This commentary is by Yvonne Lodico, founder and executive director of the Grace Initiative Global (a Vermont NGO), and 17-year United Nations staff member who served on five U.N. peacekeeping missions.
As time and morality are of the essence, the evacuation needs to continue in Afghanistan until every international and Afghan who served with the U.S. and other international embassies can safely depart.
The Taliban, however, insist that they will not extend the Aug. 31 deadline. According to the U.N. Council on Human Rights Council, “summary executions” and serious violations by the Taliban have taken place. Further, humanitarian organizations, which will remain, already need supplies to continue their service in hospitals. People are stranded all over the country.
We recommend innovative diplomatic strategies for a safe, humanitarian evacuation process with international accountability, relying on the U.N. Charter.
We recognized the sanctity of territorial integrity, which is a firmly protected in law and in the U.N. Charter under article 2, which calls inter alia for equality among all sovereigns — refraining from the threat or use of force, and nonintervention in domestic matters of another state. Further, the U.N. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, in accordance with U.N. principles, proclaims that “no state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,” into the territorial integrity of another state, on a basis that is inconsistent with the principles of the U.N. charter.
There are possibilities, however, for overriding territorial integrity when it comes to self-defense, U.N. Charter article 51. The U.S. presumably applied this article on Oct. 7, 2001, when it went into Afghanistan to go after al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden following the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.
The protection of territorial integrity, however, should not prejudice the application of enforcement measures to uphold the purposes and principles of the U.N. For example, the preamble of the charter affirms faith in fundamental human rights. The charter justifies human rights, derived from the inherent dignity of the human person, as a state value by linking it to peace and security. In terms of the critical humanitarian evacuation in Afghanistan, the exigent considerations apply through both international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
To this end, we would like to propose a strategy for the international community to implement a comprehensive evacuation coordination effort through U.N. Charter Chapter 7 for a limited intervention/extended involvement based on human rights and humanitarian exigencies.
Due to the fact that armed forces are already in the country, this limited adoption of Chapter 7 would focus on ensuring the unobstructed evacuation of internationals and Afghans who can prove their affiliation to one of the international groups leaving the country. In this sense, it could be considered more of extended involvement than an intervention to achieve moral humanitarian goals — saving lives.
Through an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, perhaps a permanent member could introduce a very limited use of the U.N. Charter Chapter 7 for an intervention or extended involvement for coordinated evacuation in case the Taliban will block further evacuations.
For the Security Council to approve Chapter 7, it must consider inter alia the threats to peace and security, and the extent the threats are internationalized. This use of Chapter 7 should include explicit instructions for the Taliban to allow for safe evacuation of foreign nationals and of Afghans whose lives are at risk. This use of Chapter 7 should have an explicit expiration time and should have a mission to be firmly limited to humanitarian evacuation.
The legality of a humanitarian intervention would rest on the purpose of the mission, with the execution being limited to a timely and consistent manner. Also, the intervention cannot violate human rights law. In this regard, we are firmly not calling for any further intrusion or intervention and no steps toward state-building.
In terms of international law and the application of Chapter 7, the notion of sovereignty is critical. Sovereignty, however, does not necessarily provide a shield from human rights abuses or from the compelling need for humanitarian intervention.
This would be a guraranteeing mechanism, even with Taliban promises. With the Taliban accepting this limited use for humanitarian exigencies, it could demonstrate its seriousness about being a legitimate sovereign rather than a terrorist state.
Although respect for sovereignty remains an essential obligation among states, sovereignty is increasingly viewed as a matter of responsibility toward its citizens.
Co-sponsors of this commentary are Rita Wright, a Vermont resident and a professor emerita at New York University, and an expert on Afghanistan with the Grace Initiative; and Khaldoon Al Moosawi, M.D., MPH, founder and executive director of Mercy Hands for Humanitarian Aid, a partner of Grace Initiative Global.
