External intervention

The challenge posed by bloc politics of the Cold War and intervention by USA and USSR in the internal affairs of many countries is well known. Interference by either power in the name of protecting the interest of communism or capitalism and democracy amounted to violation of the sovereign right of the concerned nation-state to have control over their internal affairs.

The post-Cold War era, has also witnessed several interventionist initiatives and doctrines of ‘shared sovereignty’. General refrain of these interventionist initiatives and doctrines have been humanitarian assistance and human rights, democracy, freedom, world peace, etc. A few examples may elucidate the points made here. ‘these include interventions in Iraq to establish a safe haven for Kurds, in Bosnia to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Sarajevo, in Somalia to create a secure environment for the supply of humanitarian assistance, NATO intervention in Kosovo and UN Intervention Force in East Timor.’¹⁴⁷ Most of these interventions could be witnessed in the countries, which can be identified as failed states due to ethnic and tribal conflict or states having emerged as a result of collapse of the erstwhile USSR and are in disarray. Problems of lack of central authority, ethnic and tribal clashes and extermination, displacement, refugees and human migration, etc., have given opportunities for interference which otherwise may serve geo-political interest of major powers.

In fact, developing and post-colonial societies are faced with the problem of active intervention from major powers either in bloc or individually. The very nature of these societies and states have prompted the interested powers to intervene in the developing countries in the name of human rights, democracy or at times to protect the rights of oppressed nationalities or the citizens against their own oppressive regimes. We may differentiate between collective humanitarian intervention under the auspices of the UN and political and military intervention by major powers, though at times invoking UN sanctions.

On the one hand, intervention can be described as a foreign policy instrument on the part of the major powers to interfere in the affairs of other nation-states to serve their geo-strategic and political interests, on the other, it is a means for the UN to intervene for humanitarian assistance, peace keeping, etc. Generally, the following situations could give rise to intervention either by the major powers or by the UN

• Civil-conflict situations in a state where two or more warring sides are involved against each other or the regime. The case of failed states like Afghanistan, Haiti and Somalia and USA’s intervention are examples.
• Rising of group of people/communities with particular affiliations against the political regime alleging oppression and claiming autonomy or independence. The example of USA’s intervention under UN aegis in Timor Leste for its independence from Indonesia is an example. The case of Timor Leste has been cited as of ‘shared sovereignty’, i.e., before it became a full-fledged self-governing state, major powers under the UN umbrella supervised and monitored its transition.
• Protection of human rights and interest of democracy has prompted active and military intervention by USA in Iraq.
• Humanitarian assistance, protection of rights of displaced and refugees has also led to UN as well as intervention by major powers.
• Intervention could also be in the name of ensuring regional and global peace and security.
• Intervention for peace-making, peace-building and peace-keeping or peace-enforcement by the multilateral forces/UN Peace Keeping Force.

Is intervention in itself problematic? Does it violate the principles of sovereign equality of nation-states? Justification for intervention can be put under three broad categories. Firstly, intervention has been enunciated in the UN Charter itself as part of the principle of collective security where threat by one state on another is considered a threat to peace and security of other member states. Secondly, intervention by UN or UN-backed multilateral forces for peace making/building/keeping/enforcing or/and humanitarian assistance or/and in situations of humanitarian crisis has long been recognized. Thirdly, intervention as foreign policy instruments of major powers in the name of democracy, human rights, etc. has been justified.

Some analysts argue in defence of active intervention by USA in the name of democracy, human rights, etc.¹⁴⁸ On the other hand, it has been argued by some others that there should be only limited intervention in a failed state or there is possibility of unnecessary involvement.¹⁴⁹ However, the argument for limited and impartial intervention has been challenged. It has been argued that there cannot be a feasibility of a limited intervention as well as an impartial intervention in a civil conflict situation.¹⁵⁰ Limited intervention can end the civil conflict situation when the intervenor takes sides and tilts the local balance, but in this case it cannot be impartial. Impartial intervention can end civil conflict situation, when the intervenor take full control of the situation. But in this case it cannot be a limited intervention. Notwithstanding the debate on the nature of intervention, it can be said that intervention either indicates or leads to a situation where the State has either failed or is sharing its sovereignty. Intervention as such poses great challenge to many nation-states vis-à-vis, major powers.

Taken all together, the trends and factors mentioned above have contributed to what has been described by Bob Jessop as ‘hollowing out’¹⁵¹ of the State both from outside and from inside. Sovereignty as the turbo power of the State is running out of fuel while the State has not only a lot of speed-breakers ahead of it but also uncharted tracks. Is that the race, the nation-state started after the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is coming to an end or is it that the track needs to be changed? We may wait and watch.