TOPIC TWO: THE UNSC AND GUIDELINES FOR INTERVENTION

Introduction Defining intervention is more complicated than it might initially appear; in international affairs, the concept has several different meanings, and one of the challenges facing the Security Council will involve establishing a definitive interpretation. Similar sentiments have been echoed by significant UN members: After lacking UN intervention in the Bosnian (former Yugoslavian) genocide (detailed below), UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared, It is important to define intervention as broadly as possible, to include actions along a wide continuum from the most pacific to the most coercive. On a fundamental level, intervention is interference by a country in anothers affairs. This might not only include deploying military forces to another nation, but also implementing humanitarian aid and economic sanctions. A further issue worth consideration is the distinction between intervention and humanitarian intervention, a term often used in international debate. George Washington Law Professor Sean D. Murphy has defined humanitarian intervention as the threat or use of force by a state, group of states or international organization primarily for purpose of protecting nationals of the target state from widespread deprivations of internationally recognized human rights. Whether this is equivalent to intervention alone will be one of the challenges facing Security Council delegates. While a definition itself poses difficulties, the central issue of concern in this debate is the actions taken by a nation or relevant stakeholders that merit intervention by the international community. At what point does intervention become necessary? In the past, global leaders have refrained from creating a firm red line that merits intervention when crossed. Instead, they have acted on precedent. The use and effectiveness of this strategy becomes clearer in an examination of its history.

History Peacekeeping Missions Security Council interventions date back to the United Nations inception; however Peacekeeping missions, perhaps the most overt form of UNSC intervention, proliferated in the

1980s. The first UNSC peacekeeping mission mandating direct intervention was the United Nations Operation in the Congo (UNOC), established in July 1960, following the independence of the Republic of Congo and subsequent occupation of its former colonizer, Belgium. UNOC was created to ensure the withdrawal of Belgian forces, to assist the Government in maintaining law and order and to provide technical assistance, however its mission was later revised to include maintaining the territorial integrity and political independence of the Congo, preventing the occurrence of civil war and securing the removal of all foreign military, paramilitary and advisory personnel not under the United Nations Command, and all mercenaries. However, the intervention faced obstacles aside from Belgium; UN peacekeepers mandate of self-defense was reinterpreted in order to allow the peacekeepers to defend themselves and to defend their mission when jeopardized. In 1964, following the withdrawal of Belgium troops and calming of a secessionist threat in Katanga, UNOC was concluded. Another significant instance of UN intervention occurred in Yugoslavia after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Tensions erupted between the Bosnian Serbs and Muslims over the fate and composition of the former socialist nation. UN peacekeepers proved to be ineffective at quelling the violence and halting the ethnic cleansing. Resolution 770 authorized all measures necessary to deliver aid, and commended the recently established and expanded United Nations Protection Force in its assistance to the region. However, the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 marks a significant failure of that mission. During the same period, civil war raged on in Somalia after the fall of President Siad Barre in 1991.Following a negotiated ceasefire, the UN established the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM I) in order to monitor the ceasefire in Mogadishu and escort deliveries of humanitarian supplies to distribution centres in the city. The mission's mandate and strength were later enlarged to assist it in protecting humanitarian convoys and distribution centres throughout Somalia. The debate over the scale of UN intervention in Africa was perhaps most critical during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi groups resulted in the death of over 800,000 civilians. In many critics eyes, the Security Councils response was ineffective. A year earlier, the UNSC established the United Nations Observer Mission in Uganda-Rwanda under Resolution 846. It was mandated to monitor the border between Uganda and Rwanda, to insure that no military support passed through to Rwanda. However, once the genocide became

evident, The UN Security Council failed to reinforce the small UN peacekeeping force in the country. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later admitted the failure of the United Nations in the face of the appalling murders: I believed at that time that I was doing my best, But I realized after the genocide that there was more that I could and should have done to sound the alarm and rally support." Following the Rwandan genocide, however, the UN has not always been quick to respond to calls for intervention. In Sierra Leone, long standing attacks by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) began in 1991; the UN waited seven years to intervene, finally prompted by the discovery of collaboration between the military and the RUF. The resulting military Junta agreed to sign a peace accord, which would be partly implemented by a UN observer mission. However, violence continued, and in 1999, the UNSC established United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) to address the issue. The Security Councils response has received mixed reactions, and it further exposes the problem of delineating a red line for intervention. The Security Council has faced other criticisms regarding its intervention standards and decisions, another such instance being its role in the Kosovo conflict of 1999. At the time, fighting had broken out between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and Yugoslav forces, while the latter conducted massive deportations of Kosovo Albanians. As opposed to direct United Nations intervention, however, a NATO coalition served as the primary military force within the region through its Kosovo Force (KFOR). The UNSC did create a peacekeeping mission, but it was mainly for administrative and governance purposes. According to the authors of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (discussed in the upcoming section on international legislation), the operation raised major questions about the legitimacy of military intervention in a sovereign state.

