Rapid Political Reactions.

Thursday, Sept. 30, 1999--Hong Kong (www.gelken.com/APJ)--A few weeks ago when Indonesian soldiers and their militia henchmen were running amok in East Timor I wrote that if there was ever a time when a United Nations Rapid Reaction Force was needed--it was then.

Since then, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, tabled a suggestion that the United Nations empower itself to act when the human rights of a civilian population were being flagrantly abused.

Essentially, what Annan wants to avoid is another embarrassing round of "Please, Mr Dictator, Sir, can we send peacekeepers to stop you murdering your own people?" I should be celebrating Annan's bold initiative. In fact, I could be very politically correct and throw my entire support behind the suggestion-- safe in the knowledge that it will never happen.

And for some very bad reasons.

A Rapid Reaction Force: yes, absolutely. There should be a multi-national force of specialists ready to fly anywhere, anytime to secure a location while negotiations go ahead to find a peaceful solution to whatever problem is putting the lives of United Nations staff, aid workers and civilians at risk. Securing the airport, UN compound and Bishop Belo's residence in Dili would not only have saved a lot of lives, it would have sent a very clear message to Jakarta--don't mess with the United Nations.

But it wasn't fear of the military opposition in East Timor that prevented a deployment of special forces--it was politics. As a correspondent on the ground in Dili pointed out, the Indonesian army is very efficient at shooting unarmed students on the streets of Jakarta and in Dili--but how would they stand up to some real opposition? And politics would lead to some serious bickering in the Security Council over which 'human rights hot spot' to blitz and which ones to tactfully ignore.

Let's leave East Timor for a minute and move to Northern Iraq. For the sake of argument let us assume that Annan got his way and a Rapid Reaction Force already exists. Saddam Hussein decides to mount another offensive against the Kurds. Now that would surely qualify for a rapid deployment and a seriously bloody nose for Saddam, right? Okay, no dissenters there. But in the process of Saddam's offensive, his forces link up with the Turkish army that has already crossed an international border in its own offensive against the Kurds. So we have an allied pilot patrolling the No-Fly-Zone--he spots Iraqi armour moving against a Kurd village--and he also sees Turkish artillery shelling a Kurdish stronghold where there are doubtless women and children. Which target does he hit? The Turks--NATO allies--but with a regrettable human rights record? Or the Iraqis?  No contest. The Iraqis will get zapped.

And what about Chechnya? Is there any UN planning underway to request NATO to divert aircraft to fly cover for the civilian population being forced to flee their homes after a week of Russian bombing? I haven't heard anything on that. I also haven't heard anything about sanctions against Moscow for bilking the International Monetary Fund out of zillions of dollars. Some of that money was mine--contributed through taxes I have paid. Some of that money was yours too, dear reader. The IMF, meanwhile, says to abandon Russia now would be irresponsible.

But what we are hearing this week are the same old broken-record chants by presidential candidates and their camp followers of withdrawing normal trade relations with China and blocking Beijing's entry into the World Trade Organisation. Human rights abuse, lack of political and religious freedom, and the 'theft' of nuclear secrets are being re-hashed, re-spinned and regurgitated. Give it a rest.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let us assume that during his National Day address, President Jiang Zemin announces a date for multi-party elections and the total dismantling of the Communist Party of China apparatus and its control over the country. What a success for the West that would be. Not.

Just like Russia, the country would disintegrate into chaos. We now have loose nukes all over Eastern Europe and enough regional wars to keep us journalists in headlines even on a quiet day. Imagine that amount of chaos--double. Brave new world, new world order? Pretty scary if you ask me. As I said last week, be careful what you wish for--you might get it.

A slower transition for the Soviet Union might not have left the Reagan/Bush administrations with their  legacy of being the winners of the Cold War--but it might have made the world a bit safer for the rest of us. And like it or not, a  transition for China is already taking place. I have personally witnessed remarkable changes since my first visit to the country 14 years ago. Sure, things ain't everything every liberal would want them to be. For sure, the Australian-led peacekeeping force in East Timor might be uncomfortable working alongside troops who were perhaps on the streets of Beijing on June 4th 1989. Surprisingly, though, they appear to have no problem appointing as second in command of the mission the same army that gunned down students and civilian demonstrators in Bangkok in 1973, 1976 and 1992.

Of course, Thailand exonerated itself by bringing all of the guilty to justice. Ha, ha, haha, haha, haha, haha, haha, haha, haha, haha, hah. Not.

While we're on the subject of Thailand. I saw a special report on the BBC today about the beautifying of Beijing for the National Day celebrations. The reporter remarked on how the poor and the unsightly had been swept from the streets so that the eyes of the world would not be displeased with their presence--how typical of the communist regime to try to hide reality was the message put across by the correspondent.

I was in Bangkok during the World Bank/International Monetary Fund moveable feast in 1991. The streets were swept clean of the poor and unsightly. Slum housing opposite the Queen Sirikit Convention Centre was bulldozed and the land hidden by a high fence. The residents were moved away to a location where there were no jobs and fewer facilities. Schools and businesses were ordered closed and much of the population were encouraged to leave the city so that the great and good wouldn't get stuck in the city's notorious traffic jams. How typical of Thailand's communist regime.

Wait a minute... Thailand isn't communist.

Which brings me back to the original theme of the column. A carte-blanche for the United Nations to intervene when they consider the human rights of civilians is being put at risk by a rogue regime is a laudable  but decidedly dangerous concept. It is open to all sorts of political bias and abuse.

A Rapid Reaction Force to prevent the mass killing of civilians--yes, absolutely. A licence to attack unpopular regimes--no, emphatically. As I mentioned last week, there are ways to deal with regimes that do not measure up to whatever standards one would like to impose. Trade with them, yes. Enhance their status by giving red-carpet welcomes and banquets in their honour--er, no. They'll still trade whether or not you shake their hands in the Rose Garden or outside No. 10 Downing Street.

If I was asked where I thought the biggest political hypocrites resided--given a choice of  Washington, London, Paris or Beijing--I have to honestly say that Beijing wouldn't be in the top three. Those folks in Beijing have a lot of faults--but hypocrisy isn't one of them. How many Western law enforcement officers and politicians have secretly wished they could do to the Church of Scientology what Beijing did to Falungong? Now, be honest. And if we are being honest, how many of the presidential candidates and their camp followers will actually revoke normal trade relations with China once/if they get into the White House?

If you come up with none, that's what I figured too.