SINCE the fall of the Soviet Union, the international scene has rarely been so troubled. From Afghanistan to Central Africa, it seems that half the world is covered by hot spots. Unless the international community decides to embrace its ‘duty to intervene,’ their number will only increase, writes World Report expert Charles Millon.
The list of countries with teetering governments, or with no government at all, is growing fast: Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Central African Republic, Mali. The Sahel and the Sahara have become one vast staging post for drugs as well as migrants, who are herded like cattle. This state of affairs appears to be long-term rather than transitional, and plays into the hands of extremists and those with expansionist ambitions.
Somali militants have been engaging in piracy for the past two decades. The Islamic State is gaining ground in the Middle East, and taking root alongside al-Qaeda in Libya. Tribal tensions in the Central African Republic continue to grow, with a diamond war as the backdrop.
Faced with this enormous challenge, what should the international community do? Surely it must not try to wind the clock back to the previous position, with states built along Western lines, centralised and all-powerful. The solution might be to give an international mandate to some entity, country, group of countries or regional grouping to re-establish order and stop the civil war. But who should be entrusted with this? There is no rush of volunteers. Besides, how and when this type of intervention should take place is not properly defined at the international level.
Like it or not, the Nato countries of Europe and North America currently comprise the only group of nations willing and able to intervene around the world to enforce respect for human rights (despite any covert imperialism that may underpin these actions). However, the West has been paralysed for the past several years, reluctant to commit to real interventions after its experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Iraq was divisive from the beginning, with France and Germany in particular rejecting the legitimacy of the United States-led invasion. The war caused too many casualties among member countries of the coalition, turning public opinion vehemently against the operation.
More importantly, neither the Iraq nor the Afghan operations produced their desired effect. In toppling local governments, the interventions set off civil wars while leaving the populace and weak, Western-backed governments increasingly at the mercy of more powerful tribal, political and religious groups. Even more disastrous were the results of other Western interventions, such as the 1992-1995 operations in Somalia and the toppling of Libya’s leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. In both cases, state structures collapsed and the countries were plunged into chaos.
Taking these calamities into account, we can conclude that any duty to intervene, assuming it exists, involves more than simply carrying out a military operation to remove a dictator. Intervention brings the responsibility to establish a strong, stable government, rebuild the country and help it reassume its place in the community of nations.
Until the West finds its resolve to embark on such a strategy, we will have to accept that abandoned territories will remain failed states. That means groups such as Boko Haram and the Islamic State will continue to gain ground.
And so the tragedies will unfold, as we watch in the comfort of our living rooms.
For a more in-depth look at this subject with scenarios looking to future outcomes, go to our sister site: Geopolitical Information Service. Sign in for 3 Free Reports or Subscribe.
Publication Date:
Tue, 2015-10-13 05:00
Attached Files:
