[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       TRIBUTE TO PREEYA NORONHA

                                 ______


                            HON. CURT WELDON

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 13, 1994

  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, 
Preeya Noronha, a senior at the Academy of Notre Dame De Namur in 
Villanova, who recently received first place in the Pennsylvania 
competition of the National Peace Essay contest.
  As our Nation's leading newspapers report daily on the continuing 
turmoil abroad, it is important for our youth to understand the 
critical role the United States plays in world peace. Since launching 
the National Peace Essay contest in 1987, the U.S. Institute of Peace 
has encouraged students across the country to actively discuss the 
international peace process.
  The contestants were asked this year to examine the role of the 
United Nations in peacekeeping, and assess whether or not the United 
Nations should intervene in internal conflicts. For the Record, I 
submit Preeya's award-winning essay, ``The Need for an Interventionist 
United Nations.''
  In conclusion, I commend Preeya and her fellow essay contestants who 
have dedicated their energy toward comprehending the magnitude of 
international peace.

             The Need for an Interventionist United Nations

       In the midst of the Civil War Abraham Lincoln said that 
     ``the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy 
     present. We must think anew and act anew.''\1\ With the end 
     of the Cold War, a barrier which has prevented the United 
     Nations from reaching its ultimate potential has fallen. We 
     are now living in a new world order, and our actions and 
     attitudes must adjust accordingly. To effectively face the 
     challenges of this contemporary era, countries should shed 
     the hindrance of national sovereignty and undertake a policy 
     of collective security and multilateralism through an 
     interventionist United Nations, a policy in which one 
     nation's concern is every nation's concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The idea of institutionalizing collective security was 
     first advocated by President Woodrow Wilson. His vision took 
     the form of the League of Nations, yet ironically, Wilson's 
     own country did not agree with his notion of post-World War I 
     world supervision. Isolationism once again enveloped American 
     foreign policy and Congress refused to join the League. 
     Undoubtedly, Wilson's concept failed, and the evils of 
     national sovereignty, evident in the world's indifference 
     toward the 1930s maneuvers of Adolf Hitler, spawned our 
     Second World War.
       The lessons of World War II prompted the global community 
     to create an collective institution ``to maintain 
     international peace and security,'' and the United Nations 
     was born. However, despite the emphasis on ``collective 
     measures'' in the U.N. Charter, the basis of the document is 
     national sovereignty.\2\ The U.N. is in fact an association 
     of diverse independent States and can do only what its 
     members have ascribed it to do. Yet practicality in our 
     modern environment demands that we discard the notion of 
     individual autonomy and adopt multilateralism as the sole 
     protector of ``better standards of life in larger freedom.'' 
     The influence of national supremacy is particularly evident 
     in Article Two of the U.N. Charter, which claims that 
     ``Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize 
     the United Nations to intervene in matters which are 
     essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.'' 
     However in principle and in practice, Article 1 has taken 
     precedence over this clause. In order ``to maintain 
     international peace and security'' and ``take effective 
     collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats 
     to the peace,'' oftentimes it is essential to intervene in 
     conflicts under domestic jurisdiction. Secretary-General 
     Boutros-Ghali has said that ``the misuse of state sovereignty 
     may jeopardize a peaceful global life. Civil wars are no 
     longer civil, and the carnage they inflict will not let the 
     world remain indifferent.''\3\ In addition, Article 2 itself 
     allows this intervention by concluding, ``but this principle 
     shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures 
     under Chapter VII.''
       There are several justifications for external intervention 
     in civil strife. Besides the direct involvement of 
     neighboring countries militarily, an increasing problem 
     concerning internal conflict is the effect of refugees on 
     those nations. The refugee crisis is greatest in Africa, 
     where unrest in Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, 
     Mozambique, and Angola have prompted millions of citizens 
     to flee to other African nations. Streams of refugees 
     present an immense quandary to those countries that permit 
     them to enter, destabilizing them politically, 
     economically, and ethnically. Moreover, the displaced are 
     forced to inhabit refugee camps, often maintained in 
     deplorable conditions. In short, domestic strife usually 
     negatively affects surrounding countries, and consequently 
     is a concern of global status.
       Another consideration that warrants an interventionist 
     United Nations is that of human rights. Boris Yeltsin said 
     that human rights ``are not an internal matter of States, but 
     rather obligations under the U.N. Charter'' and that the 
     Security Council has a ``collective responsibility for the 
     protection of human rights and freedoms.''\4\ A recent 
     example of this preservation is the precedent set within U.N. 
     Resolution 688, which argued that the situation with the 
     Kurdish refugees threatened international stability, even 
     though external military intervention was used to prevent 
     Iraq from oppressing its own citizens in its own 
     territory.\5\ Humanitarian assistance is a moral commitment 
     in the world today and a legitimate reason for intervention, 
     even in domestic affairs. ``Today sovereignty must meet its 
     limits in the responsibility of States for mankind as a whole 
     * * * When human rights are trampled underfoot, the family of 
     nations is not confined to the role of spectator * * * It 
     must intervene.''\6\
       Ultimately, the question is not whether the United Nations 
     should intervene in domestic affairs, but how. Common methods 
     of arbitration in recent conflicts have taken the form of 
     humanitarian assistance, the monitoring of elections, 
     temporary governmental administration, and the repatriation 
     of refugees. Economic sanctions, though widely used, are not 
     always efficient. Currently employed in both Iraq and Haiti 
     in efforts to oust governing bodies, sanctions have resulted 
     in only an outbreak of cholera due to poor sewage treatment 
     in Iraq and an upsurge of Haitian refugees to the United 
     States. Consequently, peacekeeping, and now, peacemaking, are 
     viewed as more competent methods of intervention.
       Originally, the creators of the U.N. intended to have an 
     armed force for ``maintaining international peace and 
     security,'' but this clause of Chapter VII of the Charter has 
     been replaced with peacekeeping. ``The vision of the U.N. was 
     downsized from world policeman to volunteer fire 
     brigade.''\7\ The Blue Helmets, the beacon United Nations 
     peacekeeping force, may only use their light weapons in self-
     defense. Yet in today's post-Cold War conditions, 
     peacekeeping alone does not seem to fulfill the Charter's 
     goals.
       The conflicts in Korea and the Persian Gulf, although 
     commonly referred to as ``U.N. operations,'' were under the 
     control of the United States. The current domestic strife in 
     Somalia, however, has set a true precedent for the use of 
     force in U.N. operations. After humanitarian efforts proved 
     futile, the United Nations authorized its members to use 
     ``all necessary means'' to ensure that aid is available to 
     the victims of the civil unrest in Somalia. In Yugoslavia, as 
     negotiations are unavailing, it seems that the only method 
     of halting the ``ethnic cleansing'' and other aggression 
     is the use of force. This full-scale intervention truly 
     fulfills the original intentions of the creators of the 
     United Nations: ``to save succeeding generations from the 
     scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought 
     untold sorrow to mankind'' at any cost, because conflict 
     anywhere is a danger to peace everywhere.
       This purpose also insists the need for preventive 
     deployment of forces in areas of potential unrest. Boutros-
     Ghali claims that ``Peace-keeping is a technique that expands 
     the possibilities for both the prevention of conflict and the 
     making of peace.''\8\ The Security Council has also supported 
     preventive deployment on a case-by-case basis in zones of 
     instability and political crisis.\9\ In fact, several tragic 
     instances in history could have been avoided if the United 
     Nations responded quickly and in a preventive fashion. For 
     example, after the SWAPO troops invaded Namibia, the South 
     African-led Namibian Security forces were compelled to 
     retaliate. If the United Nations had reacted more quickly to 
     the situation, a bloody period in Namibian history could 
     possibly have been avoided.\10\ History's lessons are being 
     heeded, as the first preventive operation in the chronicle of 
     U.N. peace-keeping was just recently deployed in the former 
     Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In short, a more creative 
     balance needs to be struck among humanitarian action, 
     diplomatic initiative, and military pressure, anticipating 
     problems before they become more difficult to resolve.
       The central argument against a highly interventionist 
     United Nations is that there are simply not enough resources 
     and too much bureaucracy to effectively deal with global 
     situations. The U.N. system remains a highly decentralized 
     body consisting not only of the Secretariat, Security 
     Council, and General Assembly, which deal with political 
     and security issues, but also of sixteen specialized 
     agencies, which are budgeted and run independently of the 
     central organization. Peace-keeping missions are run on an 
     ``ad hoc'' basic, which cause conflicts to become more 
     tense, (and therefore more difficult to resolve,) by the 
     time the U.N. is able to become involved. Another problem 
     is the lack of resources, including finances, personnel, 
     and equipment. Consequently, in order for the United 
     Nations to ideally fulfill the intentions of its creators, 
     reforms must be conducted. Although there is increased 
     consensus due to the end of East-West tensions, the 
     hierarchy must be restructured, including widening the 
     elitist Security Council and abandoning the single veto 
     power. The entire system should be centralized to reduce 
     costs and minimize waste. Finally, as the Charter 
     originally intended, the United Nations should have a 
     standing military force composed from its member countries 
     to effectively and quickly handle dangers to global peace 
     and harmony.\11\
       The needs of our global community require an 
     interventionist collective institution ``to maintain 
     international peace and security.'' To achieve this end, it 
     is often necessary to arbitrate a domestic conflict through 
     the use of force. The United Nations must rise to the 
     challenge of this new and dynamic era, and ensure humanity 
     that freedom, justice, equality, and peace ``will not perish 
     from the face of the earth.''\12\


