Arab Spring raises questions about humanitarian intervention
by Şaban Kardaş*

The NATO-led intervention in Libya and the impending violence in Syria have forced a reconsideration of the contested concept of humanitarian intervention as a means to respond to government-instigated violence against civilians. Building on the momentum generated by the recent formation of a human rights watchdog under the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Muslim countries might engage in a more serious discussion on bolstering regional enforcement mechanisms for the protection of civilians from state repression, including capacity building toward intervention.

If the factual accounts of the events on the ground in Libya leading to NATO’s military intervention were correct, the situation was one of humanitarian urgency that would warrant intervention by the international community to protect the lives of at least some segments of the Libyan population who were threatened by the oppressive actions of their government. It was this assumption that prompted the UN Security Council (UNSC) to first authorize the imposition of sanctions on the Gaddafi regime through Security Council Resolution 1970 and then mandate the use of force through Security Council Resolution 1973.

The Syrian regime’s violent crackdown of the ongoing uprising that spread through the country also presents yet another case which might qualify as one requiring humanitarian intervention. Unlike the rather prompt response to Libya, however, there is no serious prospect of international intervention to stop the Baath regime’s killing of civilians. Similarly, while the outbreak of yet another humanitarian emergency in Yemen or Bahrain remains quite real, there is no corresponding international interest, let alone involvement.

Most criticisms of the international involvement in the Arab uprisings focus on the inability of the half-hearted NATO intervention in Libya to bring to a halt the conflict. Some also criticize the Western powers for applying double standards by intervening in Libya hastily but failing to take a bolder stance against the Syrian regime, arguably because the latter has no natural resources. As ill-conceived as the Libyan intervention might be, and as unethical as the non-intervention in Syria might be, conspicuously absent in the ongoing discussions is the question of how Muslim nations themselves have performed in these crises.

It is true that the nature of the intervention morphed into something different from the original mandate and the intervening powers have been embroiled in, or have exacerbated, the unfolding civil war in Libya. Nonetheless, it does not invalidate the fact that many Muslim nations and regional actors also shared the initial assumption, for they expressed open support and even called for urgent international action against the Libyan regime, leading to the imposition of a no-fly zone. Their inability to take a similar position on Syria and their limited leverage over the execution of the intervention in Libya highlight a more fundamental problem: the lack of serious consideration, let alone capacity, for humanitarian concerns in the Islamic world.

Humanitarian intervention

Humanitarian intervention involves the use of military force by the international community to protect civilians trapped in a humanitarian emergency without the express authorization of the government of the country in which the intervention takes place. The lack of authorization from the government where the humanitarian emergency is taking place implies that a case warranting humanitarian intervention might emerge either in case the government itself is the perpetrator of human rights violations or the government ceases to function, i.e., the country becomes a failed state. Although ideally it would be preferable to develop the international community’s strengths in mediating disputes or resolving conflicts through peaceful means, humanitarian intervention is usually treated as the last resort to deal with extreme cases of human suffering. The instances of humanitarian emergency that would justify intervention by the international community usually include egregious violations of human rights resulting in massive loss of life, acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.

Humanitarian intervention has a moral appeal and is widely debated in normative political theory, yet it has no explicit legal basis in the current international system. International law does not recognize humanitarian intervention as a legitimate form of use of force. More importantly, the idea of humanitarian intervention contradicts the UN Charter’s prohibition on intervention in domestic affairs and ban on the unauthorized use of force except in cases of self-defense.

Between Rwanda and Kosovo

Throughout the 1990s, several instances of intervention, such as the UN intervention in Somalia, NATO interventions in the Balkans, the Economic Community Of West African States’ (ECOWAS) intervention in Liberia and the imposition of a no-fly zone in northern Iraq, were heralded as the dawn of a new era where humanitarian intervention would gain greater acceptance in the international community. Two cases, however, were particularly challenging for the evolution of the debate on humanitarian intervention: Rwanda and Kosovo. While the international community’s inability to stop an unfolding genocide in Rwanda in 1994 presented the dangers of inaction, NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo, undertaken without authorization from the Security Council, highlighted the legal challenges created by unauthorized intervention. These two cases, thus, summarized the tension between the moral imperative to act in humanitarian emergencies and respecting the international legal order.

The way the UNSC handled those interventions did not open the way for the emergence of a legal doctrine of humanitarian intervention, let alone resolve the tension between moral and legal imperatives. Instead of invoking a legal right of humanitarian intervention, the UNSC authorized interventions in humanitarian emergencies on the basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows for the use of force when there is a clear threat to international peace.

