"Хуманитарните войни и новият интервенционализъм в контекста на колективната система на ООН за поддържане на международния мир"

As the diplomacy continued in New York, dramatic television images captured the plight of an exodus of some 2 million displaced persons exposed to the brutal conditions of winter in the mountains. An estimated 10,000 to 30,000 died of exposure and malnutrition in the squalid camps that sprouted virtually overnight. At least partially as a result of the images, governments reacted; observers began to point to the importance of the CNN effect or BBC effect. Whatever the proximate trigger, President Bush reversed his previous policy and committed US troops to set up encampments in northern Iraq to ensure the safety of Kurdish refugees and coordinate relief supplies.

Turkey was one of the first states to propose the idea of safe havens for the Kurds.24The rationale behind its support for the creation of these safe havens was Ankara’s concern for political stability in the southeast. In particular, the influx of additional Kurds threatened to exacerbate an already unstable political situation related to the separatist movement within Turkey. Secretary of State Baker affirmed the importance of the Kurds being free from threats and persecution but reiterated the US position that it would not go down the slippery slope of being sucked into a civil war.25

European governments were less reticent in their support for more direct action. France had long advocated a bolder response to the Kurdish crisis, but the first concrete proposal came from the UK. Speaking at the Luxembourg summit meeting of the European Community (EC) on April 8, 1991, UK Prime Minister John Major proposed the creation of UN-protected Kurdish enclaves in northern Iraq. He stated that the proposal was intended to build on Resolutions 687 and 688: We believe the rubric exists within 688 to avoid the need for a separate resolution but clearly we will need to discuss that in New York.26

The initial US response to the proposed safe havens was lukewarm, but it stressed its determination to protect the relief effort. On April 10, it demanded that the Iraqi Government cease all military activity north of the 36th parallel, to enable relief supplies to be delivered unimpeded and to prevent attacks on Kurdish refugees. The choice of this line excluded the oil-producing area around Kirkuk (a town claimed by Kurdish separatists), apparently in an attempt to avoid encouraging Kurdish secession.27

As it became clear that relief efforts were severely restricted by the geography of the Turkey–Iraq border, Bush stated on April 16 that, consistent with Resolution 688, US troops would enter northern Iraq: Some might argue that this is an intervention into the internal affairs of Iraq. But I think the humanitarian concern, the refugee concern, is so overwhelming that there will be a lot of understanding about this.28

On April 18, twelve military relief flights (9 US, 2 UK, and 1 French) dropped almost 58 tons of relief supplies to refugees on the Turkey–Iraq border. This coincided with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the UN and Iraq, allowing the world organization to administer a civilian humanitarian presence throughout Iraq. In less than a week, nearly 6,000 tons of supplies had been dropped to the refugees. Toward the end of April, death rates among refugees had fallen from between 400 and 1,000 to about 60 deaths per day. By April 24, approximately 2,000 US Marines and several hundred British, French, and Dutch troops were stationed in northern Iraq. At the peak of the humanitarian operation, there were more than 20,000 soldiers from 13 states in the theatre.

These early efforts focused on the Turkey–Iraq border, in part as a result of Western and especially US reluctance to cooperate with Iran, even though the Islamic Republic had by then received more Kurdish refugees and spent more on them than any other state.29

By mid-July, most of the 1 million Kurds who had fled to Turkey in March had returned. With the withdrawal of coalition troops used as a bargaining chip, Iraq consented to the presence of the 500-strong lightly armed UN Guard Contingent in Iraq, signing an Annex to the MOU on May 25, 1991.30 The last allied soldiers departed Iraq on July 15, 1991, leaving behind a multinational rapid-deployment force in Turkey, as a warning to Baghdad.

The US and its allies continued to police the no-fly zone and, on August 26, 1992, also declared a second air exclusion zone in southern Iraq, below the 32nd parallel. The US in particular justified its actions by referring to Resolution 688, which did not specifically mention southern Iraq.31 This second zone was subsequently extended to the 33rd parallel in September 1996, a move that prompted France to refuse to patrol the extended area and later to withdraw entirely.

No consistent legal rationale was given for the no-fly zones, and many countries and observers have contested the actual legality of the enforcement effort, which continues as of this writing. Given the likelihood of a Chinese veto, no specific authorization measures were ever proposed in the Council. Later, when the objective was to transfer responsibility for the humanitarian effort to the UN, a Chapter VII resolution was not necessary. The second no-fly zone and subsequent air attacks seemed to have set a precedent, whereby new military measures took place without specific additional Security Council authorization.32

No Security Council member voting in favour of Resolution 688 publicly challenged the view that Operation Provide Comfort was consistent with the resolution.33 The G7’s London Economic Summit Political Declaration on Strengthening the International Order expressed broad statements of support. As the months wore into years, however, calls for a reassessment of the policy became more frequent and widespread.

