Many World Federalists feel that - "When a government fails to provide for the safety and well-being of its people, the people have the right and responsibility to change it, if possible by appealing to arbitration or an independent international tribunal. Moreover, people who had been conquered and involuntarily incorporated into a country have the right to establish their own self-governing entity."
In fact, two centuries ago the American colonies proclaimed
in the U.S. Declaration of Independence (which had a litany of complaints
against a tyrannical ruler):
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed,
"...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new government."
Some, concerned that NATO's military action against the former Yugoslavia may be in violation of international law, cite Article 53 of the U.N. Charter, which declares that "no enforcement action shall be taken by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council." (The same article permits "measures against any enemy state" -- meaning enemies of the Allies/United Nations in World War II -- namely, Germany, Italy, and Japan. How ironic that the Charter's text still treats three of today's leading democracies as enemy states, while despots ruling other countries hide behind Article 53!) This clause may be overridden by the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which mandates intervention, e.g., by troops such as NATO's.
And when Milosevic claims to head a "sovereign" country and therefore to be immune from external efforts to intervene and end the atrocities, take note of the words of four Foreign Ministers before the U.N. General Assembly in September 1991, when Saddam Hussein claimed such privileges. (This may also be relevant to the case against Chilean Gen. Pinochet.)
Barbara McDougall of Canada asserted, "The concept of sovereignty must respect higher principles, including the need to preserve human life from wanton destruction."
"Today sovereignty must meet its limits in the responsibility of states for mankind as a whole and for the survival of Creation," declared Hans-Dietrich Genscher of Germany. "When human rights are trampled under foot, the family of nations is not confined to the role of spectator... It must intervene."
Gianni de Michelis of Italy boldly called for revising parts of the UN Charter to accommodate "the right to intervene" in the internal affairs of states "for humanitarian ends and the protection of human rights." The international community "must have the power to suspend sovereignty whenever it is exercised in a criminal manner. The international community must be on the side both of democratically-elected parliaments and of oppressed nationalities."
Even Boris Pankin, the Soviet Foreign Minister, calling for developing the sovereignty principle in international law to meet the new realities and the need for universal interaction among states, advocated harmonizing national, regional and global interests by asserting a single universal scale of democratic values providing, among others, for the supremacy of international law and human rights.
World Federalists have asserted: "The source of sovereignty - legitimate authority to govern - is the citizens, who associate together and delegate and entrust powers outward to institutions of government in increasingly larger communities. In a federal system, powers are distributed to governments of communities at different levels:...the municipality/district or the tribe, the province/constituent state, the country, the continental or transnational regional federation, and ultimately the world federation... "An oppressive ruler often insists that his/her regime is 'sovereign' with license to rule the subject people, immune from 'interference in its internal affairs' by the outside world. His/her power, however, having been usurped from the people, is illegitimate and null. Thus the world community [the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and/or any other qualified entity] is obligated to find a means to liberate the oppressed people. In a democratic world federation, the rights of all groups would be safeguarded, precluding the rise of tyrants."
Ideally the United Nations should have taken action to stop the Milosevic marauders. Its lacking an effective force of its own has led to increasing calls for it to have its own all-volunteer peacemaking force (not subject to the foibles of national politics). Even if the U.N. had such a force, however, it still could not act because of the anachronistic veto in the Security Council which five World War II victors have used or threatened to. (Recently China, in some pique, vetoed the continuation of U.N. peacekeeping troops in Macedonia.) In view of the U.N.'s impotence in such cases, action by NATO -- a security force for Europe formed by North American and European democracies -- may be far better than nothing.
However, NATO, celebrating its 50th Anniversary on 23 April 1999, appeared more and more to be a paper tiger in the former Yugoslavia. Though set up to protect Europeans from tyrants and with access to the world's most powerful land forces, it continued to concentrate on airpower and missiles to destroy structures in Serbia while Milosevic continued to exterminate the Kosovars. Politicians and the military of the U.S. and Western Europe prefer that soldiers (once trained to fight even while suffering casualties) not risk their lives to save hundreds of thousands of other Europeans from annihilation. In the absence of global statesmen, what should be done?
1. In view of U.N. Security Council inaction, the U.N. General Assembly should
resolve that all necessary force be taken to end the aggression in the Balkans
and apprehend the perpetrators of the war and crimes against humanity.
2. While the Serb war criminals are tried in the Hague at the ad hoc Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, the United States Government should stop its obstructionist action and not only sign the treaty for an International Criminal Court but also strengthen it to deter future Milosevices.
3. The myth of "state sovereignty" should be buried, and the concept of our Founding Fathers confirmed: that sovereignty is the legitimate authority of the citizens, who exercise their powers to govern directly or, by delegating and entrusting some of them to their representatives and officials of their governments in accord with a constitution, to govern indirectly.
4. After the Serbian forces are driven out, protectorates should be established over Kosova and Serbia. During the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic government under a U.N. Transitional Authority, a free press, independent parties, and public debates on issues should be encouraged, and the first elections administered, supervised, and/or monitored by the United Nations, along with appropriate regional organizations (such as the E.U. and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) and civic groups.
5. The United Nations should not confirm the transfer of authority to the people and a government resulting from the elections until a peaceful future is assured, and the European Union should welcome the reformed states, perhaps initially as associate members.
(A modified version appeared in the Spring 1999 Toward Democratic World Federation.)
| Return to Top | ||||
| Home | About us | Library | Take Action | Links |