Other Forms of UNSC Intervention In addition to standard peacekeeping mission, the UNSC has deployed other forces to achieve its goals. This March, Resolution 2098 created an unprecedented intervention brigade to take military action against rebel groups to help bring peace to the eastern portion of the [Congo].l The brigade would be comprised of three infantry battalions, one artillery and one special forces and reconnaissance company.

Economic sanctions are another form of UNSC intervention that does not include force. There are countless examples of this intervention vehicle, one being the sanctions imposed on North Korea to impede the progress of their nuclear program. According to some, humanitarian aid is also a form of intervention, such as aid packages given to Indonesia following a disastrous tsunami in 2004.The classification of humanitarian aid as a form of intervention must be addressed in any Security Council resolution regarding guidelines for intervention. Additionally, arms embargoes and no-fly zones could also be considered forms of non-violent intervention. Finally, an important form of UNSC intervention is the approval of coalition forces unrelated to peacekeepers. NATO involvement in Libya serves a prime instance of this form of intervention. In Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, The Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures. UNSC approval of outside forces plays a critical role in the maintenance of international peace and security, and the use of such forces should be incorporated into the Security Councils approach to intervention. Overall, these examples and ambiguities point to the necessity of having some standard or declaration of intervention enshrined in international law.

Issues Facing UNSC Intervention Forces Peacekeepers have faced a myriad of systemic criticisms that, while incredibly important, are not relevant to this topic. Instead, we will focus our debate on the problems impeding peacekeepers in their interventions. Robust peacekeeping forces are only deployed with the consent of parties; these forces are mandated to use all necessary means to deter forceful attempts to disrupt the political process, protect civilians under imminent threat of physical attack, and/or assist the national authorities in maintaining law and order. These necessary means are very subjective, and are only allowed as a last resort. By deploying these forces with the consent of the parties involved, the Security Council severely limits its own power; what

should occur if the government rejects the robust peacekeepers, despite their necessity? In contrast, peacekeeping forces mandated to enforce peace without force do not require the consent of the main parties and may involve the use of military force at the strategic or international level. This restriction of force may impede peacekeeping effectiveness. The use of coalition forces also presents an integral problem within the intervention debate: The Security Council cannot mandate or control these actors because they are out of their jurisdiction. Should the UNSC play a role in mediating their actions and, if so, in what capacity?

Documentation and International Legislation on Security Council Intervention The Security Councils power to intervene was first delineated in the United Nations Charter, Chapter VII: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Charter goes on to describe that the Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, including complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. However, if the Council decides those actions are insufficient to ameliorate the conflict, it should take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. The Charter also reiterates each nations right to self-defense until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. An additional document of significance to our debate is the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, also known as R2P. It was written in 2001, and the Security Council frequently invokes it when deciding whether or not to intervene. R2P formulates that all intervention must have just cause, constituted of either large scale loss of life or large scale ethnic cleansing. The document further describes several necessary characteristics of an intervention, including that any military intervention have the right intention, be a last resort, have minimum

necessary means, and have reasonable prospects of success. It defines the UNSC as the right authority to conduct such military interventions, while also outlining several operational principles upon which it hopes the UNSC will exercise this right. These principles include, clear objectives; clear and unambiguous mandate at all times; and resources to match, a common military approach among involved partners, having the goal of protection of a population, not defeat of a state, and acceptance that force protection cannot become the principal objective. The Responsibility to Protect is coupled with the Responsibility to Preventdeadly conflict and other forms of man-made catastrophe. The UNSC confirmed its support of the R2P doctrine in Resolution 1674 by reaffirming the paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome. Paragraph 139 is most relevant to our debate: The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

This paragraph, and UNSC support of it, explains that military action will be a last resort, however it leaves other guidelines for intervention very vague. Addressing issues on a case-bycase basis does not hold the UNSC accountable for instances when it does not intervene. UNSC delegates must address this problem of responsibility

Current Issues That Could Merit UN intervention Currently, Syria is the most notable international issue that might merit a United Nations Security Council intervention, due to proof that its president, Al-Assad, used chemical weapons against rebel groups. At the end of September, the Security Council voted unanimously to require Syria to eliminate its arsenal of chemical weapons -- or face consequences.

The situation was still developing as this Background Guide went to press. Please remain updated on the status of Security Council intervention in Syrian civil war, as it will be critical to our debate. The situation in Malaysia, as described in the previous guide, might also merit UNSC intervention. According to reputable sources, Muslim Rohingya in Rakhine state are currently the victims of ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity.