Throughout this period, Washington continued to assert its right to enforce the no-fly zones. Following the January 1993 air strike on Iraqi missile launchers, the UN Secretary-General issued an ambiguous statement that, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conforms to the Charter of the United Nations.34 What status should be accorded a pronouncement by the Secretary-General is unclear, particularly because it was inconsistent with the justifications proposed by the acting states (the UK claimed the incident was an act of self-defence, while France criticized the US for exceeding its mandate). By relying on the terms of the cease-fire resolution (which did not mention the Kurds), the Secretary-General’s statement omitted any reference to the plight of Iraqi minorities that presumably provided the raison d’?tre for the no-fly zones.

Ultimately, the benefits of the safe havens are uncertain; Kurds in northern Iraq live precariously, as they did before the Gulf War. But at least they have returned home and enjoy some degree of protection from the brutish Iraqi regime. The innovation of safe havens remains a lasting legacy of the intervention in northern Iraq, though the significance is diminished because of the outright failure of safe havens elsewhere. In the eyes of many critics, there remains considerable cynicism about the motivations of the major powers. Again, colonial memories quickly come to the surface. Many developing countries question whether Security Council resolutions can be applied to pursue a different agenda than what many states actually had intended – in this case, a US–UK vendetta against the continued presence in power of Saddam Hussein.

On December 23, 1991, ICRC President Cornelio Sommaruga wrote to outgoing UN Secretary-General Javier P?rez de Cu?llar, requesting UN action, and followed it up with a visit to newly elected Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali early in January. In mid-January, the ICRC publicly reported that hundreds of thousands of refugees from the conflict were on the brink of starvation in camps south of the capital. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported in late January that 140,000 Somali refugees had reached Kenya, with another 700 arriving each day.

On January 23, 1992, the Security Council imposed Resolution 733, a Chapter VII arms embargo against Somalia. By March, an effective cease-fire had not been implemented. In light of the immediate threat posed by severe food shortages to a large proportion of Somalia’s population, the Secretary-General reported that implementation of a planned relief programme should proceed, with the consequences of obstructing it made clear to the leaders of the two main armed factions.40 On March 17, 1992, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 746 (1992), which – though not under Chapter VII – stated that the Council was deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering caused by the conflict and concerned that the continuation of the situation in Somalia constitutes a threat to international peace and security. In the discussion on Resolution 746, the Council’s primary concern appears to have been the effect of the war on the provision of humanitarian assistance to the starving population, with only passing reference to the massive flow of refugees.41

The situation continued to deteriorate throughout 1992. The first UN Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM I) was deployed with the consent of the two leading factions in April. Because the force was comprised of only 500 soldiers and there existed no governing authority capable of maintaining law and order, the force was unable to implement its basic peacekeeping mandate. The provision of 3,500 UNOSOM security personnel for the protection of humanitarian relief efforts was approved in August, through Resolution 775 (1992), but deployment was slow and the situation worsened by the day. By October 1992, the Secretary-General reported that almost 4.5 million of Somalia’s 6 million population were threatened by severe malnutrition and related diseases. Of those, at least 1.5 million were at immediate mortal risk. An estimated 300,000 had already died in the preceding 11 months.42

On November 29, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali advised the Council that the only way that relief operations could continue was through resort to enforcement provisions under Chapter VII of the Charter, combined with parallel action to promote national reconciliation and remove the main factors that created the human emergency.43 This recommendation came four days after an offer from the US to provide 20,000 troops as part of a multinational force authorized by the UN, owing in some part to the unprecedented media exposure given to the humanitarian disaster.44

On December 3, 1992, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 794 (1992). Though recognizing the unique character of the situation, it stated that the magnitude of the human tragedy caused by the conflict in Somalia, further exacerbated by the obstacles being created to the distribution of humanitarian assistance, constitutes a threat to international peace and security. In response, the Council, [a]cting under Chapter VII … authorises the Secretary-General and Member States cooperating to implement the offer [by the United States to organize and lead an operation] to use all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia.

