field of poverty alleviation or in the endeavour to safeguard and
protect environment. Just as we are firm in our determination to promote
international peace and security, we in Myanmar are ourselves building a
society where the rule of law prevails
and the people of the country can live in peace and stability. We are
building a nation where all the 135 national races of the Union can live
in unity and harmony."
"Peace and stability must be built upon the firm foundations of
unity and solidarity. This is true for nations as well as for relations
among nations. Owing to its colonial past, and because of its numerous
national groups, unity is of particular importance for Myanmar.
Therefore, we are presently concentrating our utmost efforts to rebuild
national unity and
bring about national reconsolidation among various nationalities of the
Union. Consequently for the very first time since we regained our
independence, we are able to bring peace and tranquillity to all corners
of the country. This has enabled us to concentrate our efforts to bring
development to the border areas, which until recently was not possible
because of internal insurgency. To date, the government has built schools,
hospitals and dispensaries. We have built roads, bridges and irrigation
dams. It has enabled the government to introduce alternative cash crops so
that the people in these areas will no longer have to resort to growing
opium poppy for their daily subsistence. To date, we have spent more than
Kyats 15 billion of our own resources for this endeavour. We regard it is
money well spent as it has direct benefit to the inhabitants of the border
areas, and thereby contributes significantly to national unity and
political stability. It has also the added benefit of bringing better
living standard and livelihood to our national brethren residing in these
areas. Just as we are building peace and stability at the national level,
we are also cooperating with our regional neighbours to build regional
peace and security. With our fellow ASEAN members, we are striving to
build South East Asia into a zone of peace, friendship and prosperity. In
Conclusion of my statement, I will like to express that Myanmar in the
twently first century as a new modern, democratic and developed nation--a
nation that is peaceful, stable and unified--a nation that is
environmentally sound and economically sustainable.
It will also be a nation that takes it rightful place in the international
community and make a meaningful contribution towards international peace,
security and development. To achieve that objective, we also look forward
to working together with the United Nations and its component members."
Later, the artistes of the Fine Arts Department of the Ministry of Culture
presented cultural dances-apyodaw group dance, group dances for the royal
page boys, marionette dances, duet dances, group dances of the court
maidens and group dances symbolizing the spirit of the United Nations for
the guests on the occasion.
__________________________________________
Internet ProLink PC User