Why “Humanitarian Intervention” in Libya is not Humanitarian
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.
Humanitarian Intervention 2.0?
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.
Libya: a Turning Point for the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine?
The Libyan Crisis is in some respects a turning point in the ‘history’ of the responsibility to protect doctrine (RtoP). The case suggests that the international community is beginning to mobilize against rulers who conquer or purchase statehood to gain impunity.
Why the Bombing of Libya cannot Herald a Return to the 1990s Era of Humanitarian Intervention
Many international relations commentators are heralding the Western bombing of Libya as marking a return to the 1990s era of humanitarian intervention. The debate is largely over whether this return is to be welcomed or regretted. But a return of the moral or ethical understandings of the humanitarian interventionist 1990s is not a possibility.
The Strategy Behind Operation Ellamy
Gaddafi has long had form as a murderer. Neither Britain nor America have forgotten his role in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. With intervention, the West sends a clear message to all Arabs and those who rule over them whether despots or occupying states. To stand with those who want democracy can only ever be the right thing to do. As Tony Blair has said, the case for western intervention is as strong now as it has ever been.
The Responsibility to Protect: Libya and Beyond
Whilst Libya is no doubt important, it is but the tip of the iceberg. In the long run, timely and decisive action such as the international action in Libya will continue to be a recurrent but painful necessity. Yet, we will make most progress towards a world without mass atrocities by reducing the number of cases that become so acute and preventing crises from escalating to the point of imminent catastrophe.
The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention
Given how the Security Council has acted with regard to Libya via Resolution 1973, many have queried its failure to act in other situations, such as Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. The lethal responses by the governments of those countries to pro-democracy protests are appalling, but it cannot be said that the crisis in those States has reached the proportions of Libya. After all, humanitarian intervention is war.
How to Save a Revolution
The Libyan opposition has shown great courage and serious miscalculation. Principally, they failed to take into account the loyalty, training, and resources of Colonel Ghaddafi’s forces. They also failed to realize that revolutions such as theirs depend on non-violence. Influenced perhaps by calls for no-fly zones and other forms of foreign military intervention in Egypt, they have failed to understand both the importance of non-violence and the importance of self-reliance.
Libya: The First Stand or the Last Post for the Responsibility to Protect?
When security forces, meant to protect people, are instead let loose in a killing spree, the state itself becomes the prime perpetrator of atrocities. With precisely such an unfolding scenario, Libya today is the place and time to redeem or renege on R2P’s solemn pledge.
The Conflict in Sri Lanka and the Responsibility to Protect
In mid 2008, the Sri Lankan government began a military offensive against LTTE rebels. Civilians trapped by the fighting face a double peril: if they flee, they risk being killed by the LTTE; if they stay, they must face the government’s bombardment. All this has prompted some humanitarian advocates to invoke the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (RtoP) principle. Are they right to do so?
