UN Examines Gulf War and Aftermath

By Ian Williams

Perhaps belatedly, on April 22, UN Secretary General Perez De Cuellar permitted himself some oblique criticism of the conduct of Desert Storm and its consequences. In a speech at the University of Bordeaux, he said that "the way that Resolution [678, authorizing force] has been implemented shows that there is a need for an improved and more institutionalized mechanism for reporting to the Council by the concerned states. The Security Council needs to preserve for itself the authority to exercise guidance, supervision or control with respect to the carrying out of actions authorized by it. " In contrast with his silence at the time of the "turkey shoot" on the road to Basra, it was relatively strong stuff.

Indeed, he even suggested that the veto power of the permanent five is so great that "it is important that this special power is exercised in such a manner as to avoid creating imbalances in the international community as well as in the United Nations."

Oddly, the issue on which he chose to consider legality was not the conduct of the war itself, which many people inside and outside the UN considered of dubious legality, but the US establishment of enclaves for the Kurds in Northern Iraq. "It is a question of sovereignty," he told reporters. "I do not see a difficulty ... from the moral point of view. But from the legal point of view, of course, it is a problem."

The State Department, somewhat surprised, disingenuously claimed that setting up the enclaves was justified by Resolution 688, which condemned Iraqi repression of the Kurds, and insisted on Baghdad's allowing access by "international humanitarian organizations. " It would be interesting to see the State Department's reaction to an Arab intervention in the West Bank which invoked the various resolutions calling upon Israel to respect Palestinian rights.

Conscious of the weakness of the authority of Resolution 688, some US international law experts invoked the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, which would seem a self-evident justification for most people. However, most legal pundits regard the doctrine as a non-starter because of its subjectivity. For example, many other nations regard capital punishment as inhumane, but few would envisage the invasion of the US to stop it. Indeed, one infamous invocation of the principle was Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to "protect" Sudeten Germans.

The Kurds, as a people without a nation state, have been one of the most outstanding victims of the doctrine of non-interference. For most of the 20th century, their cause has been picked up and dropped with a chilling cynicism. For example, until the refugee crisis focused attention on the issue, the world seemed quite at ease that Gulf war coalition partner Turkey imprisoned Kurds for using their own language.

The Kurds have been victims of the doctrine of non-interference.

Professor Roger Clark of Rutgers University Law School stated what seems to be the textbook view on non-intervention, citing Article 2.4 of the UN Charter and subsequent declarations and resolutions. "The US, Britain and France should have returned to the Security Council for authorization before intervening in the Kurdish refugee problem, " he concluded. The collective decision of the Council would have been defense against the subjectivity argument.

However, the US was unlikely to win a majority in the Council. There is a growing feeling among the non-aligned members that Resolution 687, articulating Iraq's surrender terms, had already been sufficient breach of the Charter's provisions on non-intervention. Ironically, it was these very doctrines under which Iraq was rightly condemned for its invasion of Kuwait.

The UN is, after all, a club of nation states for whom its clauses against non-intervention in internal affairs are a major benefit of membership. This does indeed make for slow responses by the organization—just contemplate a bureaucracy beholden to 160 separate administrations!

In the case of the Kurds, however, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, as the UN's executive delegate, had just signed an agreement between the UN and Baghdad on assistance to refugees, when the Western allies made the unilateral announcement about the "safe haven" they planned for Northern Iraq. This was undiplomatic in every sense. It gave an impression of arrogance toward the UN, and reinforced feelings by many members that the underlying principle of the Western powers was "Do as we say, not as we do."

UN Ranks Members on Development and Freedom

The Charter may forbid intervention, but it does not preclude the UN taking an interest in how states treat their inhabitants. May 22 saw the launch of the second edition of the UN Development Program's Human Development Report. The first edition, launched last year, represented a big breakthrough for the UN system. In effect, it said that there was more to development than gross national product; that factors like access to water, health care and education were more important in judging the progress of a nation than wealth.

By including statistics such as life expectancy, infant mortality and adult literacy along with GNP, the UNDP compiled a "Human Development Index" of 160 countries. Japan was at the top of the list and the US ranked 7th. Among Arab countries, Kuwait, at 48, Bahrain at 50, and Qatar at 51 were the only Arab countries in the category of "high human development. " In the "medium" category were the United Arab Emirates at 56 and Saudi Arabia at 69. Other Arab states ranked lower, with Sudan the lowest-ranked Arab state at 143.

In the "Arab states, poverty is reinforced by the very unequal distribution of assets, " claim the authors of this year's edition. "About 40 million people live below the poverty line, and 60 million adults are illiterate, " it says of the region, lamenting that "the potential of women in the Arab states remains largely unrecognized ... The female literacy rate is only 39 percent compared with 66 percent for men."

This year, UNDP has flown an even more controversial kite, by including a "Human Freedom Index." By taking 40 freedoms ranging from the right to practice homosexuality to freedom from torture, the ranking of 88 countries produced Sweden on top with 38 and Iraq at the bottom with 0. Tunisia, Egypt and Israel were the only Mideast states making the medium freedom ranking.

Project Director Mahbub Ul Haq told the Washington Report that next year the human freedom index will recognize the advances Jordan, Yemen and Algeria have made, "largely because of the level of education and investment in people. I see a very close link between investment in people and investment in democracy. In some of the Arab societies there is going to be a very traumatic change. No well-educated society can accept tyranny."

Referendum in Western Sahara

The winds of change seem to be blowing right across the Sahara, with the Security Council's unanimous acceptance of terms for a peace and plebiscite in Western Sahara. President of the Security Council for April Paul Noterdaeme of Belgium shuttled between representatives of Polisaric, and Morocco to ensure their support for the agreement, which provides for a referendum to choose between independence or integration with Morocco.

The resolution set up MINURSO (the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara). MINURSO will conduct a referendum based on the 74,900 Sahrawis identified in the 1974 Spanish Census, which included even new-born babies. The team's primary role will be to identify the quick and the dead, and ensure that the latter do not vote on either side.

Within 11 weeks of the cease-fire, Morocco will reduce its military presence to 65,000 troops, confined within the Sand Wall across the territory and a few other locations. They and the Polisario forces will be monitored by MINURSO to ensure the cease-fire. The process is due to begin 16 weeks after the General Assembly approves the budget of the operation, with the plebiscite taking place 20 weeks later.

Democracy is not cheap. At $200 million, MINURSO will cost almost $3,000 per voter, which makes even US Senate races seem inexpensive. Indeed, one obstacle to the plan has been that the Moroccan administration remains in some places, since the UN could not afford the cost of taking it over.

Interestingly, the settlement did not involve the Arab League, which was upstaged by the Organization of African Unity. Mazhid Abdullah, the Polisario agent at the UN, complains that the Sahrawis received "almost no support" in the Arab world. Polisario was recognized by Algeria, Yemen, Syria and Libya, but even the PLO kept its distance. "And we are one of their strongest supporters in the OAU, " he says reproachfully. He ascribes the change in the Morrocan stand to a realization that they were not winning, and they could not count on support from their allies in the future.

On the other hand, the Moroccan mission at the UN expresses confidence that Morocco will win the plebiscite, and ascribes the changes to improved relations between the countries of the Maghreb Union, depriving Polisario of its Algerian and Libyan backing.

Fifteen years ago, Daniel Moynihan boasted that when he was UN ambassador and Western Sahara was under discussion, "The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. The task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

It has taken 18 years to get back to where it started. The Saharan deal will surely raise hopes that other Middle East issues on which the US has rendered the UN "utterly ineffective, " will now move toward resolution.

Ian Williams is a British journalist based at the United Nations.