International Herald Tribune,

Friday, May 9, 1997

BRUSSELS - The writer is European commissioner for humanitarian affairs.

The dilemmas facing those of us rethinking the issue of humanitarian aid look different depending on the side of the Atlantic we are on.

Allow me to contribute a European point of view to the healthy, much-needed debate launched in these columns by J. Brian Atwood and Leonard Rogers of the U.S. Agency for International Development (IHT, March 12 and 13).

They write that the world will not reply to crises in peripheral states without U.S. leadership. Really? I do not believe Europe's humanitarian response to recent crises was delayed in anticipation of a lead from Washington.

But if by ''reply'' the authors mean ''seek solutions,'' that is a different ball game, to use an American expression. It is a game I do not believe humanitarian actors should be playing.

Today, conflict rages in Eastern Zaire and elsewhere in the Great Lakes region of Africa. North Korea is starving, and the fate of Afghanistan as a nation-state grows increasingly uncertain. These are but some of the issues on our agenda.

Should we feed Rwandan refugees now deep in Zaire who took part in genocide in their country - or should we view their current predicament as rough justice for their horrible crimes? Is it wise for us to relieve North Korea's government of responsibility for feeding its own people, even though that may enable Pyongyang to concentrate on military spending? Is it right to help the people of Kabul, disregarding the Taleban's record of gross violations of human rights, especially women's rights? Should the Italian government open the gates to all those fleeing unrest in Albania, despite hard evidence that the exodus of asylum-seekers is being managed by organized crime?

These questions reflect the growing complexity of issues that are testing the humanitarian community. Such issues are understandably confusing to the public. Doubts and uncertainties are beginning to erode support for humanitarian aid, which is why I wholeheartedly welcome a debate.

Yes, the world has changed - though not for the better. Yes, I agree the international community looks set to face a proliferation of micro-conflicts at regional and subregional levels. The root causes of such crises may be ethnic, religious, political, tribal. Unlike Cold War-era crises, these tend to develop unchecked unless and until they become a threat to global security or to major economic interests, or until they sufficiently rouse the public's conscience.

And yes, I agree the United States is the sole remaining superpower, and the only nation with truly global reach - though I find this frustrating. What I regret, as a federalist European, is the fact that European capitals seem to be resigned to life as a mere bunch of lesser military allies, and that the European Union is too hesitant about asserting itself as a partner on a par with the United States in the political and economic spheres.

Does U.S. global reach also entail global responsibility? That is what the Atwood/Rogers approach seems to imply. But the United States is and will remain a nation-state, however big and powerful. It will legitimately pursue its own national interests, values and geopolitical agenda before all else. Goals and priorities are bound to change depending on the government of the day.

Africa, traditionally peripheral in U.S. foreign policy, is an excellent example of a pattern of moving goalposts. The United States used to be motivated by the containment of socialist ideology on the continent. This warranted backing the Mobutus and Savimbis, as well as keeping a cool distance from the socialist-inclined African National Congress of Nelson Mandela. President Ronald Reagan, we may recall, vetoed sanctions legislation but was overruled by Congress. That is now history. Then came the containment of Islamic radicalism, which implied backing new leaderships in Eritrea, Ethiopia and elsewhere.

Now there are new priorities. These include containing corrupt postcolonial regimes and fostering market economies.

For me, the new generation of African leaders represents a positive change in a political landscape that is sometimes disheartening.

However, there are some things about them that are making me lose sleep. Many in this group of very articulate, reformist leaders - soon to be joined by Laurent Kabila - are allergic to multiparty democracy (with the exception of the Ethiopians). They seem to think respect for human rights is optional, and they resort to warfare with disturbing ease.

Africa illustrates my two main conclusions, crucial in evaluating the new U.S. approach to humanitarian aid:- U.S. foreign policy priorities will keep changing, depending on Washington's perception of where U.S. national interests lie at any point in time; - Washington's priorities may not always coincide with, or be representative of, the prevailing analysis of the international community at large. This is why I do not think it is appropriate to focus the argument on prescriptive guidelines for U.S. humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian aid should never be devised as a part of any country'sforeign policy. I would certainly oppose the idea if European Union governments or institutions were to suggest it.

I agree that someone needs to find solutions for the fundamental causes of complex emergencies. But this should be the job of other actors, not those directly involved in humanitarian aid. Humanitarian aid is about people, not governments.

As for us, we must make sure relief reaches the hungry child whose only sin was to have been born in Sudan, in Cuba or in a refugee camp in Zaire. We must work hard to preserve what is left of the impartiality innate in the concept of humanitarian aid.

We must keep such aid available as a last resort for all human beings in need, wherever they are, whatever passport they hold.