Process Reengineering

The past few decades have been witness to some incredible accounts of cruelty, violence and gross human rights violations all across the world. The conflicts in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka bring back vivid memories of the helplessness of people that were affected. It is in this regard that the whole issue of International Intervention assumes and deserves heightened importance. While the reluctance of nations to get involved in pressing political, social and diplomatic issues in their geographical neighborhood in spite of their apparently deep sense of morality and all the extensive media coverage is hard to believe, the problem is, of course, more complicated. In the prevailing world scenario, the unilateral intervention of US in Iraq and the subsequent quagmire in which the US finds itself has opened the debate on the right to mediation in the internal affairs of the other country. Is the intervention on the grounds of humanitarian violations justified even if it impinges on the concept of territorial sovereignty and a country's right of self determination. The traditional Westphalian concept of sovereignty can no longer provide guidance for such interventions, and the UN Charter itself is ambiguous, affirming both the primacy of human rights and the concept of state sovereignty. Those who support humanitarian intervention stress the responsibility of powerful countries to address gross and systemic human rights violations wherever and whenever possible but such a precedent can put the international standards of Self determination in disarray.

In his millennium report to the UN, Secretary-General Kofi Annan posed a question "If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica--to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity? We confront a real dilemma. Few would disagree that both the defense of humanity and the defense of sovereignty are principles that must be supported. Alas, that does not tell us which principle should prevail when they are in conflict." This report aims to analyze the Ethical dilemmas when faced with an option of intervention in another country's affairs in the light of human rights violations in the latter. Also, by a series of case studies we understand how different powers reacted to such scenarios in the past and the current opinions on this issue. Such instances can be found in Kosovo, Iraq, Rwanda genocide, Darfur (Sudan), Somalia and India's intervention in Bangladesh in light of Chakma refugee crisis in 1971-72. Lastly this report suggests a legitimate framework for such Interventions both from a legal (International Organizations like UN, WTO etc) and a moral perspective.

2 Historical Precedents and Actions

2.1 India's Intervention in Pakistan (1971)

CONTEXT: The East Pakistanis were being brutally treated by West Pakistan army resulting in large scale slaughter, rape and pillage. An estimated 9 million refugees flowed across the border into India, putting an enormous strain on its resources creating a conflict. . The sheer number of Bangladeshi refugees and their demographic profile threatened both social and political repercussions on the Indian polity. Due to India's military intervention the state of Bangladesh was created with India's premier Mrs Indira Gandhi justifying the use of force as a necessity to prevent escalation of humanitarian crisis. During 1971, in what was later seen as one of the most significannot

covert operations by any intelligence agency in the subcontinent, India helped Bangladeshi freedom fighters to achieve independence that resulted in a full-fledged war with Pakistan. Since independence relations between India and Bangladesh have gone sour in many respects and this distrust has some of it's origins in the original 1971 conflict.

MOTIVES: Indian ambassador to the UN stated that "'we have on this particular occasion absolutely nothing but the purest of motives and the purest of intentions: to rescue the people of East Bengal from what they are suffering." Still this gave India an opportunity to increase its power in south Asia by diminishing its long term rival. The General Assembly voted against India's action not considering it a case of humanitarian intervention. Although India's intention at the time may have been to help a smaller country in time of need, a considerable body of international public opinion viewed India as a bully, throwing its weight around and threatening the sovereignty of its smaller neighbors.

2.2 USA Intervention in Somalia (1992-93)

CONTEXT: Somalia had multiple power centers with armed conflict between tribes and no sovereign authority in place that could be focus of any conflict resolution. The power vacuum had led to a state of anarchy and civil war resulting in widespread starvation. In Somalia, UNSC approved a plan by the United States to provide a substantial number of troops to restore order and ensure that humanitarian aid could be delivered by UN peacekeepers. In the months following the intervention, the violence levels and starvation both receded dramatically. The UN subsequently took over the operations from US forces as it pulled out of the strife torn country after suffering costs of over $1 billion.

MOTIVES: Whether the US committed troops essentially with a humanitarian perspective as refugees were increasing due to civil war is a widely debated question. US delivered to Somalia about $154 million worth of weapons and military equipment from 1981 through 1991 before there was a regime change and country plunged into a civil war. Also US had strategic oil and gas interests in the region as Somalia is rich in natural gas reserves which could be a strategic interest in the region.

2.3 RWANDA AND THE UNITED STATIONS (1994)

CONTEXT: The Rwandan genocide of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda mostly carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups, the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi during a period of about 100 days from April 6th through mid-July 1994. The massacre stands out as such a large number of people were slaughtered in such a small span of time. Despite the intelligence provided before the killings began, and international news media coverage reflecting the true scale of violence as the genocide unfolded, most first-world countries including France, Belgium, the United States declined to intervene.

MOTIVES: President