The response to
crises must be consistent and swift
President of the
Republic Martti Ahtisaari interviewed in Le Monde 4.11.1999
(translation)
While I was working at
the United Nations during the occupation of Kuwait
and the ensuing war, my subordinates asked me:
"How can it be
possible, Mr. Ahtisaari, that having thought when we
began here that we were working for a peace
organisation, we are now working in an organisation
which permits a war? Why has the UN sanctioned the
use of force in this situation, why not in other
similar crises?"
I tried to answer them
as well as I could. We must be satisfied that the
international community is now able to react in a
situation in which a state occupies and destroys its
small neighbouring country. It is, of course,
possible that actions have not been consistent in
comparable earlier situations. Nonetheless we must
act with an emphasis on justice now that the
preconditions for doing so exist, and we must in
future try to be consistent whenever it is possible.
That conversation has
come to mind several times this year as we have
followed the various stages of the Kosovo crisis.
Over and over again the question has been repeated:
"Why is there a reaction now, why not
elsewhere?"
The question is
justified. However, the correct answer is not that a
wrong should have been allowed to happen because that
may have been done earlier. Instead we must think how
justice can be implemented more often in the future.
A matter that I have
been pondering together with various discussion
partners for a long time is how the consistency and
effectiveness of the action taken by the
international community in crisis situations could be
increased. In my view it would be possible to develop
both decision-making and the implementation of
decisions.
Our goal must be a
system that is founded on tenable principles,
balanced and consistent, and which also executes
operations efficiently and gets results. That
presupposes development of international law, the
creation of new methods of operation and probably
also new types of resources.
An idea that I
presented for consideration in a speech in the Hague
last January was that the UN Secretary-General could
ask the International Court of Justice for an
advisory opinion in the event of failure to find a
solution to a crisis. A legal opinion presented by
the Court with all of its authority might then help
the Security Council to find the necessary political
agreement in a situation in which a state was
threatened with international intervention either
because it could no longer protect its citizens from
armed violence or was unwilling to do so.
In the background to
this initiative was the idea that an opinion of the
Court would gradually steer the members of the
Security Council and especially its permanent members
towards more consistent behaviour in various crises.
The initiative has not received unreserved support. I
understand that attitude, because an opinion of the
Court would contribute to limiting many
countries’ freedom of discretion. Nevertheless,
we must strive for greater predictability and
consistency.
However, merely
developing decision-making is not enough. An ability
to implement decisions is also needed. Recent
experiences teach us many lessons in this respect.
It is very fortunate
that Australia was able to send its own forces to
East Timor so rapidly immediately after a decision
concerning the matter had emerged in the Security
Council with Indonesia’s consent. Although only
a few thousand soldiers were involved, we can be
certain that numerous human lives were saved
precisely because such rapid action was taken.
On the other hand, our
experience of the way in which the civilian operation
in Kosovo began shows what kinds of difficulties are
encountered when rapid action is not possible. For
example, the number of civilian police that have been
put in place corresponds to only a fraction of the
real need, even though it is months since the
operation began. It may be that the dearth of police
has contributed to intensifying the exodus of Serbs
from the region.
Kosovo also taught us
the importance of rapid action in helping refugees.
If there had not been peacekeepers with all their
logistical capacity in Macedonia, it would have taken
a lot longer to build refugee camps, which would have
added to human suffering. In this respect the
international community had luck on its side.
Thus it is now more
obvious than it used to be that we must develop the
system in a way that makes it possible to speed up
our reaction to emerging crises. During the Cold War
nations tuned up their machinery to wage war rapidly
and efficiently. The concentration now must be on
accelerating efforts to wage peace.
Some years ago, the
former UN Under-Secretary-General Brian Urquhart put
forward an idea that is probably even more topical
today. Namely, he did a study on a permanent
international rapid deployment force, which would be
at the disposal of the UN Security Council. In his
assessment, a force of a few thousand soldiers would
be sufficient to calm the situation in some or other
crisis hot spot, provided it could be deployed in a
few days.
The example of East
Timor showed that what matters most from the
perspective of calming a situation is the speed at
which one gets there, not the size of the first force
to arrive. The size of any crisis-management
operation to suit a longer-term need could be
determined once member states had gotten their own
forces ready for deployment.
Urquhart’s
initiative is a good foundation for further
development. Several models for reducing lead times
can certainly be found. If the idea of the UN having
its own "Foreign Legion" does not seem
realistic, means by which member states could place
forces at the disposal of the Security Council and
the Secretary-General at short notice should be
pondered. It can not be done with the system that we
have at present.
Similar ideas should
be developed also on the civilian side. In what way
could we prepare better to help refugees in
conjunction with crises or natural catastrophes? How
could the international community obtain the services
of civilian police faster than in Kosovo?
There is a need for
creativity and fresh-mindedness so that we can find
implementable models to improve the international
community’s ability to help civilians that have
fallen victim to crises. We must, namely, remember
that the ways in which our preparedness is improved
are not the main consideration. What matters most is
that we make progress towards a world in which
justice and prospects of receiving help in crisis
situations do not depend on where people live or the
vagaries of politics.
