["America's Defense Monitor" program introduction.]

NARRATOR: During the Cold War era, military planning by both the United States and the Soviet Union was driven by the potential for conflict with each other. From 1975 till the end of the Cold War, the United States deployed its forces in various parts of the world 27 times -- from Lebanon, to Panama, to Grenada, to Haiti. As long as the Soviet threat existed, most decisions to use force were guided by the desire to defend and expand the democratic community while avoiding a direct conflict with Moscow.

The United Nations, which was created in 1948 to maintain peace among nations, often found itself relegated to the sidelines as the two superpowers competed for prestige and domination. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights entrusts the UN with protecting the rights of individuals. The UN is the only organization under international law authorized to approve the use of force against a sovereign state. But the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France, the five permanent members of the Security Council, have veto power, so the international body more often than not found itself unable to act as many of the Cold War's tragedies unfolded.

Human rights were relegated to a secondary role, used as a justification for intervention when needed, but ignored when allies were guilty of human rights violations. The United States often supported African and Latin American dictators and for many years even recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia despite the millions who were dying at their hands.

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Cold War ended. Former enemies embraced freedom and democracy. Some, like Poland and Hungary, even petitioned for and were granted membership in NATO. For a brief moment, it seemed that peace would reign forever. Some even proclaimed "the end of history" as we know it.

History, however, proved difficult to bend to our hopes. New conflicts soon broke out, first in Iraq, then Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda, to name a few.

Ambassador MARY ROBINSON:

"...in spite of governments' undertakings and their legal obligations, every day there are fresh, terrible examples of human rights abuses in many parts of the world."

NARRATOR: Mary Robinson is the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Ambassador ROBINSON:

"And the public response is, understandably, why can't we do more about gross human rights violations."

NARRATOR: The number of the United Nations' peacekeeping missions skyrocketed. The United States military is now more extensively involved abroad than it was during the Cold War.

One of the most significant actions was the United States and its NATO allies using their formidable military might to curb Yugoslavia's massive human rights violations against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. NATO intervened even though there was neither a threat to US national interests nor to its allies. There were no mineral resources in Kosovo vital to the United States. Yet the United States, acting without UN Security Council approval, led a 78-day bombing campaign to halt the killings and the expulsion of Kosovar Albanians by Yugoslavia. Some would say that the world's democracies gave hope to minorities everywhere who are oppressed by their own rulers.

Ambassador ROBINSON:

"Governments accused of human rights abuses may still try to hide behind the veil of national sovereignty, but it's a position that is increasingly hard to sustain, particularly when it is a case of gross violations of human rights. Even those governments which are the worst offenders realize that internationally-agreed human rights norms are not going to go away."

NARRATOR: But have the rules changed for everyone? And even though defense of human rights is a noble goal, will we pay a price for disrespecting state borders?

NARRATOR: Kosovo, a province in southeastern Yugoslavia, is home to almost two million ethnic Albanians. They make up over 90 percent of the population. For decades, Kosovo has been the site of a struggle between ethnic Albanians and Serbs over control of the province. Even though the Serb population was declining in Kosovo, the province has retained a special religious and historical significance to them. But the Serb abuse of their power over the province in the last years pushed the Albanian majority into rebellion.

In 1989, the Yugoslav government dismissed the Kosovar leadership and transferred most powers, such as control over the police and courts, to the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade. The Kosovars responded in 1990 by declaring their independence and launched a non-violent movement to secede from the federation. But their appeals for help from the international community fell on deaf ears.

The West was too preoccupied with another Balkan crisis, Bosnia. Tensions between the Serbs and the Kosovars grew more heated. The Yugoslav police began arresting and persecuting supporters of independence. Disenchanted Albanian Kosovars formed an armed separatist group called the Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA, and soon the conflict claimed its first victims.

While the international community watched, Kosovo slid into chaos. Thousands of people died and refugees poured over Kosovo's borders to neighboring countries. Last-minute diplomatic efforts failed to resolve the dispute or stop the carnage.

The only international body with the authority to order a military attack against a sovereign nation is the United Nations Security Council. But two members of the Council, Russia and China, signaled they would use their veto power to keep NATO from gaining UN approval for a bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. This presented NATO with a dilemma.

Should they ignore the inability of the UN to act and proceed to take unilateral military action to prevent a government from massacring its own citizens? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees each person the right to life and liberty -- a right Serb forces were clearly violating by indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. But without the Security Council's approval, attacking Yugoslavia would be an apparent violation of the UN Charter. In the end, the human rights argument prevailed and in March the bombing campaign began.

President Clinton, visiting US troops in Macedonia shortly after the war, promised help for victims of government oppression everywhere.

President BILL CLINTON (by narrator):

"Whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background, or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it."

