"People in front of tanks were crushed. The unity of China was more important than those people on Tiananmen Square. When Tiananmen Square happened, tanks were sent in to deal with them. It's not a joke. I will do whatever it takes to make sure part of the country isn't taken away." – Muammar Gaddafi
Events in Libya have raised more than one question of the validity of foreign interference – in the name of global diplomacy – in issues deemed to be internal affairs of Libya. It is not only in Libya that these important questions have raised their heads, but in all countries where there seems to be conflict of one sort or the other, especially where it is government versus a group of people. It would be good to quickly point out that The Gambia’s aversion to the ECOWAS/AU/UN stance on the election standoff in Cote d’Ivoire is because of what it termed ‘undue interference in the internal affairs of Cote d’Ivoire’ and consequently an affront to the sovereignty of Cote d’Ivoire.
There could be arguments for and against global intervention in ‘internal conflicts’. This piece endeavours to ‘defend’ the actions taken by the international community on Libya.
The United Nations is the world’s foremost global diplomacy body. Coming out of the beleaguered League of Nations in 1945, the goal of the UN is to ensure a world safe enough for everybody to live in. The League of Nations before it had failed because it could not prevent the Second World War, therefore the first objective of the UN is to ensure global peace. This would imply that the UN is imbued with the authority to prevent wars and conflicts, or where there are, fast-track the process of peace. Thus, it does not matter whether these conflicts are inter- or intra-states. The mere presence of conflict is enough reason for the UN to wave its flag. In what manner it should wave it is the question.
Many nations of the world have signed to become recognized by the UN, and many have ratified its treaties, conventions, articles and Charter. By appending their recognition to these documents and treaties, countries express their agreement of the UN principles. There are two interpretation of this recognition: member states (1) approve the spirit and context of the document which they sign; and (2) they signify their intention to be bound by the provisions and conditions set out in the document. By so doing, they cede some of their rights to the United Nations. In situations where the countries run afoul of these UN principles, the UN does have a right to weigh in to enforce its rule. Thus, it could invoke its ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (RToP) doctrine.
There are legitimate questions about when it could invoke this rule in crises situations. Freedom-Kai Phillips, a policy analyst and a representative to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) asked these important questions: “At what point in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe does a sovereign State lose its right to manage its own internal affairs without outside interference? What threshold must be reached before the international community has the legal right to intervene when massive human rights violations are being committed in a country?”
‘The responsibility to protect’ (RtoP) doctrine has longstanding roots in customary law, but was first formally introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001 and subsequently clarified in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit outcome document. RtoP is an ever-evolving and innovative international legal concept aimed at preventing genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
When does it become clear for instance that the Gaddafi government could no longer resort to peaceful measures to deal with the rebel movement? When the protests broke out, Gaddafi had promised that the rebel movement would be defeated. Nobody had problems with that. But he soon went to call the protesters all sorts of names and made a new stronger vow to root out the protesters, and kill them to the last man. This probably was the point that the international community started to listen and watch events in Libya more. Images soon emerge when unarmed protesters were fired at. [I have seen these videos of which I write.]
Maybe one of Gaddafi’s greatest undoing was his choice of words. I find this shocking: "People in front of tanks were crushed. The unity of China was more important than those people on Tiananmen Square. When Tiananmen Square happened, tanks were sent in to deal with them. It's not a joke. I will do whatever it takes to make sure part of the country isn't taken away."
At this point, it became clear that rather than follow the path of other countries in the Middle East who have immediately committed themselves to reforms, Gaddafi wanted to maintain the status quo. As infamous as the massacre of Chinese students were in Tiananmen Square in 1989, Gaddafi found these words to express what he would do.
This and many other statements, and acts of aggression emboldened the resolve of the United Nations to act. For the UN, the time was absolutely ripe to invoke the RToP doctrine.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon submitted a report outlining a three-pillared approach to implementing RtoP. First, sovereignty must be viewed in light of responsibility, in that States have a reciprocal obligation to protect their citizens. Second, the international community must be prepared to provide development assistance and capacity building for States, as RtoP cannot be conceptualised in a geo-political vacuum, but rather as a culmination of socio-political circumstances which must be holistically and sustainably addressed. Finally, in the face of a manifest failure by a State to protect its citizens, the international community must be prepared to provide a timely and decisive response.
In the case of Libya, it seems clear that the State had failed to protect its citizens; it had declared war on them, and thus it was important that the global world respond.
There have been precedents that necessitate this needed action. The Rwanda genocide of 1994 shows the failure of the international to act fast against an humanitarian crisis. Events in Libya clearly pointed out another crisis that could lead to genocide. The world needs not to wait for this.
Selective Intervention?
One could argue that the international community has been selective in its enforcement of the RToP. Why have governments’ repressions against protesters in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain being overlooked for instance? According to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, each case has its own merits and should be taken as a stand-alone.
It is true that extensive Western interests in these countries would make hard-standing difficult. But then, governments in these countries have changed hands. The Bahraini leader, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa inherited the position from his father in 1999, while the Saudi Arabia King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz came on the throne in 2005. True it is that these are monarchies, but true it is also that powers have changed hands. This is not the same with Libya, where Gaddafi has directed affairs since 1969. Libya thus presents its own unique case. Reports of human rights abuses in the past, repression of the freedom of expression and many others further present Libya as a unique case.
Despite the escalation of conflicts, one could only hope that the Gaddafi regime bows to the aspirations of the people: to cede power. With that, the unity of the country would still be preserved and more bloodshed could be averted.
No comments:
Post a Comment