The New York Times

Thursday, September 23, 1999

China and Others Reject Pleas That the U.N. Halt Civil Wars

By BARBARA CROSSETTE

UNITED NATIONS -- Secretary General Kofi Annan's call for more active intervention by the United Nations when civilian populations are at risk is meeting resistance in the General Assembly. Wednesday China joined a small but vocal group of nations objecting to an idea that has become this session's debate.

"Such arguments as 'human rights taking precedence over sovereignty' and 'humanitarian intervention' seem to be in vogue these days," China's Foreign Minister, Tang Jiaxuan, said in a speech on Wednesday.

Respect for national sovereignty and noninterference in another country's affairs, he said, are "the basic principles governing international relations," and any deviation would lead to a new form of gunboat diplomacy that would "wreak havoc."

President Clinton, in his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, also called on the members of the United Nations to prepare for more interventions.

India came under attack from Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Sartaj Aziz, for military abuses against Kashmiris in the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir, and India warned that nations' sovereignty should not be diminished by international action.

"It would be an error," said Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, "to assume that the days of the state are over. The state continues to have a crucial role and relevance -- also, therefore, national sovereignties."

Like India, China has long been sensitive to pressures on human rights, especially in Tibet, and has spoken before on the inviolability of borders and the sanctity of political cultures. But this year China used the example of Kosovo to drive its point home in unambiguous terms.

"The outbreak of war in Kosovo has sounded an alarm for us all," Tang said. "A regional military organization, in the name of humanitarianism and human rights, bypassed the United Nations and took military action against a sovereign state. It created an ominous precedent in international relations."

NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia this spring to put an end to Serbs' attacks on Kosovo's Albanian population has been mentioned by many speakers, making Kosovo a code word for the kind of action that a significant number of speakers have been advocating, though most say these military campaigns must be authorized by the Security Council.

"In many ways, the Kosovo conflict represents a turning point," said Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany. "However, the Kosovo conflict also marks a change of direction in the development of international relations."

Fischer offered a proposal to help avoid the kind of situation that led to NATO's acting outside the United Nations system in Kosovo because of the threat of a Chinese or Russian veto in the Security Council: He recommended that the nations with veto power -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- be required to explain any veto.

"According to the U.N. Charter, the Security Council acts with the mandate and on behalf of all U.N. member states," Fischer said. "But hitherto they have not been entitled to learn why a state has exercised its right of veto. This is neither democratic nor transparent, but also makes it easier for states to veto a resolution for national rather than international interests. The introduction of an obligation for a state to explain to the General Assembly why it is vetoing a resolution would make it more difficult to do so."

Other nations would go further and abolish the veto, which all permanent members of the Council solidly oppose.

Italy's Foreign Minister, Lamberto Dini, said that military action is now being used "to deal with tragedies that only a few years ago would have left us indifferent," and that such a change requires rules based on universal principles of human rights. These, however, have often been difficult to define at the United Nations.