NARRATOR: The news media hailed the dawn of a new doctrine which envisioned the United States as the protector of human rights worldwide. But once again, those calling for such a new doctrine had their hopes dashed. A few days after President Clinton's speech, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright downplayed the talk of this doctrine.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT:

"Some hope and others fear that Kosovo will be a precedent for similar interventions around the globe. I would caution against any such sweeping conclusions. Every circumstance is unique. Decisions on the use of force will be made by any president on a case-by-case basis after weighing a host of factors."

NARRATOR: Even as peacekeepers began the task of helping Kosovars rebuild their country, another conflict halfway around the world would soon prove that things were still very much the same.

NARRATOR: The islands forming the Republic of Indonesia span thousands of miles, from southeast Asia to the northern coast of Australia. This diverse republic of a "thousand islands" has long been a key ally of the United States. In 1975, Indonesia forcefully annexed East Timor, a former Portuguese colony roughly the size of Massachusetts. Over 200,000 people died in the violence that followed the Indonesian takeover.

Two leaders of the East Timor independence movement, Bishop Carlos Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996 for their non-violent struggle against Indonesian occupation. After 24 years of oppression, the cause of East Timorese independence was enhanced when the Indonesian president, General Suharto, was forced out of power in May 1998 and the new president, Habibie, called for the referendum on East Timor's political status in August 1999.

But the Indonesian army refused to allow East Timor to go peacefully. Local militia groups -- many armed and assisted by the Indonesian military -- began attacking the civilian populations. The violence escalated when in August 1999 the East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence in a UN-sponsored referendum. In fighting eerily reminiscent of Kosovo, entire towns were burned. Over 200,000 people, a quarter of East Timor's population, were driven from their homes and hundreds were killed.

Ambassador ROBINSON:

"The awful abuses committed in East Timor shocked the world. And rightly so, since it would be hard to conceive of a more blatant assault on the rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians."

NARRATOR: A small United Nations mission in East Timor was unable to stop the violence and most personnel left the country in fear for their lives. Like the Kosovars in Yugoslavia, the East Timorese looked to the international community -- and the United States -- for help.

But those expecting swift decision and action were disappointed. This time, the United States was unwilling to intervene against an old ally, Indonesia.

SANDY BERGER, National Security Advisor (by narrator):

"I don't think anybody ever articulated a doctrine which said that we ought to intervene wherever there is a humanitarian problem. That's not a doctrine, that's just the kind of prescription for America to be all over the world and ineffective."

NARRATOR: Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor to President Clinton, says that the lessons of Kosovo don't apply in every case where human rights are abused.

Mr. BERGER (by narrator):

"Because we bomb Kosovo doesn't mean we should bomb Dili. I mean, I think that we have to recognize that Indonesia is in Asia, that the Indonesians will respond much better to a solution here that is dominated by the Asians and not dominated by the United States."

NARRATOR: Unlike Kosovo, force would not be used in East Timor without the permission of the very government which was responsible for most of the killings and deportations. Unlike in Yugoslavia, Indonesia's rights as a sovereign state were respected.

Eventually, after intense diplomatic pressure, Indonesian forces withdrew from East Timor and an international peacekeeping force led by Australia was set in place. But if the showdown over East Timor proved anything, it was that interventions to stop human rights abuses would be on an ad hoc basis.

So, the question remains: When are the rights of sovereign states to be respected and when will they be ignored in order to defend human rights even without UN Security Council approval?

MICHAEL O'HANLON: There's no one policy and I don't think there will be or can be.

NARRATOR: Michael O'Hanlon is a Senior Policy Fellow at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. He says that a sovereign state's rights should be respected if there is a reasonable chance that the government will behave responsibly.

Mr. O'HANLON: The fact that we had a government in Indonesia that we were trying to work with and that showed some signs of trying to reform made it important to try to work out a deal with them. Whereas, against Serbia and Milosevic, we knew there was really no realistic compromise.

NARRATOR: O'Hanlon believes that where a country itself is the instigator of violence, such as during the slaughter of the Tutsi minority in the African country of Rwanda, the offending government forfeits the sovereign status accorded to it under the UN Charter.

Mr. O'HANLON: Certainly, the world should have stopped the Rwanda genocide in 1994. And any kind of theoretical talk about the sovereignty of Rwanda was not important compared to the fact that almost a million people were killed.

NARRATOR: But the sanctity of international borders cannot be violated without a price.

MICHAEL INTRILIGATOR: We should not violate sovereignty.

NARRATOR: Michael Intriligator is an economist at the University of California in Los Angeles and the vice-chair of Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, a non-profit research group.

Mr. INTRILIGATOR: Only under the most extreme circumstances could we violate sovereignty and then only with the permission of the United Nations Security Council. That's the system that we set up and we subscribe to that system. We even fought the Gulf War to preserve that system because Saddam Hussein had violated that system, and then we turn around and violate the system ourselves.

NARRATOR: Intriligator believes that if respect for state borders is lost, other countries will use the precedent to subdue smaller nations or to settle old conflicts. An intervention on behalf of human rights could also backfire by encouraging more conflicts elsewhere.

