Clement John

Interventions by strong and powerful nations have been a part of the contempory historical process. In Asia-Pacific region, there were four major instances of military interventions -U.S. intervention in Korea and Vietnam; U.S.S.R. intervention in Afghanistan and Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia. Besides, there was the Indian intervention in Kashmir, Goa, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and Sri Lanka; also, China's intervention in Tibet and Indonesian intervention in East Timor. The interventions by the Super powers were made on ideological considerations

U.S., intervened to contain the 'Evil Empire' or communism; USSR to protect Afghanistan's marxist regime from Islamic fundamentalists. In case of India, China and Indonesia it was largely an act of hegemonism. In case of Cambodia and East Pakistan, it could perhap's be argued that intervention was made partly on humanitarian considerations. These interventions were made despite the sanctity afforded to the sovereignty of nations under international law. There was little the U.N. could do to the redress the situation. Interventions by the strong and powerful nations in the affairs of the weaker one's are likely to continue irrespective of whether there exist a criteria for humanitarian intervention or not. The danger is if intervention is made acceptable and provided a cover of legitimacy under an international instrument, the strong and powerful nations are likely to become more blatant in their acts. In view of UN's recent record, under the present unipolar system, the question is whether it is advisable to provide such cover of legitimacy to acts of intervention.

There is an emerging trend amongst the western powers particularly, the U.S. to seek new justifications for intervention in the internal affairs of Third World countries - be this on the grounds of pursuit of nuclear programme, drug trafficking, terrorism or human rights. Human right violations (mainly civil and political rights) by Third World governments have acquired a top place on the agenda of international relations. U.S. has in fact, made human right concerns an integral part of it's foreign policy. Selective countries are targeted while others equally guilty of default are ignored. China for instance has come in for severe attacks for human right violations both in the media and as well as by the political leaders in the North, while countries like Burma and Sri Lanka with far worse record of human right violations are ignored. The interest being evoked in the North for human rights violations in Third World is not because of concern for the people but for purposes of economic and political bargaining. If the North is genuinely concerned about human rights in the third world it should adopt a uniform standard to measure violations in all countries irrespective of economic or political considerations. The North should also give South the right to intervene e.g. against racial discrimination in United States and Germany. Also, it should work both, inside and outside the U.N. structures for economic justice for the South. So long as the North continues to control and dominate the decision making process in international financial as well as political institutions like the IMF, WB and the U.N. the basic question of justice between the North and South will remain unresolved. This in turn will contribute to human right violations in the South, as the root causes of these lie in the unjust structures of the North, South divide. Presently, there is also a trend in the North, to link human rights with development aid. Here again the double standards of the North are evident. If the North is genuinely concerned about human rights in the South, the linkage should not only be with development aid but also with investments and trade. There are many instances where development aid is cut of by western countries but investments and trade with defaulting countries continues on business as usual basis. Economic interventions by the rich and powerful nations be it through Transnational Corporations or international financial institutions also leads to human right violations in Third World countries.

In recent times there has been a great deal of debate on the new found role of the United Nations particularly, in the West. It being acknowledged, that during the Cold War period, the working of the U.N. system was caught up in the East, West divide of ideological confrontation. This rendered U.N.'s decision making process often partisan and ineffectual. The abdication of it's role as a Super-power by the Soviet Union radically changed the situation. Whether this is good or bad for the world body is debatable. The UN can become a credible and effective instrument for peace in the post Cold War period if it's impartiality remains unimpeachable and it is prepared to seriously, take up third world issues on it's Agenda. Early this year, at the one day Summit meeting, the U.N. Security Council took up the issues of "preventive diplomacy", 'peace making', "collective Security" and related questions of sovereignty of nations and interference in internal affairs of member countries -e.g. in case of purchase of arms, nuclear programmes, human rights and ecology. There was little or no enthusiasm amongst the Western leaders for the major concern of third world which is economic justice. So long as U.N. continues to be dominated by Western powers and decisions are made in keeping with their interests, the U.N. cannot provide credible cover for intervention. To acquire credibility, the imbalance which presently e4sts between the. North and the South within the U.N. structures has to be removed. Only when this happens can there be discussions on intervention in the affairs of sovereign States, a concept sacred to the people in the South. To gain credibility the U.N. must restore the balance between the North and the South in relation to it's decision making process and in terms of dealing with the justice issues between the two regions. Failing which any attempt to legitimise intervention or to codify the laws relating to intervention would amount to giving western countries the right to interfere in the affairs of weak but sovereign nations of the South.

Religious, ethnic and communal conflicts in asian societies have taken a heavy toll of human life. Militants groups that are threat to the very existence of the state and are at war with it resulting in large number of civilian casualties e.g. Tamils in Sri Lanka, Sikhs and Muslims in Punjab and Kashmir (India). The phenomena is on the increase particularly in South Asia. The State's power and authority is eroded to the extent it is often unable to deal with such situations. Resort therefore, is taken emergency measures and sometimes to extra-judicial means. The root causes of these conflicts lie in the colonial past of these countries. There are no easy answers or solutions. Do such situations where human right violations are severe warrant an intervention? How will intervention resolve the basic issue (root causes) of the conflict? What kind of mechanism is available to deal with the issue on a long term basis beyond restoring law and order and bringing an end to human right violations.

Intervention in the region be it in Cambodia or Afghanistan may have brought an end to the conflict and also to human right violations but a just, meaningful and lasting peace remains a. far away reality.