This focus on a new international architecture that may give a more prominent role to regional actors in humanitarian crises is a relatively new development that, for the most part, only bubbled to the surface after the end of the Cold War.  Previously, Cold War issues dominated most discussions related to military interventions, many potentially explosive ethnic conflicts had been suppressed by authoritarian leaders and the two superpowers—the U.S. and Soviet Union—often determined the manner in which such disputes were handled.  In addition, the U.N. is wary of meddling in the internal affairs of states. Its structure and mandate have traditionally been devoted to settling conflicts between nations, not within them.

The Fund for Peace is seeking to move beyond the search for a universal consensus on this set of issues, which may not be possible at this time. Instead, it is assessing the potential for regional criteria in different conflict zones that would identify when and how regional actors may prevent or stop genocide and mass killings in their own neighborhoods. “We thought there was a need to extend the debate by getting voices from different regions to think about when it is legitimate to intervene and how international law and practice should evolve when faced with genocide and mass killings,” says Fund for Peace president Pauline H. Baker.

Surprisingly, the Fund found that regional leaders were able to reach consensus on these controversial issues through structured dialogue that brought all views into account. Not surprisingly, however, each region had widely differing approaches.

Africans participating in the Africa-region conference felt that sovereignty was not absolute and should not be a shield for committing human rights violations. “Coming from the most conflicted continent in the world, they felt there needed to be regional and subregional organizations that had the authority to deal with these problems,” says Baker, citing the roles that subregional organizations, such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have already played in Africa.

On the other hand, representatives from the Americas, not including the U.S., were more cautious in approaching the issue, in part because of the region’s traditional avoidance of interfering in the internal affairs of other states, and in part because of the long history of American dominance in the region. “There was a lot of suspicion on the part of participants that a regional response to humanitarian crises could possibly be used as justification for U.S. intervention in Latin America,” says Fund for Peace associate director Jason Ladnier.  However, participants acknowledged that the region has failed in the past to properly address gross violations of human rights and that there is great reluctance to openly discuss internal crises in the region.

Participants in the Asia conference had the least sense of regional cohesion but the strongest sense of sovereignty, arguing that this principle should not be breached, even in the face of dire circumstances. According to Baker, this is due to a “regional preference for not discussing the internal problems of their neighbors publicly.” Regional efforts to respond to internal crises are more likely to take the form of private diplomatic pressure.

The Fund for Peace Asia conference also offered a rare opportunity for countries in Northeast Asia, such as Japan, China and Korea, to find common ground with Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia and the Philippines. A variety of cooperative measures among many of those countries already exists, such as in combating drug trafficking. Participants agreed that establishing criteria for military intervention in humanitarian crises should build on the linkages that have already been established in such cooperative programs. 

Regarding the European region, it was not surprising that nations such as France and Germany insisted that only the U.N. could authorize the use of force in humanitarian emergencies—echoing their arguments against the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The Fund for Peace organizers found that, in general, European participants tended to be the most rigid interpreters of international law, leaving little room for possible regional intervention within states—even when genocide is threatened. There were divergences, however. Representatives from the recent or soon-to-be members of the European Union were more inclined to accept the evolving norm of a responsibility to protect civilians, and those who came from conflict zones, such as the Balkans, called for earlier and more effective intervention.  

Copyright information | Masthead | Carnegie Corporation of New York web site