Following the Genocide in Rwanda and the Responsibility to Act
Following the genocide in Rwanda and subsequent actions constituting crimes against human rights, United Nations members ratified the responsibility to act mandate to the Security Council (UNSC) in 2005 to safeguard civilians from human rights violations by their governments (Garwood-Gowers, 2013). In particular, the instance of Libya, where NATO military involvement resulted in the use of force to protect populations from imminent danger after UNSC permission in 2011, remains unusual. Despite the fact that the efforts were timely and considerably contributed to the establishment of a stable, lawful, and sovereign country, the subsequent talks represent a significant problem as to when and what actions the UN can take to intervene in an intrastate conflict without advancement of national interests such as regime changes. In this respect, the paper involves a critical view of some of the key factors that led to the intervention and a personal opinion that supports the move.
Three Critical Reasons for International Action in Libya
There are three critical reasons for the international action in Libya which include the Moral obligation of other states, political legitimacy, and the national/requests by other countries. Firstly, the Rwandan genocide despite warnings by human rights groups and calls for external interventions, many civilians lost their lives and the international systems especially the UN was blamed for inaction (Fermor, 2012). Faced with the same scenario in Libya, and report indication hundreds of thousands could lose their lives based on threats by Gaddafi, the UNSC was decisive in intervening by approving NATO's military to protect the citizens from government suppression and killing (Fermor, 2012; Garwood-Gowers, 2013). Secondly, most of the civil war in the country was demanding the end of the current dictatorship and due to political realignment, as well as the unlawful approaches of the regime, the country's legitimacy was in question hence the intervention (Garwood-Gowers, 2013). Lastly, the national interests of the US to appeal to the Middle East of their foreign policy, as well as a request by other governments, human rights groups, the UNSC, and the civilians of Libya, it was imperative for the intervention to take place. The response is through the legal backing of the international system, the responsibility to protect, by responding to threats of peace (Tegos, 2010).
Personal Opinion Supporting the Action
Based on a personal opinion, I support the action since it was evident from the quotes and rhetoric of the regime that they will murder without pity, the citizens who opposed the dictatorship. As much as it is an intrastate conflict, the magnitude of the threats to peace required assistance from other states. Therefore, the legal backings at the time could only be through the responsibility to protect, or other bilateral agreements with neighboring states that also expressed the same opinion (Tegos, 2010). In this regard, the actions hold ground and the fruits have led to the country's stability instead of witnessing mass killings despite UNSC having the capacity to shield the civilians from the same.
Work Cited
Fermor, C., (2012). NATO’s decision to intervene in Libya (2011): Realist principles or humanitarian norms?.” Journal of Politics & International Studies. 8(13), pp. 342-345.
Garwood-Gowers, A., (2013). The Responsibility To Protect And The Arab Spring: Libya As The Exception, Syria As The Norm?. UNSW Law Journal. 36(2), pp.594-619.
Tegos, A., (2010). Foreign Military Intervention in Intrastate Conflicts–What determines third party engagement in civil wars?. A Bachelor Thesis Submitted to Department of Political Science University of Mannheim. Retrieved from https://ruettershoff.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/bachelor-arbeit_rc3bcttershoff.pdf
