THE end of 1992, there was no dearth of Western libk vwring to the view that sovereignty, as a conceptmming the interpersonal behaviour of nations, must be limited.
For instance, Jan Tinbergen, the eminent Dutchnowist who won the world's first Nobel Prize for economists and who has been a staunch supporter of hisLabour Party, points out in a paper publishedpal in USA: "Great problems in today's world canon longer be solved by decisions of sovereign nationalterconnections among nations have grown toInextent that such decisions inevitably affect theof other nations. Too often, national decisionprocesses fail to consider the welfare of otherToday, many countries, especially large ones,don't accept interference with internal affairs', becauseider themselves 'sovereign' nations. A necesessarycrucial step in the creation of a peaceful worldof each nation's sovereignty be surrendered tolevel of government. In principle, such transfersal sovereignty are needed for the welfare ofmodons to be taken into account."
It is obvious that the environment is one issueations seeking tothe welfare of theirdo notzens often &m.account the welfaretions.
But what is to be done a nation is unable to the needs and welfare citizenry?
This issue was raised byeconomist John KennethGalbraith in a recent lecture in New Delhi. "In the worst cases of internal disorde and cruelty," "we must have a new and internationally sanctioned suspension of sovereignty. Where there has been human cruelty and slaughter, as recently for long years in Lebanon,Mozambique and Ethiopia and now disastrously inSomalia and Bosnia, there must be effective action toarrest it. There must be a United Nations mandate forgoverning countries that do not and cannot govern themselves. No longer can domestic conflict and the associated starvation and death be protected by sovereign authority. Sovereignty must be suspended until peace isrestored. This involves no slight change in public attitudes, but the change is now overdue."
That change in public perception is already beginning to take place, especially in Western nations. A highlevel group of world leaders, chaired by Helmut Schmidtof Germany and including UK's Lord Callaghan andCanada's Pierre Trudeau, stated its case as follows:"Universal standards and principles of democracy exist,but there is no uniformity or commonality of democraticpractice. Democracy is inconceivable without pluralism.Yet, there is a universal dimension to values, first andforemost to the sanctity of human rights. It is the individual - and not the state or relations between states who ought to be fully recognised as the subject of international law. To protect human rights, a right to intervene is indispensable in thecase of massive and sustained violations (emphasisin original)."
Willy Brandt's Foundation for Development and 4 Peace in fact hold dmeeting in November in "Towards Global Governance: From thePrinciple of NationalSovereignty to the Necessityof Interference". The background paper for the meeting listed a number of areaswhere the protection provided by national sovereigntymust take a back seat.
This is precisely theation in Somalia: hungryand desperate peoplo aiul nosemblance of a governmentin charge. It was undoubtedly an excellent setting tojustify foreign intervention. With the UN'sauthorisation, USA sent in its troops topave the way for speedy food distribution.India, too, has joined the effort to assiststarving Somalis.
As a case, this may be acceptable. Butwhere does this take us? When GeorgeBush despatched 28,000 US troops toSomalia, he said his purpose was to "helpthem live", and added, "We do not plan todictate political outcomes. We respectyour sovereignty."
What does this mean? When issovereignty to be respected and when not? When is interference justifiable and when not? Who will decide whento intervene and when not? Are there any mechanisms tocontrol the hidden agendas, if any, of powerful nations?After all, the purpose of rules is to ensure the weak areprotected against the powerful and to ensure consistencyin the actions of nations.
Immediately, the question is raised: Why Somalia,and not Bosnia? The answer given by a commentator inthe International Herald Tribune is that "Bosnia is notdoable". The commentator goes on to argue: "Televisionpictures of starving Somalis summon an instinctivedesire to do something. A government that is not recklesswith the lives of its soldiers must enunciate some logicbeyond instinct for risking those lives in a situation thatdoes not remotely engage the national interest. PrincipleOne of humanitarian intervention is: It must be doable.Bosnia is not doable. The mountainous terrain, the heavily armed factions, the history of prolonged guerilla war- all promise not just large losses but military failure.The US will not stand by if another people is dying andthere is a way to save it. This may not be the loftiest principle of humanitarian intervention, but it is better thanthe rest."
So much, therefore, for consistency.
What about hidden agendas, and the fear that the legtimisation of intervention may once again bolster thisfaith of the powerful in their cultural superiority?
A researcher from the University of Oxford says in aletter to The Independent in London: "Since the originsof modem international law in the 17th century, interna-tional lawyers have provided the legitimating principlesfor Western intervention in its various forms, invokingsuch lofty principles as the Christianising mission, thespread of civilisation and the expansion of trade andwealth to terra nullius (empty land)..." But in reality, asthe writer himself points out, these interventions weregoverned more by self-interest and a questionable faith inthe West's 'better knowledge' of other peoples' best interests and idealistic principles. Will this current exerciseof 'humanitarian intervention' not prove to have thesame contours? An editorial in the Asian Wall Streetjournal, in fact, emphasises precisely this superiority asthe reason behind the intervention in Somalia. The papersays that Somalia must be governed by theWest until it is put on the road to a civilsociety. "We are not - repeat not -- pining for the return of colonialism," thepaper assures. "We are, however, quiteeager to repudiate much of the theory thatthe system erected after World War II capitalist, democratic, American-led,grounded in British traditions of contractsand property rights - was somehow 'notright' for the indigenous groups and cultures of what came to be known as theThird World. These theories failed,crushed mainly by Third World kleptocracies and international pirates such as Saddam Hussein, operatingwithin no rule of law. Capitalism, American leadershipand property rights look to be precisely what the starvingpeople of Somalia want. The question is whetherAmerican officials - now or in the new presidency have enough confidence in the rightness and value oftheir own system to offer its best elements to others who would be eager for the offer."
So much, therefore, for the talk of 'pluralism' byHelmut Schmidt's group.
What then of a case where intervention is necessary,but the economic interests of powerful nations areinvolved?
Environment throws up numerous such examples.The carbon dioxide, for example, emitted by one countryis likely to affect the sea coast or the climate of another.Who should reduce this carbon dioxide and by howmuch? Will the reduction be done in a way thatgives property rights to all people in the atmosphere,and thus generate market forces that will provide disincentives to the polluters and incentives to theabstemious? Will there be a system of democratic checksand balances so that Bangladesh can block the entry ofAmerican cars because their emissions could drown halfits land?
The Western nations have steered clear of suchissues, even though markets, property rights and democracy are of what they are most proud. They have takenpositions that essentially get them off the hook for theirpast production and consumption patterns and now seekto ram an inequitable system for future global environmental management down the throats of less powerful,nations.
Clearly, there is a need for the international community to intervene - collectively and humanely - in theinterests of the weak and the poor and for the survival ofall of us. But if the old order of sovereign nations is togive over to a new order of a more sovereign 'global community', then the new rules of the behaviour of nationsmust not only be crystal clear, but they should also protect the rights of less powerful nations and be enforceable against the powerful ones. Till then, the arguments for sovereignty must continue to rule.