Mr. INTRILIGATOR: This creates a very bad precedent all over the world, that countries can go into other countries and violate their sovereignty if they can make up some pretext or some argument for why they're doing so. So, I think this was not in the best interests of the United States.

NARRATOR: There are other risks to humanitarian interventions. The Russians were deeply offended by our attack on their old ally, Yugoslavia. And then we alienated China when a US B-2 bomber bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake. Beijing is especially sensitive to suggestions that a military alliance, using human rights as a pretext, can violate the borders of another country at will. China has frequently been criticized by the United States for its human rights abuses against its own citizens, especially in Tibet.

Humanitarian interventions are almost always very expensive. The air war against Yugoslavia cost the US taxpayers around $6 billion. The rebuilding of Kosovo will be even more expensive. The United Nations and a multinational Kosovo Force, KFOR, were left in charge of everything from trash collection to policing the roads in Kosovo at the cost of billions of dollars each year. With the number of missions rising, the costs are putting an increasing strain on the defense budget. The Pentagon has sought and received additional funds for peacekeeping.

Mr. INTRILIGATOR: There's no end to problems of a humanitarian nature. If we wanted to, we could fight continuously wars all over the world because there are many problems everywhere, disputes between different communities.

NARRATOR: But does that mean the United States should stand by and watch as genocides and unspeakable cruelties occur?

The advent of 24-hour news coverage around the world makes inaction an increasingly unacceptable choice. TV cameras bring violence from the remotest corners of the world right into our living rooms, building pressure on the United States and other developed countries to act, whether the conflicts are taking place within the borders of another sovereign nation or not.

DANIELA ROZGONOVA: The media contribute to the evolution of the thinking in this particular issue, as well.

NARRATOR: Daniela Rozgonova is the spokeswoman for the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo.

Ms. ROZGONOVA: Fifty years ago, we did not see on television screens daily in our living rooms what is going on at the other end of the world. Now we see it.

NARRATOR: So, the question remains: When the rights of individuals are at odds with national sovereignty, which one should prevail?

At the center of the controversy is the United Nations, trying to resolve the conflict that arises when its mandate to preserve the sanctity of borders allows the human rights of people living inside them to be violated. But the United Nations is far from an independent body. Its most important decisions are made in the Security Council, where each of the five major nuclear powers have the right of veto.

Under US and European guidance, the UN is taking a more active role in defending human rights inside its member states' territories. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1999, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said:

KOFI ANNAN (by narrator):

"State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation. Individual sovereignty -- and by this, I mean the human rights and fundamental freedoms of each and every individual as enshrined in our Charter -- has been enhanced by a renewed consciousness of the right of every individual to control his or her destiny."

NARRATOR: This new emphasis on individual, rather than state rights, has led to bitter divisions. NATO did not ask for the Security Council's approval to attack Yugoslavia, knowing China and Russia would veto such a request.

Mr. INTRILIGATOR: We did not get the approval of the United Nations. We were violating the sovereignty of a member nation, a member state of the United Nations.

NARRATOR: This controversy reveals the core problem: With the end of the Cold War, the world is changing faster than the rules and institutions that govern it.

Ms. ROZGONOVA: We have no longer, indeed, imminent threats or less so threats of wars between states, but we see more and more violent repression and bloody conflict within states.

NARRATOR: NATO's actions in Kosovo were meant to defend the human rights of an oppressed minority. But by bombing Yugoslavia, the alliance moved a step ahead of international law. For many, such as the victims of the militias in East Timor, the rules have not changed fast enough.

Ambassador ROBINSON:

"For a time it seemed that the world would turn away altogether from the people of East Timor, turn away from the plain evidence of the brutality, killings and rapes. Action, when it came, was painfully slow. Thousands paid for the slow response of the international community with their lives."

NARRATOR: Changes in the international law are proceeding, but too slowly for those whose rights are being abused and too fast for those who see their sovereignty being violated.

Mr. O'HANLON: I don't think the role has been reversed, but you're certainly right to say that there's a competition between human rights, on the one hand, and the rights of state sovereignty on the other.

NARRATOR: Some balance must be found between the rights of abused people and the sanctity of international boundaries behind which they live. As the scales will almost certainly tilt in favor of people, we should bear in mind that with a few notable exceptions, the UN has kept the peace for over 50 years. The problem is how to eliminate those exceptions in the future without discarding a system that has served to maintain peace and stability since the end of the Second World War.

Mr. INTRILIGATOR: We don't want people to be killed or dislocated, displaced, become refugees. We disapprove of ethnic cleansing. All that's to the good. But as the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." We have all these good intentions, and yet we end up causing more damage than would have otherwise occurred.

NARRATOR: People are entitled to life, even when they don't have liberty as we know it. The problems of human rights abuses cannot be tolerated while they stand on protocol and ceremony. Finding the right remedy which protects the individuals without jeopardizing the rights of nations is the next big challenge for the 21st Century.