The Notion of Sovereignty and the Responsibility of the UN to Protect

By Richard L. Dixon

In light of the ever changing Global Order, we find that the role, concept, and identity of

the nation-state have changed. The nation-state as we see it has been redefined in terms of

economic integration. Its role we can safely say is now that embraces the notion of quasi-

sovereignty that is projected beyond its traditional barriers and confinement of physical

territory. It has truly evolved from its traditional context. “A crucial force that

transformed the world of colonial empires into the world of independent territorial states

was nationalism, which arose in connection with popular sovereignty and liberalism and

helped generate independence movements in the colonial empires. Nationalism begin to

connect states with nations by inscribing the sovereign territorial state as the dominant

form of political organization throughout the world and by generating a variety of

particular experiences of nationhood, depending on specific historical situations. In short,

nationalism re-formed the state in an ordering of the political world that was nearly

global, and created a range of challenges to European supremacy and dominance within

the emerging global grid of territorial states.” (Walter C. Opello, Jr. and Stephen J.

Rosow, 1999).

It is important therefore within the framework of the definition of the traditional nation-

state that we explore further the idea of quasi-sovereignty and the role it has and

continues to play in the ever-evolving Global order. Thus we would define quasi-

sovereign states as a nation within a nation or a state within a state with self autonomous

rule but still falls under the jurisdiction of a dominant super-state. Its attributes are

cultural, racial, historical, and indigenous only to the citizens of that territory. Self
autonomous regimes that come to mind with full governmental structures are the former

British colonies of Bermuda, Bahamas, and Virgin Islands which fall under a common-

wealth status and the Native American tribes in the United States. Puerto Rice which is a

commonwealth territory of the United States also carries that distinction as well. In most

cases, these territories give up some autonomy in terms of having their own separate

Defense Forces.

We can characterize the major governments in the same way, in that they give up some

measure of autonomy through international agreement involving trade, military alliances,

and the settling of International disputes through the World Court of the Hague.

Countries have also found it easier to share in the protection of their vital national interest

by entering into Defense Alliances with organizations such as NATO. NATO has its own

separate governmental structure with a Secretary General that its member nations adhere

to. There are rules and procedures which sometimes supersedes the ones that are in

emplaced in its member nations. Finally within the last few years, nations have

relinquished the decisions and responsibilities of their National Judiciaries to the ICC

(International Criminal Court).

We find that the nations least likely to give up their sovereignty are the ones in the

emerging sector of the Global World Order. These countries include Cuba, Venezuela,

Ecuador, and Sri Lanka. These nations views themselves as Independent Mavericks who

seek to defy the influences of both the U.S. and EU which they consider an undue

infringement into their national affairs. To counter that influence, they have formed an

independent organization of their own which binds them together economically,

diplomatically, and politically. That movement is called NAM (The Movement of Non-

Aligned Countries).

“The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries was created and founded during the collapse

of the colonial system and the independence struggles of the peoples of Africa, Asia,

Latin America and other regions of the world and at the height of the Cold War. During

the early days of the Movement, its actions were a key factor in the decolonization

process, which led later to the attainment of freedom and independence by many

countries and peoples and to the founding of tens of new sovereign States. Throughout its

history, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries has played a fundamental role in the

preservation of world peace.

While some meetings with a third-world perspective were held before 1955, historians

consider that the Bandung Asian-African Conference is the most immediate antecedent to

the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement. This Conference was held on April 18-24,

1955 and gathered 29 Heads of States belonging to the first post-colonial generation of

leaders from the two continents with the aim of identifying and assessing world issues at

the time and pursuing out joint policies in international relations.” (NAM).

Under no uncertain terms am I giving support for this intergovernmental entity. A great

majority of them are authoritarian in nature, been listed as state sponsors of terror, or

have been charged with grave Human Rights violations. Yet their political versatility and

diversity range from the religious theocracy of Iran to the Mega democracy of India. My

purpose therefore is to acknowledge that they are a major player in the game of global

politics whose basic intentions are to hold on to all vestiges of national sovereignty. At

times they have played both a constructive and destructive role in the pursuit of conflict
resolution within the sphere of influence of the United Nations. A recent example would

be the conclusion of hostiles by the Sri Lanka government against the Tamil Tigers which

led to their crushing defeat and left thousands dead. The United Nations, EU, and the

United States tried to mediate an end to the Civil War. However the Sri Lankan

government rebuffed those efforts by claiming national sovereignty to settle its own

internal disputes. The least amount of criticism of Sri Lanka’s action came from NAM

and in some instances; the 118 member organization indirectly supported their cause

through backdoor diplomatic channels.

Understandably, all of these countries either have membership in other organizations such

as OPEC, OAS, Arab League, WTO, AESAN, and OAU. Therefore, to a certain extent

they already subscribe to certain checks and balances within these organizations. Since

they are sovereign states, there must be universal justification for intervention by the

International community. According to The International Commission on Intervention

and State Sovereignty in their document entitled “The Responsibility to Protect,” there

are four variables that must be met before military intervention into the foreign affairs of

a sovereign nation-state is initiated:

“The Precautionary Principles:

1. Right intention: The primary purpose of the intervention, whatever other motives

intervening states may have, must be to halt or avert human suffering. Right

intention is better assured with multilateral operations, clearly supported by

regional opinion and the victims concerned.

2. Last Resort: Military intervention can only be justified when every non-military

option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored,

with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded.

3. Proportional means: The scale, duration, and intensity of the planned military

intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the defined human

protection objective.

4. Reasonable Prospects: There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or

averting the suffering which has justified the intervention, with the consequences

of action not likely to be worst than the consequences of inaction.” (International

Development Research Centre, 2001).

Unless the country is a failed state such as Somalia or Haiti then there is no

justification for intervention. Then there is the question of what are the costs by the

international community into the affairs of another country? Clearly the humanitarian

crisis in Darfur, Sudan that is now taking place deserves direct intervention by the

international community. However, the cost to coalition forces could be disastrous in

terms of lost of human life, backlash by the militia, and terrorist attacks in other

capitals around the world. The presence of OAU troops in the Sudan to help stem the

tide of human life obviously has not worked. Eventually though, the International

Community will have to step in because there is a good chance that the raging Civil

War in Sudan will spill over into neighboring countries such as Chad and has the

potential to destabilize the whole East African region. What role does the UN play in

stabilizing potential fragile or failed states once the decision has been made to

intervene?
In Tony Judt’s article “Is the UN Dead,” we find a reoccurring theme when it comes to

the responsibility of the United Nations committing peacekeepers to unstable fragile

states in the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America, they are ill-prepared.

It is quite evident that the very nature of the United Nations was not set up to accomplish

the task of Peacekeeper as originally defined in its Charter. It has no standing Army,

Navy, or Air Force. It must rely on its member nations for money, troops, equipment,

supplies, and logistics. “Clearly, if the UN is to exercise its emerging "responsibility to

protect"— which was not part of its original remit or design—it needs an army of its own

(as Brian Urquhart, among others, has proposed). As things now stand, even when the

Security Council does agree to authorize a military mission the secretary-general has to

begin an interminable round of negotiations and cajoling for money, soldiers, policemen,

nurses, arms, trucks, and supplies. Without such additional assistance the organization is

helpless: in 1993, peacekeeping expenses alone exceeded the UN's entire annual budget

by over 200 percent. And therefore single-state interventions (the French in Côte d'Ivoire

or Chad, the British in Sierra Leone), or a sub-UN coalition such as the NATO attack on

Serbia in 1999, will continue to be faster and more effective solutions in a crisis than the

UN.” (Tony Judt, February 15, 2007).

Hence, the effectiveness of the UN Peacekeeping role is further hampered by the quality

of the troops that are provided as well as the equipment by both developed and emerging

nations. According to the Institute for Security Studies (which is a think tank out of

Tshwane (Pretoria), South Africa), troops from these countries have been proven to have

a lack of discipline because they are poorly supervised and as a direct result have

committed grievous Human Rights abuses. Some of these documented cases have
surprisedly come from troops originating out of Italy, Belgium, and Canada while in the

role as peacekeeper for the UN. “At the very least, allegations of serious atrocities

committed by peacekeepers date back to the time of the UN peacekeeping mission to

Somalia in 1997. Canadian, Belgian and Italian peacekeeping troops were alleged to have

been involved in atrocities. For example, certain Italian peacekeepers were alleged to

have pinned a man to the ground and shocked his genitals with wires from a radio

generator, whilst other Italian troops were alleged to have bound a woman to an armoured

truck and raped her with a flare gun. Belgian peacekeepers were alleged to have roasted a

boy over an open fire until his clothes caught alight. Canadian soldiers were alleged to

have conducted a 'turkey shoot' by setting out food and water to act as 'bait' to lure

hungry Somalis into shooting range. They were also alleged to have beaten a 16-year old

Somali boy to death after raping him with a baton. In most of these cases, it was reported

that there was 'hard evidence' in the form of photographs taken of the incidents by the

offending peacekeepers themselves. Some of the soldiers involved were charged by the

military authorities of their countries of origin, and some received short sentences of

imprisonment.” (Max Du Plessis and Stephen Pete, 2006).

It should also be noted that UN Peacekeepers from the AU (African Union) under the

auspices of the UN have committed grave human abuses as well.

 “7,000 man African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur under investigation for

raping and abusing local women and girls

 Refugees forced to endure rape at border crossings as “price of passage”

 Guards rape women or force them into sex in return for protection from bandits or

for basic goods, including food

 Presence of abusive guards inside camps, and bandits just outside, makes simple

tasks such as going to the latrine or gathering water or firewood dangerous/life

threatening.”(Martin Donohoe, 2008).

Therefore, the UN always hits a wall in trying to obtain quality Command Structures

from its wealthier member nations such as the US and the EU. Its member nations are

somewhat reluctant to commit both their troops and top leadership under an international

command structure because they fear that such an organization would trump their

sovereignty and decision-making abilities in regards to their military. It is quite evident

that the biggest obstacle for the deploying of troops on behalf of the United Nations

comes from the United States.

“Lately, however, the military's role has been significantly altered to include a new

category of national responsibility, that of protecting the undefined "vital interests of the

United States."

That phrase is broad enough to cover just about anything a President might want. And

recent Presidents have employed this very phrase to justify dispatching troops to the far
corners of the earth and to use them to enforce resolutions of the United Nations. This is

dangerously wrong.

The U.S. military was not created to be a mercenary force for sale to the highest bidder. It

is not supposed to act as a worldwide service club performing good deeds around the

globe. And no President has the legitimate authority to make our armed forces available

to a world government. The U.S. military is a taxpayer- supported force whose role is

limited by the Constitution of the United States to the defense of the lives and property of

our people and the independence of our nation.” (John F. McManus, 1995).

In recent years, the UN Peacekeeping role has taken on different dimensions of

peacekeeping. An emphasis has been placed on civilian sector security to guard non-

combatants from become fatalities of war, genocide, and flagrant human rights abuses

such as rape or torture. The UN’s inability to successfully broker a ceasefire between the

Sri Lankan government and Tamil Rebels is a textbook example of thousands of civilians

caught in the crossfire that were maimed and killed.

“In the past decade, security has emerged as a vital component of national and

international policy in conflict-affected societies. The end of the Cold War had a

tremendous impact on the concepts of governance, democracy and security. This is partly

because the threat of a world war, conventional or nuclear, was greatly reduced and broad

issues of human security, particularly democracy, became the new focus. As the

limitations of military-based security arrangements become more evident, it underscored

the need for new approaches to security that avoid the conflicts of the past between the

security interests of states and the security interests of their populations. These

developments have resulted in growing recognition of the need for the international
community to address the twin imperatives of security and development through more

integrated policies and programmes (A survey of security sector system reform and donor

policy 2003). This has also given rise to a range of new normative developments, policy

initiatives and operational programmes which are aimed at preventing and resolving

violent conflicts, consolidating peace following war, and facilitating reconstruction so as

to avoid renewed violence. The security sector reform (SSR) agenda is largely rooted in

the search for solutions to the challenges faced by multilateral and bilateral donors

concerned with development and peace consolidation in the aftermath of the cold war.”

(Medhane Tadesse, May 2007).

The spectrum of peacekeeping of the United Nations is often a daunting task. Over the

years, the emphasis has shifted from general peacekeeping to a multi-prong approach

which encompasses elements of peacekeeping, nation-building, and economic

development. The UN’s experiences in the past have taught it a very valuable lesson in

terms of how it approaches fragile nation22s that can quickly disintegrate into a failed

state status due to the volatility of the country. Often the UN integrates its overall

operational structures repairing the inner workings of a failed state such as Somalia with

that of regional nations in the same generalized area, NGO’s, and IGO’s such as the

African Union.

“Statebuilding, however, raises its own set of challenges. As mandates and time-frames of

postconflict missions expanded to accommodate the requirements of institution-building,

the problematic aspects of externally-assisted statebuilding became more apparent-and

troubling. To be sure, practitioners of statebuilding in the United Nations and other

international organizations have been aware of many of these problems. Issues such as
coordination and coherence, local ownership, legitimacy, capacity-building, dependency,

accountability, and exit are now commonly discussed in meetings of the UN

Peacebuilding Commission and elsewhere. But each of these problems emerged from

deeper tensions and contradictions that are less well understood: outside intervention

occurs in order to create self-government; international control is required to affect local

ownership; universal values clash with local peculiarities; long term goals may

contravene short term imperatives; and peace may require both a break with the past and

a reaffirmation of local history.” (Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk, November 2007).

The West African Region countries of Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Liberia are prime

examples of the challenges that the UN faces in pursuing an integrated approach in terms

of statebuilding in the areas of sector security, reconstruction, reintegration, and

economic development. Of the three, Ghana has been the most stable in terms of its

democratic reforms and cohesion. Sierra Leone and Liberia have experienced in the past,

the cycle of civil wars and ethnic conflict that is now engulfing the Democratic Republic

of the Congo. This has been especially true in Liberia where its former leader Charles

Taylor is now facing charges of Crimes against humanity in the custody of the ICC

(International Criminal Court) because of the ethnic tinged atrocities committed by him

and his cohorts while in power. Therefore, the main foundation that serves in the UN’s

approach in terms of state-building is providing sector security to safeguard the problem

when an emerging nation makes a transition from failed to fragile state.

“Countries emerging from conflict pose of the greatest challenges for security sector

reform due to weak state capacity and institutions, a diffusion of coercive power across

competing groupings, and the resulting political bargains struck between powerful elites
at the expense of society at large. In such a hostile environment, reform tends to focus on

the practical or proximate, including restructuring and training military and police forces,

rather than on aspects of security sector governance. Thus, despite the growing inclusion

of security sector reform as a core component of UN Security Council-mandated peace

operations and bilateral engagement.” (Jack Sherman, March 2009).

Indeed those countries such as Ghana that are able to overcome the hurdles of

establishing and implementing sector security initiatives in concert with the United

Nations are the ones most successful in stabilizing their societies in guarding against the

scrooges of ethnic cleansing, genocide, torturing, and raping of non-combatants as in the

case in the Darfur Region of the Sudan. “Nonetheless, in Ghana-where the contribution

of parliament to a democratic and accountable security sector that is reflective of the

needs of society at large has been sporadic-less progress has been made in increasing

parliament’s oversight role that might have been expected. Thus early inclusion of

parliament’s oversight role than might been expected. Thus early inclusion of

parliamentary oversight is important, but immediate benefits may be less apparent.

Indeed, a tragic irony is that the complete of the security architecture of the state (as in

Liberia and Sierra Leone) provides a more permissive and enabling environment for SSR

than non-conflict contexts (as in Ghana). (Jack Sherman).

The success of the post-conflict building process by the UN depends not only on the

cooperation of its stable member-nations, but also the continuous interaction with the

NGO’s and IGO’s within the region. Processes such as immediate mediation and

consultation are key cores to rapidly reintegrating a failed state into the sphere of the

World Community.
Yet there are even situations where the ineffectiveness in bringing peace and stability to a

particular country or region has prompted one of its member states to take matters into

their own hands to rectify the situation. This is especially true when it comes to European

countries intervening in the best interest of their former colonies, this includes the

countries of Chad, Côte d'Ivoire by the French, the Congo by Belgium, and Sierra Leone

by the British. Since I have been elaborating on the Sector Security of Sierra Leone, I will

confine my analysis in this essay to that country.

In my examination of the internal structures of Sierra Leone, one can readily agree that

conditions have somewhat improved since the rebel movement in that nation was put

down by the SAS detachment, Royal Marines, and various other British Military

Advisors. The SAS operation against the West Side Boys (authorized by then Prime

Minister Tony Blair) to rescue six British soldiers held as hostages was a prime example

of the effectiveness of the British Military to bring stability in that war-torn country.

“Although the Office of the UN Secretary-General strongly would prefer the British to

join the UN operation, it is in no position to criticize Sierra Leone's former colonial

power. While the largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world is shrinking, despite

plans to expand the troops, Britain has been able to strengthen its presence in Sierra

Leone.

This week only, a taskforce of 500 Royal Marines arrived in Freetown to reinforce the

British soldiers already training the Sierra Leonean military. Meanwhile, the UN is not

able to recruit the 7,000 troops that are still missing in its operation, and the large Indian

and Jordanian contingents are leaving Sierra Leone.

Thus, the UN is growing more dependent on the increasing British presence in Sierra

Leone to achieve is goals. The British further are reported to be popular with most Sierra

Leoneans, for their effective handling of the rebels and as there in general is little faith in

the UN.

British Government troops first intervened in Sierra Leone in May this year, after the

capture of UNAMSIL troops by the RUF. British paratroopers in September raided a

camp of the "West Side Boys" rebel group freeing six British military hostages and a

Sierra Leonean soldier. This raid started what has led to the disintegration of the "West

Side Boys".

The British Ministry of Defence quickly dismissed the criticism by UN General Garba,

saying "the aim of the exercise was to demonstrate Britain's ability to react quickly in the

country if need arose," according to the BBC. Given Britain's key position in Sierra

Leone, one cannot expect any public statements by UN officials protesting against this

statement.” (Afrol.com, November 17, 2000).

Based on documented eyewitness accounts, the ruthless actions of the RUF Rebels and

the West Side Boys clearly demonstrated that they weren’t really revolutionaries at all,

but instead a murdering band of thugs and criminals who routinely terrorized the

population through indiscriminate killing and trading in conflict diamonds to buy boozes

and drugs. It is quite apparent that conditions in Sierra Leone had quickly disintegrated in

the country before the interdiction of British Troops into its former colony. The United

Nations Peacekeeping Force failed to protect the citizens from the exploits of the West

Side Boys and the RUF which included rape, murder, and forcing women and children to

work as slave laborers. The British intervention in Sierra Leone was to prevent a repeat of
the failures in Rwanda due to inaction by the UN. The lack of response by the UN to the

deteriorating situation in Rwanda, inadvertently led to the genocide and ethnic cleansing

that killed millions in that country. Without the help of the British Military, there was a

real possibility that conditions in Sierra Leone during that time period would have

declined in the same general direction.

Conditions have readily improved in terms of SSR (Strengthening Security Sector) in

Sierra Leone since the rebellion was put down by both the government and British

Troops. “The SSR program in Sierra Leone, which began in 1999 under the auspices of

the United Kingdom, has been undertaken with considerable international involvement

and national participation. Successes have included the reconceptualization of national

security as people-centered, the inclusion of SSR as a pillar of the country’s Poverty

Reduction Strategy Paper, and decentralization of security architecture to focus on

Peacebuilding. Shortly after its independence from the British in 1961, Sierra Leone

enjoyed relative stability as a democratic state until 1967 when the elected government

was overthrown by a military coup.”(Jack Sherman, March 2009).

The question that needs to be asked regarding the situation in Sierra Leone is why was

the UN Peacekeeping force so ineffective in helping to maintain stability in Sierra Leone?

Why has it been ineffective in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo,

whereas on the other hand, the French has been much successful in helping to keep order

in its former colonies of Chad and the Côte d’Ivoire? The answers to these questions is

that the UN is steeped in corruption, overburden by a bloated bureaucracy, has inept

leadership at the top, and is seriously underfunded.

“The UN needs many things. It needs to acquire intelligence-gathering capacities of its

own, certainly, the better to anticipate and analyze crises. It needs to become more

efficient at making and implementing decisions; it could slim down its overlapping

committees and programs, rationalize its regulations, legislation, conferences, and

spending. And it needs to be far more aware than it has been hitherto of incompetence

and corruption. As Kofi Annan himself has acknowledged, the UN management is "a

problem...in need of reform." (Tony Judt, FEBRUARY 15, 2007).

Even through the UN as an institution has made critical errors in the past (especially

under the leadership of Kofi Annan); it still represents the best hope in acting as a

counterbalance in an unstable world. “For all the UN’s faults, it is the best mechanism

available. It cannot simply be condemned to the scrap heap in favour of a community of

democracies. As attractive as such a proposal may be, it could never have the moral

authority and legitimacy of the UN. It is the fact that membership of the UN is universal

that makes it so valuable. In addition, there is no reason to suppose that an organisation

made up exclusively of democracies would be more willing to address human rights

abuses. The EU, for example, has been notoriously reluctant to take action against

regimes which brutalise their own people, particularly when sanctions might jeopardise

investments.” (John Bercow MP and Victoria Roberts).

Therefore, the proper answer to Tony Judt’s question “Is the UN Doomed would be an

indefinite no. What is needed though is a thorough house cleaning of the entrenched

bureaucracy starting from the Top-down and bottom-up. Member states must take the

lead in reforming and fixing the inner workings of the UN. Both the member states and

the UN possess the talents from all walks of life to take on such a complex task.
Improving the governmental structure at the UN will takes years to resolve and straighten

out. The question that should be asked is when will these reforms take and not if they will

occur.
 Endnotes

1. Walter O. Opello, Jr. and Stephen J. Rosow, the Nation-State and Global Order: A

Historical Introduction to Contemporary Politics, 2nd. Ed., (Boulder, CO: Lynne

Rienner Publishers, 1999), 124.

2. NAM (The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries), “Background Information

(International Context, Founders, Principles),” NAM,

http://canada.cubanoal.cu/ingles/index.html (accessed August 29, 2009).

3. International Development Research Centre, “The Responsibility to Protect,”

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa, ON:

International Development Research Centre, 2001), xii.

4. Tony Judt, “Is the UN Doomed? New York Review of Books, VOLUME 54, NUMBER
2 (FEBRUARY 15, 2007).

5. Max Du Plessis, and Stephen Pete, “Who Guards the Guards; the International

Criminal Court and Serious Crimes Committed by Peacekeepers in Africa,” ISS

Monograph Series, No. 121 (Tshwane (Pretoria), South Africa: Institute for

Security Studies, 2006), 5.

6. Martin Donohoe, War, Rape, and Genocide: Never Again? PPT, (2008)

phsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/war-rape-and-genocide.ppt (accessed

August 29, 2009).

7. John F. McManus, Changing Commands: The Betrayal of America’s Military,

(Appleton, WI: John Birch Society, 1995), 11.

8. Medhane Tadesse, “Overcoming Challenges for Security Sector Reform in the

Horn of Africa,” in Challenges to Security Sector Reform in the Horn of Africa,

 ed. Len Le Roux and Yemane Kidane, ISS Monograph Series, No. 135 (May

2007), 69.

9. Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk, “Managing Contradictions: The Inherent

Dilemmas of Postwar Statebuilding,” Research Partnership on Postwar

Statebuilding, International Peace Academy (November 2007), 3.

10. Jack Sherman, “Strengthening Security Sector Governance in West Africa,”

Center on International Cooperation, New York University (March 2009), 7.

11. Ibid, 6.

12. Afrol.com, “British Troops Powerful Factor in Sierra Leone,” November 17,

2000, http://www.afrol.com/News/sil047_british_power.htm (accessed August 29,

2009).

13. Jack Sherman, “Strengthening Security Sector Governance in West Africa,”

Center on International Cooperation, New York University (March 2009), 5.

14.Tony Judt.

15. John Bercow MP and Victoria Roberts, “Promote Freedom or Protect Oppressors:

The Choice at the UN Review Summit, the Foreign Policy Centre September

2005), 1.