At the same time, in response to former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s call, there have been various efforts to address the tension between moral and legal imperatives. As a result, although the interest in intervention for humanitarian purposes declined in state practice throughout the 2000s, as was reflected in the case of inaction in Darfur, intellectual attempts to formulate a coherent position nonetheless continued. The most visible outcome of this process was the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine. The R2P doctrine was the product of an independent international commission but it was given recognition in the UN system through its endorsement in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. The major thrust of the R2P is to move the attention away from the question of the existence of a legal right of intervention and emphasize instead the international community’s responsibility to protect civilians in humanitarian emergencies, through military means if necessary.

Granted, a major question is which authority should be entitled to undertake humanitarian interventions? Since no explicit legal codification of the concept exists, under the current international law, the use of force for humanitarian purposes is permissible only when the UNSC deems it appropriate to address a humanitarian emergency by using its powers under Chapter VII. Despite the UNSC’s legal monopoly in the authorization of interventions, given the lack of military forces at its disposal, the actual conduct of intervention is subcontracted to other actors with military muscle, most notably regional organizations.

Regional enforcement of human rights

It is especially in the context of the implementation of UNSC resolutions that several regional organizations have potential roles to play in humanitarian intervention. The R2P has been promoted largely by Western governments, while most interventions have been undertaken by Western actors. Today, NATO remains the most capable regional organization to conduct military operations of this sort. At the same time, it is also the case that there is growing recognition of the need to protect human rights through regional mechanisms, which parallels the increasing universal awareness for human rights.

Drawing on the bitter experience of Western inaction in Rwanda, African countries, for instance, engaged in a debate on humanitarian intervention, coming to recognize a right to intervene and develop some degree of capacity building within the framework of the African Union. Despite their shortcomings, there is growing recognition among African countries that they can no longer outsource humanitarian interventions. There is also an emerging debate in the Asia-Pacific region on how to handle humanitarian emergencies at the regional level. Given the high premium China and other Asian countries place on norms of sovereignty and non-intervention, it remains to be seen if an Asian approach to humanitarian intervention may emerge in the years to come, and how such an approach will reconcile the tension between sovereignty and humanitarian intervention.

Interestingly, the Islamic countries in general, and Middle Eastern nations in particular, have so far lagged behind other regions in terms of articulating a genuine position on humanitarian intervention, let alone capacity building toward that end. While they were supportive of the Western interventions in the Balkans for the protection of their coreligionists, they have not developed a principled position on how they would tackle the many dilemmas presented by the issue of humanitarian intervention.

Today, Muslim nations remain divided on the issue of humanitarian intervention, as their responses to the Arab uprisings so far attest. While they have few resources that could enable them to undertake such an intervention, the Islamic world has many potential flashpoints that may give rise to yet another extreme humanitarian emergency warranting international intervention.

As the international involvement in Libya and the developments in Syria have reheated the debate on humanitarian intervention, the contradictions among Muslim nations become more apparent. They have to acknowledge that they need effective mechanisms, possibly under the umbrella of the OIC, to uphold universal human rights. The OIC has moved in the direction of incorporating human rights into its mandate and recently formed its Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights.

It would be wise for Muslims to come to terms with the reality of humanitarian intervention. The protection of innocent civilians through the use of armed intervention undoubtedly raises many difficult questions: whether resort to force is warranted and if so under what conditions; how to reconcile humanitarian intervention with the sacrosanct principles of sovereignty and non-intervention; how to ensure proportionality in the use of force; how to constrain the abuse of humanitarian arguments as a pretext for the promotion of national interests, how to avoid being involved in an ongoing civil war while protecting civilians, to name a few.

Granted, this debate is long overdue. The inability of Muslim countries to take matters into their own hands results in either the intervention by others into their affairs, or the non-intervention of outsiders when one is warranted. The lack of regional capacity for intervention was one reason that led to the outsourcing of the Libyan intervention to the West, which came only halfheartedly, and whose poor execution runs the risk of deepening Western-Islamic divisions. Muslim nations’ failure to adopt a norm sanctioning regional enforcement of humanitarian standards likewise explains their inability to stop the bloodshed in Syria. It is high time the Muslim world engages in a more serious discussion as to how it would handle humanitarian emergencies involving states’ repression of their citizens, lest it is forced to outsource interventions to outsiders or stand idly by as one more Muslim government massacres its own people.

*Şaban Kardaş is an assistant professor of international relations at TOBB University of Economics and Technology. This commentary benefits from the author’s discussions at an international conference, titled “Asian Perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention in the 21st Century,” organized by the Doshisha University on June 28-29 in Kyoto.