| #566 |  | 819 |  |
April 24, 2011 |  | By Brig Gurmeet Kanwal | ||
|
The ongoing struggle of people across the Arab world to get rid of military dictators and tyrannical monarchies has led to a new debate about the efficacy of the emerging doctrine of humanitarian intervention - even as the no-fly zone imposed in Libya and the air and missile strikes launched against Gaddafi's forces have failed to protect the civilian population against artillery and rocket attacks. John Mackinlay of King's College, London, has argued that in the "complex emergencies which increasingly threaten security in eastern Europe, central Asia and Africa, international response mechanisms have failed from the outset to take a realistic approach that reflected the needs of the crisis... due to vested interest, conservatism and a lack of vision beyond the narrow limitations of national and professional interest." With some exceptions, most nations today agree to join an international intervention effort only when their own national interests are served by intervening, and rarely so where the cause is humanitarian. The world had failed to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda. John Hillen , a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a US think tank, has suggested the following criteria for future US military interventions: should defend national security interests; should not jeopardise the ability of the US to meet more important security commitments; should strive to achieve military goals that are clearly defined, decisive, attainable and sustainable; should enjoy Congressional and public support; and, the armed forces must be allowed to create the conditions for success. By intervening in Libya, US President Barack Obama has trashed the Colin Powell doctrine that had asserted that the US should intervene militarily "only when its vital interests are threatened, when the exit strategy is clear, and when it can apply overwhelming force to ensure that its aims are achieved." In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama had written that "America has the unilateral right to defend itself from attack, and to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat." However, he also wrote that beyond matters of clear self-defence, it would almost always be in the US interest to use military force multilaterally and with prior international approval - and that is exactly what he has done together with France and the UK. Several justifications of the right to intervene militarily are being increasingly propagated by think tanks and analysts. Some of these, which are finding reluctant acceptance among countries forming part of the Western alliance, include: defence of democracy and the prevention of the excessive curtailment of a people's right to participate in decision-making; prevention of severe violation of the human rights of a people by a totalitarian regime; protection of minority groups from severe repression; prevention of acute environmental degradation; and, prevention of possible attempts to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of the contours of the emerging doctrine of intervention, it must remain a cardinal principle of international relations that the territorial integrity of each member state of the UN must be collectively guaranteed by all the other member states. The non-observance of this collective security imperative can only lead to anarchy and the rule of the jungle where might is right. This can be done only by strengthening the UN system to emerge as the sole arbiter of the need for intervention. Individual nation-states must not be permitted to assemble 'coalitions of the willing' to pursue 'wars of interest'. And, 'wars of conscience' must have the approval of the UN Security Council. As Muammar Gaddafi's forces were clearly targeting civilians along with the rebel forces and are still continuing to do so, the ongoing military intervention in Libya is justified. Surgically-precise air and missile strikes should continue to be employed to achieve limited military objectives. Emphasis should be laid on the minimum use of force. However, all-out efforts must be made to prevent collateral damage, with particular reference to civilian casualties and property. The author is director at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi Courtesy: The Economic Times, 23 April 2011 (The views expressed in the article are that of the author and do not represent the views of the editorial committee or the centre for land warfare studies). | ||||||||
| ||||||||