Bloc Positions Eastern/Asian Bloc China In the past, China has urged the Security Council to act cautiously before intervening; the nation has the tendency to be against the use of force when [peaceful] means were not exhausted.

Russia Like China, Russia is often hesitant to intervene, particularly without a definite scope and limit of the military engagement. As both these nations have veto power within the Security Council, their reluctance to intervene is often the source of much disagreement within the UNSC.

Republic of Korea South Korea has previously called on the United Nations Security Council to implement sanctions against its Northern counterpart, but they are careful to jump to military intervention, particularly within their own region.

Middle Eastern Bloc Pakistan Previously, Pakistan has been very cautious about UNSC intervention, both in the current Syrian dilemma and in past UNSC military actions. However, Pakistan does recognize the need for aid: After a powerful 2005 earthquake rocked the long-disputed Kashmir region dividing

India and Pakistan, the Pakistani government decided to give access to international relief agencies.

Azerbaijan Shortly after the introduction of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Azerbaijan voiced its support, however it also recognizes the importance of the General Assembly when the Security Council is unable to take decisive action.

Central/South American Bloc Argentina This South American nations government has historically been involved in unsanctioned, suspicious actions (including the Dirty War) under military dictatorships; however that is no indication of their current stance on intervention. They have experienced recent issues with Falklands, which might lead them to look disapprovingly upon interventions. Similarly, they were opposed to the NATO intervention in Syria, as they believed that not all diplomatic options had been exhausted.

Guatemala Guatemala has experienced genocide as a result of failed U.S. intervention, and they have had difficulties over involving the United Nations in peace-enforcement activities in the past.

Western/European Bloc United Kingdom Like most of the Western/European bloc, the U.K. believes that intervention is a necessary tool in the Security Councils arsenal that must be used under the appropriate circumstances. It has supported interventions in Libya, however its faced internal divisions over independent strikes against Syria.

United States

The U.S. has historically leaned on the side more intervention when necessary, but it has taken a step back in the recent NATO operation in Libya. Its decision on Syria will prove an important descriptor in their policy.

Luxembourg This nations government gave generous support to the intervention in Mali, and has previously sided with its bloc on UNSC intervention strategies.

Australia and Oceania Australia Australia has supported previous UNSC interventions, and is currently conducting some intervention of its own in the South Pacific.

African Bloc Morocco This Northern African nation has both supported and disapproved of interventions. As a small nation, it is logically concerned about unnecessary intervention, but does recognize the importance of intervention as a means towards ensuring international peace and stability.

Rwanda As a country that was at one point plagued by genocide, Rwanda is more likely to support UNSC intervention. Had the Security Council become involved sooner, many Rwandan people could have been spared.

Togo Often siding with the ECOWAS bloc, Togo does support intervention when necessary, but as a small nation without a strong military, it also recognizes the need for caution before intervening in a nations affairs.

Recent International Actions Recent UN Resolutions a. Resolution 1973 -- Authorizing military intervention in Libya b. Resolution 2040 -- Supervision mission in Syria c. Resolution 2100 -- Intervention in Mali d. Resolution 2098 -- Intervention force in the DRC

Conclusion The topic of United Nations Security Council intervention is one plagued by intricacies and opposing opinions. It will be the delegates jobs to decide where to draw the line on intervention in other nations crisis, while also balancing the differing interests and interpretations of other nations. Although difficult, this question is perhaps one of the most significant to our generation, and it will prove to be increasingly important in years to come if no agreement is reached.

Questions to Consider 1. How should the UNSC define intervention? 2. When does intervention become necessary? Should the Security Council delimit such a point? 3. How should the UNSC balance its own intervention with that of NATO, other coalitions and individual nations? 4. Should the UNSC consider the reformation of peacekeeping forces to effectively intervene? 5. Should intervention brigades become a permanent peacekeeping force? 6. What role should nations outside of the Security Council play in its interventions? 7. If guidelines are necessary, how should intervention correct or enshrine the R2P? 8. If guidelines are necessary, how should international law mandates, such as the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture and the Rome Statute, be incorporated? 9. How should the UNSC go about evaluating this problem in the future? Is it necessary to readdress the situation as new technology emerges and military tactics change?

10. How can the UNSC learn from its previous interventions and their criticisms? 11. Is it necessary for the UNSC to expedite the decision to intervene? 12. 12. If necessary, how should the UNSC evaluate its interventions? What is the proper measure of success? 13. What role should the general assembly play in UNSC interventions?

Source: http://www.jhumunc.org/media/attachments/UNSC_2014J_1.pdf