Twenty-four hours later, outgoing US President George Bush ordered 28,000 troops into Somalia in Operation Restore Hope (also known as Unified Task Force, or UNITAF) to ensure the safe delivery of international assistance. The primary concern of the Security Council, as expressed in statements before and after the vote, was the delivery of humanitarian aid. In explanation of its vote, Washington stressed the essentially peaceful and limited character of the operation and that the action represented an important step toward a post-Cold War world order.45 China – which had cast its first affirmative vote for an enforcement resolution – and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emphasized the unique character of the crisis and the role given to the Secretary-General and the Security Council.46 Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali later stated that the Security Council had established a precedent in the history of the United Nations: it decided for the first time to intervene militarily for strictly humanitarian purposes.47

On May 4, 1993, the US formally handed over to a second UN operation, UNOSOM II. The prior military operation, led by the remaining superpower, had been narrowly conceived. Now the UN’s expanded mandate in Resolution 814 (1993) specified a host of activities categorically rejected by the US, including nation-building, disarming the factions, and arresting leaders such as General Aideed. Twenty-four Pakistani soldiers were killed on June 5 while inspecting weapons dumps in accordance with the expanded mandate. The next day, the Security Council passed Resolution 837 (1993), reaffirming that the Secretary-General was authorized to take all necessary measures against those responsible for the armed attacks … to establish the effective authority of UNOSOM II throughout Somalia, including to secure the investigation of their actions and their arrest and detention for prosecution, trial and punishment.

This was tantamount to a declaration of war against Aideed’s militia. A series of confrontations between a heavily reinforced UNOSOM II and the militia continued through the summer. The most infamous was the Olympic Hotel battle on October 3, 1993, when US Rangers and Delta commandos, who remained under US command and control, made an unsuccessful attempt to capture Aideed. Three US Black Hawk helicopters were downed and 18 Americans died, as did one of the Malaysians who came to extract them. At least 500 and as many as 1,000 Somalis – many of them civilians – were killed in the firefight. The dead US pilots being dragged through the streets to jeering crowds of onlookers became an enduring image of the risks of humanitarian impulses. Those who saw a CNN effect encouraging intervention also saw the impacts of unpalatable images forcing the withdrawal of military forces.

Within days, President Clinton set a pullout date for US troops for the following March. UNOSOM II was more ambitious than the earlier US-led UNITAF effort, but it had fewer warfighting resources. And by March 28, 1995, the complete withdrawal of UN troops had been completed, although few of UNOSOM II’s mandated objectives had, in fact, been achieved.48

The mission was not without its successes. The impact of the famine was alleviated, as probably only 50,000 to 100,000 of the 1.5 million menaced by starvation actually died. Virtually the entire population of 5 million people received assistance. Half of the 1.5 million people driven from their homes returned a year later. The estimated 400–500,000 who died in the two years preceding the UNITAF intervention at least were not replicated, although there were an estimated 10,000 Somali casualties during the UNITAF and UNOSOM II operations.

But the post-1995 country remained for many the epitome of a failed state, essentially without a functioning central government and a breakaway quasi-independent Somaliland to the north. A former SRSG, Mohamed Sahnoun, argues that Somalia provides ample evidence of how the failure of the international community to intervene in different phases of a crisis can be detrimental and lead to further deterioration.49 Moreover, from a humanitarian point of view a paradox emerged: the costs of the military intervention ($1 billion for UNITAF and $1.6 billion for UNOSOM II) dwarfed humanitarian and development efforts by at least 10 to 1.

In macro-political terms, the Somalia syndrome became shorthand for the growing reluctance of Western countries to sustain military casualties in distant lands in the pursuit of fundamentally humanitarian objectives. Other dirty words entered the international public policy lexicon, including the difficulty of nation-building, wariness about mission creep, and the emphasis on a predetermined exit strategy.
KOSOVO, 1999–
On June 28, 1989, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic set the stage for the contemporary clash of nationalisms in the Balkans by inflaming Serbian fears of ethnic domination. His jingoistic speech invoked memories of the Serbs’ defeat at the hands of the Turks precisely six centuries earlier. That same year, President Milosevic removed Kosovo’s autonomy and replaced it with direct rule from Belgrade. Ethnic Albanian politicians in Kosovo responded by declaring independence in July 1990. They established parallel institutions that Serbia, in control of government in the formerly autonomous province, refused to recognize. Unrest continued through the decade, but international attention was focused elsewhere in the Balkans – Kosovo was not included in the Dayton Peace Accords.102 Nonetheless, outgoing US President Bush issued a warning to President Milosevic on December 24, 1992, that [i]n the event of conflict in Kosovo caused by Serbian action, the United States will be prepared to employ military force against the Serbs in Kosovo and in Serbia proper.103

The Kosovo cauldron simmered, until boiling over early in 1998, when dozens of suspected Albanian separatists were killed by Serb police. On March 31, 1998, Security Council Resolution 1160 (1998) condemned the use of excessive force by Serbian police and terrorist action by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), imposed an arms embargo, and expressed support for a solution based on the territorial integrity of the FRY, but with a greater degree of autonomy for the Kosovar Albanians. Fighting continued and US-sponsored peace talks between Milosevic and the unofficial president of Kosovo, Ibrahim Rugova, broke down in May.