                               footnotes

     \1\John Logue. ``The New U.N. Charter Approach for Achieving 
     World Federation.'' A New World Order, Can It Bring Security 
     to the World's People? Washington, DC: World Federalist 
     Association, September 1991: 113.
     \2\Elsa B. Endrst. ``A Look Back . . . The U.N. at 45.'' U.N. 
     Chronicle, March 1991: 41.
     \3\Tad Daley. ``Can the U.N. Stretch to Fit Its Future?'' 
     Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. April 1992: 38.
     \4\Ibid., 40.
     \5\Ibid., 40.
     \6\Ibid., 41.
     \7\Michael G. Renner. ``A Force for Peace.'' World Watch, 
     July/August 1992: 28.
     \8\``U.N. operations: Not only expanding, but breaking new 
     ground.'' U.N. Chronicle, September 1991: 45.
     \9\``The 38th Floor; Security Council Concludes `Agenda For 
     Peace' Meetings.'' U.N. Chronicle, September 1993: 3.
     \10\Kathryn Damm. ``Global Security: Should There Be a 
     Standing United Nations Police Force? Or a United Nations 
     Peacekeeping Reserve?'' A New World Order, Can It Bring 
     Security to the World's People? September 1991: 8.
     \11\``The 14-Point Program to Reform and Restructure the U.N. 
     System.'' Washington DC: Campaign for U.N. Reform, February 
     1992.
     \12\Abraham Lincoln. ``The Gettysburg Address.'' postcard 
     (Washington DC: National Parks and Historical Monuments 
     Association; 1992).


                              bibliography

       ``Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the 
     International Court of Justice.'' New York: United Nations, 
     1993.
       Cleveland, Harlan. ``Rethinking International Governance.'' 
     Futurist, May/June 1991: 20-27.
       Cooper, Mary H. ``A Revitalized United Nations in the 
     1990s.'' Editorial Research Reports, July 27, 1990: 429-442.
       Daley, Tad. ``Can the U.N. Stretch to Fit its Future?'' 
     Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1993: 38-42.
       Damm, Kathryn, ``Global Security: Should There Be a 
     Standing United Nations Police Force? Or a United Nations 
     Peacekeeping Reserve?'' A New World Order; Can It Bring 
     Security to the World's People?, September 1991: 6-12.
       Endrst, Elsa B. ``A Look Back . . . The U.N. at 45.'' U.N. 
     Chronicle, March 1991: 41-44.
       Frye, William R. ``United Nations, what role in the new 
     world?'' Great Decisions, 1993: 15-24.
       Logue, John. ``The New U.N. Charter Approach for Achieving 
     World Federation.'' A New World Order: Can It Bring Security 
     to the World's People?, September 1991: 113-119.
       Renner, Michael G. ``A Force for Peace.'' World Watch, 
     July/August 1992: 26-33.
       ``The 14-Point Program to Reform and Restructure the U.N. 
     System.'' Washington DC: Campaign for U.N. Reform, February 
     1992.
       ``The 38th Floor; Security Council concludes `Agenda for 
     Peace' meetings.'' U.N. Chronicle, September 1993: 2-3.
       ``U.N. operations: Not only expanding, but breaking new 
     ground.'' U.N. Chronicle, September 1993, 42-45.
       ``U.N. Strike Could Change the Rules for Peacekeeping.'' 
     St. Petersburg Times, June 13, 1993: 1A+.

                          ____________________