The limits of intervention
0 
The idea that the United Nations will always place sovereignty above human rights is obviously one-sided. The UN was set up precisely to correct this imbalance. It has created a legal framework for intervening in a country's internal affairs as the representative of the international system, as well as the organizational and material basis to support interventions. In past decades, when extreme situations have arisen, the UN, under the terms of its Charter, has intervened in the internal affairs of certain countries, most recently when it imposed economic and financial sanctions on Libya, an action that was supported by China.
There are of course many long-term, staunch defenders of the principle of non-interference. But the concept of absolute non-interference in other countries' internal affairs is one that dates from before the creation of the UN. To stick unconditionally to this principle would be to depart from the United Nations Charter. No decent person would want to see this, and it would be an impossible policy to follow in practice. A doctrine of conditional and limited intervention best fits both the reality as well as an ideal model of international relations.
China has always resolutely opposed interference by other countries in its internal affairs. But we are constantly reviewing and adjusting our actions, the only criterion being whether the adjustments are in our interests. China eschews interference in the internal affairs of other countries, but we cannot entirely and unconditionally stick to this principle. The history of New China is full of expressions of sympathy and support for oppressed people around the world. Strictly speaking, this amounts to interference. But this kind of moral action does not require the approval of the United Nations or any other international organization. It simply reflects China's humanitarian standpoint. Furthermore, every time we have behaved this way, our moral standing in the world has improved.
We should also bear in mind that intervention can take place on several levels. The Libyan government's repression of anti-government activities although they were, in a sense, within the bounds of its sovereignty, went beyond what was permissible, creating chaos and killings. They therefore, quite legitimately, attracted international sanctions. That we can agree on. But taking countermeasures against an attempt to overthrow it by force of arms is the legitimate right of any government. In these circumstances, for the United Nations to intervene with armed force smacks of illegitimate interference. The latest resolution adopted by the Security Council (China abstained on this vote) that allowed France and other countries to begin an aerial bombardment, went far beyond limited intervention and, frankly, constituted an abuse of the principle of limited intervention.
The purpose of the United Nations is to guarantee security and development for the people of all countries, and the Libyan government has inescapable duties in this regard. At the same time, other countries have a duty not to interfere in Libya's internal affairs, unless faced with a humanitarian disaster. The chaos of civil war means the Libyan government is in no position to guarantee the security of either its own citizens or expatriates within its territory. Internal chaos has been accompanied by an outflow of refugees. Given this situation, each affected country has the right to do its utmost to rescue its citizens from difficulty.
The sanctions imposed on the Libyan leadership by the Security Council were entirely legitimate, even though they constituted interference in Libya's internal affairs. But intervention should stop there and go no further. For Western countries use the United Nations flag to support one side in the Libyan civil war goes beyond the bounds of legitimate intervention. What abyss awaits them, we cannot yet know.
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn For more information please visit http://m.keyanhelp.cn/opinion/node_7082361.htm
(This article was written in Chinese and translated by John Sexton.)
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