On September 23, 1998, Security Council Resolution 1199 (1998) affirm[ed] that the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo constitutes a threat to peace and security in the region and, under Chapter VII, demanded a ceasefire and action to improve the humanitarian situation. It further demanded that the FRY take concrete steps to implement the Contact Group demands of June 12, 1998 – including a cessation of action by security forces, the return of refugees and displaced persons, and free and unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations and supplies. The Council also decided that if these measures were not implemented, it would consider further action and additional measures to maintain or restore peace and stability in the region.104

In the following week, reports of two massacres by Serbian forces of about 30 Kosovar Albanians strengthened NATO resolve. In a press conference on October 8, 1998, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that the time had come to authorize military force if Milosevic failed to comply with existing resolutions. When questioned as to the need for a further Security Council resolution, she replied that the United Nations has now spoken out on this subject a number of times.105 The Times (of London) captured the curious mix of law and politics that underpinned this view:

Diplomatic sources said yesterday that alliance members were approaching consensus on the legal basis for airstrikes. Although several countries, including Greece, Spain, Germany and Italy, had previously favoured seeking authorization from the United Nations Security Council, they now realized that was no longer realistic because of Moscow’s pledge to veto military action.106

On October 13, 1998, the North Atlantic Council issued activation orders for a phased air campaign. NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana stated that execution of limited air operations would not begin for at least four days, to permit negotiations, but at the same time continued: The Allies believe that in the particular circumstances with respect to the present crisis in Kosovo as described in UNSC [UN Security Council] Resolution 1199, there are legitimate grounds for the Alliance to threaten, and if necessary, to use force.107

An agreement signed on October 15, 1998, by the FRY’s Chief of General Staff and General Wesley Clark, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, provided for the establishment of an air verification mission over Kosovo.108The next day, an agreement signed by the FRY foreign minister and the chair-in-office of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) provided for a verification mission in Kosovo, including undertakings by the FRY to comply with Security Council Resolutions 1160 (1998) and 1199 (1998).109 On October 25, Clark and General Klaus Naumann negotiated an agreement with Belgrade concerning the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces and police. According to some analysts, the FRY complied with this call until there was renewed provocation from the KLA.

There were differences of opinion as to what, precisely, was authorized by Resolution 1203 (1998), other than demanding that both the FRY and the Kosovar Albanians comply with previous resolutions.110 In statements made after they abstained from voting on Resolution 1203 (1998), both Russia and China – which had threatened to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force – made it clear that they did not see the resolution as authorizing military intervention.111 The US representative, by contrast, said, The NATO allies, in agreeing on October 13 to the use of force, made it clear that they had the authority, the will and the means to resolve this issue. We retain that authority.112

This resolution marked the Council’s final substantive involvement in Kosovo until NATO’s air operations ceased on June 10, 1999.113 The issue simmered for some months, until the massacre of 45 civilians in Racak in January 1999 led to a NATO warning that it remained willing to take military action. Negotiations in Rambouillet from February 6 to 23 and in Paris from March 15 to 18 concluded with the FRY’s refusing to sign the agreement that required freedom of movement for NATO throughout the whole of the FRY and a referendum on Kosovo’s independence in three years. The draft agreement included a clause comparable to the Dayton agreement, in which the parties invited NATO to constitute and lead a military force authorized under a Chapter VII Security Council resolution.114

On March 24, 1999, NATO commenced air strikes against the FRY. NATO Secretary-General Solana stated that the military alliance acted because all diplomatic avenues had failed.115 President Clinton emphasized that US interests in preventing a potentially wider war if action were not taken, as well as the humanitarian concerns, led the allies to act.116 UK Prime Minister Blair stressed the need to protect Kosovar Albanian citizens and argued that the choice was to do something or do nothing.117

In an emergency session of the Security Council on March 24, Russia, China, Belarus, and India opposed the action as a violation of the Charter.118 Of those states that supported the action, few asserted a clear legal basis for it. The US, Canada, and France stressed that the FRY was in violation of legal obligations imposed by Resolutions 1199 and 1203.119 Only The Netherlands and the UK argued that the action was a legal response to a humanitarian catastrophe120 and was the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.121

Other states expressed concerns about the humanitarian situation and the failure of diplomacy. The Slovenian representative alluded to the studied ambiguity of earlier Council resolutions: Because of differences of views among permanent members, it was not possible to provide in those resolutions a sufficiently complete framework to allow for the entire range of measures that might be necessary to address the situation in Kosovo with success.122