Pre-emptive war is universally recognized as an anticipatory use of force. Despite the definition for the terms of a pre-emptive war, whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradicting subject for states. There is the issue of morality, abiding by international law and comprehending the definition of “imminent threat”.
The intervention in Libya is being portrayed in the media as an attempt to save the Libyan people from destruction at the hands of a brutal and oppressive regime. When one looks at the evidence, various interests and geopolitical concerns confronting intervening nations, another motive emerges: realism.
Transnational organized criminal groups were ever since a darling of the sensation seeking media. But since the attacks of 9/11, criminal networks were moved even further into the spotlight, as the sources of income for the historically most deadly and horrific generation of global terrorism.
Interestingly, Hong Kong already has institutions that underlie democracy but it is still yet to be legitimate. This poses the key question; if Hong Kong has institutions that do to some extent, simulate a democracy, what has prevented full transition for Hong Kong to become a legitimate democracy?
The World Bank rose out of political and security necessity in the US sphere of influence to stabilize Europe. It has grown to adapt through time, both to the new challenges of the late 20th century, as well as to the politically correct speech the growing global civil society has been promoting in the ever globalizing public space.
The United States, France and Britain invaded Libya with cruise missiles, stealth bombers, fighter jets and attack jets. In addition, the United Nations and France have been bombing the Ivory Coast to protect civilians. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which is being used to legitimate these attacks, is a slippery slope that should be viewed with extreme caution.
The Kosovo intervention was the first in history to be justified solely on the basis of human rights breaches by a sovereign state within its territory, which were judged to present threat to international order. The bottom line remains that Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo was first breached and then completely removed by the international community.
Why does my heart sink when I hear the current UN-mandated action in Libya described as “humanitarian intervention”? After all, over the last 20 years the term has acquired currency — not only among Western politicians but also academics — as a description of coercive, usually military, intervention ostensibly for humanitarian purposes.
Because of the deep mutual mistrust from both sides, especially the US concern over China’s military build-up, friction and cooperation will coexist in the development of the China-US naval relationship. Only when political mutual trust reaches a high level, can the military relationship stride forward beyond the stop and go cycle of the last 30 years.
The key element in shaping the Libyan intervention’s impact will be whether the operation can overcome the recurrent problems humanitarian interventions have been facing in the past two decades. The West’s reluctance toward renewed humanitarian interventions will only be revised if the operation attains its mission objective without becoming entangled in a protracted internal conflict.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.