A number of analysts have called for humanitarian intervention of some kind in Libya — a no-fly-zone at least, as suggested by the International Crisis Group, with others implying something more.
While such an intervention might become morally essential, several factors should give us pause:
- The anti-imperialist card — Any military intervention would greatly enhance the “foreign conspiracy” narrative in the region. All protesters would be more readily tarred with the accusation that they are agents of Western plots, seeking to invite in foreign domination. Given that even Mubarak brought up the theme, it would certainly be used to the fullest in Iran or Syria.
- Secondary costs — Western forces operating anywhere in the Muslim world would be seen by at least some fraction of Muslim publics as engaged in part of the “war on Islam,” no matter what the facts are.
- Encouraging passivity — That Arab publics believe they themselves can change their countries for the better is a crucial aspect of recent events. It is a backstep if outside intervention comes to be seen as necessary.
- Moral quagmire — Remember Somalia in the 1990s: moral certainty can rapidly evaporate on the ground. An intervening force might simply find itself backing one side in a tribe-on-tribe civil war.
- Difficulty — It appears that interventionists think an intervention is doable at little cost. That might be true with a no-fly zone (which is not likely to be very effective), but sending in troops might not go well. A few million Sunni in Iraq fought the main effort of the US military to a standstill for years, and some fraction of the populace might remain loyal to the former regime, even forming majorities in some areas. Recall also that only a few years after Saddam was overthrown, a majority of Iraqis approved of attacks on US forces.
This is not a one-sided calculus. Other factors could overwhelm the considerations above:
- Human rights violations could reach the scale of a true mass-atrocity event.
- It could become clear that Libyan opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of intervention — there are already people calling for it on the streets.
- The Arab world could clearly and decisively endorse such an intervention.
With luck, this will all soon by moot, and the regime will disintegrate, with something less than civil war on the other side.
**********************************
Image copyright Futureatlas.com — usable with attribution and link
The Economist reports that the concept of “responsibility to protect” — the idea that countries have a responsibility and right to protect people when their own governments cannot or will not — is facing increased resistance at the UN.
Smaller Third World countries such as Nicaragua are leading the counterattack, characterizing the notion instead as the right to intervene — and a right which would only in practice be held by the rich and powerful. (Nicaragua’s role is yet another case of history coming back to haunt the United States, which characterized its proxy war on the Central American country in the 1980s as support for “freedom fighters.”)
The responsibility to protect may be crucial in securing a future in which human rights are broadly protected, but it will make only slow progress at best: too many small countries are suspicious that it will be only an excuse, not a principle, and too many more powerful players — including China, India, and Turkey — may be too worried that it might someday be brought up in the context of their own self-determination and human rights issues.
(Image copyright Futureatlas.com — usable with attribution and link)
Rebel factions are fighting each other in Darfur, and using some of the same tactics as Sudanese government forces, displacing and killing civilians.
The tactics of the rebels have grown so similar to those of their enemies that an attack on this dusty village on April 19 bore all the marks of the brutal assault that first forced its people to flee their homes three years ago. Soldiers in uniform, backed by men toting machine guns on camels, flooded the village, burning huts, shooting, looting and raping.
This is another piece of evidence that any intervention in Darfur would not be easy or quick.
- An international force will have no real partners in either the government or the rebels.
- For the foreseeable future, there will be no one to hand off to. Darfur under either Sudan’s central government or rebel groups would be subject at any time to a return to brutality, and rule by either is unlikely to be competent or gentle. The situation will be much more dire than in Bosnia or Kosovo, and those have already required international supervision for a decade.
Ultimately, real intervention in Darfur means long-term intervention. Anything short of another UN protectorate seems likely to demonstrate that the international community was never really serious about the situation.
Michael O’Hanlon at Brookings offers an unusual approach to the Darfur issue, one which could be applied to other humanitarian intervention situations: rapidly recruit and deploy a special American division specifically to deployment in Darfur — “a Peace Corps with guns — with individuals enlisting specifically for this purpose.”
Even if somehow this force proves unnecessary in Sudan – an unlikely proposition – there will be other conflicts for which such a force could prove very useful in the future. The notion is this: of all those well-intentioned and admirable Americans rallying to call attention to Darfur and demand action, ask for volunteers to join a genocide prevention division for two years.
The new unit would allow action without much additional strain on overstretched American forces, he argues, though some regular troops would be used to leaven the humanitarian division.
This concept would also address a primary problem of humanitarian intervention: risking lives for optional actions. Enlistees in such a force would have signed up for exactly that.
However, Winds of Change suggests some problems with the idea, and notes some similar proposals from the past.