Friday, April 18, 2014
Exit from comment view mode. Click to hide this space

Irresponsible Interventions

GENEVA – With France launching its third “humanitarian” military operation in as many years – this time in the Central African Republic – interventionism, which seemed discredited after the US invasion of Iraq, seems to have returned as an accepted norm in international affairs. Indeed, decades of relentless intervention have shifted the terms of debate, with recent operations justified by their achievability rather than their merit. To understand how this shift occurred is to see why, more often than not, such intervention has failed to attain its objectives.

As France’s recent actions demonstrate, intervention nowadays requires nothing more than a unilateral decree of humanitarian or counter-terrorism objectives, an atmosphere of urgency, and an ambiguous link to ongoing United Nations deliberations. A military operation might also be referred to the UN Security Council, but only after the fact, when the Council’s decision can no longer significantly affect events on the ground.

This is the upshot of an intellectual movement that began almost 35 years ago – and that has facilitated no fewer than a dozen interventions in just over two decades. In 1979, Jean-François Revel introduced the phrase “devoir d’ingérence” (duty to intervene); in 1980, Mario Bettati wrote of a “devoir d’assistance” (duty to assist); and, in 1988, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution referring to “humanitarian assistance.”

In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, led by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, codified the concept of humanitarian military expeditions under the so-called Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Despite disputes over R2P’s legal basis, the doctrine gained rapid recognition – not least because the various schools of interventionism united behind it.

It helped that, during the geopolitical interregnum of the 1990’s, humanitarian intervention had become the go-to solution for the world’s growing impatience with underdevelopment. A new typology in the social sciences developed practically overnight and became a staple of policymaking, with “fragile,” “weak,” “failed,” or “rogue” states signifying a danger that overshadowed any contextualized analysis of cause and effect.

At the end of this process, the question remains: What impact has intervention had on the countries that it is supposed to be helping?

Rooted in civil-society activism, humanitarian intervention has broken into the normative practice of international affairs during militarized transitions, such as those that followed the Cold War, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the Arab Spring. But there is little evidence that intervention resolves the problems that inspire it.

This can be explained largely by the growing dissonance between the reasoning for intervention – namely, the undeniable underperformance of post-colonial states – and the remedies offered. In fact, military solutions have perpetuated the very flaws that they were meant to repair.

In a sense, the current wave of armed interventions – beginning with the United States-led operation in Iraq in 2003 – resembles the colonization of parts of Africa a century ago. In circumventing the Security Council and establishing a fictional link between the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction and the need to “save” the Iraqi people, then-President George W. Bush’s administration introduced an updated model for remaking a third country unilaterally, dealing a heavy blow to international law in the process.

A decade later, US-liberated Iraq remains stuck in a low-intensity civil war, just as French-protected Mali is consumed by volatility and NATO-rescued Libya remains mired in chaos. Given this track record, why should anyone expect military intervention in the Central African Republic to play out any differently?

To be sure, local actors bear substantial responsibility for post-intervention breakdowns. But the intervention doctrine’s failure to resolve the issues of legitimacy, consistency, and purpose also plays a critical role. Indeed, the fact that fundamental questions – like who should intervene and to what end – remain unanswered mars both the theory and the practice of R2P. Was military intervention really necessary in Côte d’Ivoire, for example, to resolve what was essentially an electoral dispute?

Similarly, much like the misleading “ticking time bomb” scenario has served to rationalize torture, the “imminent massacre” argument is used to justify immediate intervention. But such logic vacillates in the face of realpolitik: the international community intervened, for example, when 2,000 Libyans might have been killed, but not when 115,000 Syrians actually were killed.

Both systemically and behaviorally, acceptance of interventionism is a sign of the times. The continuing failure of the post-colonial state, the threat posed by transnational armed groups, and the weakness of regional organizations obscure the nonchalance of major powers that now land troops with only a vague idea about what to do the morning after.

In fact, what happens next is that troubled countries’ neighbors enjoy a free geostrategic hand. In this way, normalized intervention may be taking the international order into a new era of naked power struggles.

It is time for world leaders to recognize that intervention is more than ineffective; it can be destructive. In the name of protecting humanity, irresponsible interventionism over the last three decades has weakened the very foundations of international affairs: sovereignty, legality, and responsibility.

Exit from comment view mode. Click to hide this space
Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (4)

Please login or register to post a comment

  1. CommentedThomas Kline

    Excellent and overdue. So-called interventionism is out of control, and there is little considered and nuanced assessment of its impact. Alexandru: You missed the issue here. The mixing of micro- and macro-level perspectives does not address the fact that militarising humanitarian ops has created a wealth of problems from Somalia to Afghanistan, and the problem is persisting precisely because of the misleading pragmatism too often advocated.

  2. Commentedjean nutson

    Military interventions has always been the last alternative solution to most conflicts especially in Africa, Arab and the gulf states ,after in all or most cases the UN becomes helpless and overwhelmed by events and has always been welcomed by at least one of the warring sides as such they are very necessary and will have to be adopted as the main system of conflict resolution,protection of human rights etc from now onwards as the strength and the efficacy of the UN is rapidly waning.

  3. CommentedAlexandru Lazescu

    This is the kind of typical useless "correct" considerations. Like: Peace is good, War is bad". If you see someone trying to kill another one, what you do: you try to first to find what caused the conflict ? I wonder if you ask people on the ground what they to would prefer: observe their "state sovereignty" or save their lives.

  4. CommentedG George

    I would say that these interventions are mostly correct exceptions, of course, would be in cases like Iraq. Intervention should be done when a state is no longer able to/needs help to protect lives of a significant section of its population. We should not forget the Rwandan genocide which happened in a span of 100 days (wikipedia) - which is why interventions have to be swift or as the author rightly points out what has been happening in Syria - where disagreement between the P5 and other factors held things back. I would agree that interventions need to evolve beyond just landing troops/holding ground in a foreign land. It should be about bringing peace by preventing further escalation of violence and then setting up of peaceful and speedy mechanisms to resolve all issues at hand for good. The later is where nations and the UN need to really improve.