And no it’s not Tony Blair who is arguing for it. Rather the UN Secretary General and the Pope who are preaching to the world the same concept of “liberal intervention” to protect humanity. Shamit Ghosh explores
Ban Ki Moon has made it clear that the world needs to step in to protect human rights where states fail to do so. Yesterday, in his speech at the UN, the Pope reiterated the need to improve human rights and said "every state has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights." Adding “If states are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations charter and in other international instruments." Finally, the Pontiff chastised those who claim internal affairs is none of the international communities’ business saying “....it is indifference or failure to intervene that do the real damage."
Tony Blair in 1999 urged the global community to accept the responsibility to use military force (albeit under certain conditions) to protect human rights where states continually persecute their own citizens. The blotched post war Iraq strategy driven by the groupthink in the White House, in one stroke, undid the good work liberal intervention had achieved thus far. There were clear successes in Sierra Leone and the Balkans (none of which were authorised by the UN Security Council) and in East Timor – where an international coalition force did save lives and help create better lives for those caught in those conflicts.
Similarly, in Iraq, quality of life for Kurds is far better than those days when chemical weapons of Saddam Hussein killed so may of them. At the same time, it would be foolish of anyone, to claim that Iraq has been an astounding success – the war to get rid of Saddam Hussein was but building back the nation has clearly been difficult. And that difficulty and the consequent barrage of attacks from politicians and commentators here in Britain and the world over, provided the carte blanche to dictators and tyrant regimes everywhere to commit atrocities and tell the world to keep out of their internal affairs.
Its time the international community puts a stop to that abuse. But while plausible the efforts of the international community will be hampered by the outdated structures and governance models of institutions such as UN, World Bank and others. While Tony Blair’s detractors remember the force part of the Chicago speech they conveniently forget the other parts where he talked about the responsibility of the international community to help developing nations combat poverty and improve quality of life of its own citizens. Within that construct he urged for reform of international institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and more importantly the United Nations to meet the changing needs of the world.
But, how do you reform the UN Security Council and its activities when two countries that consistently violate freedom of expression, press and democratic rights of its people are two nations that have veto rights over Security Council’s resolutions. China and Russia belong to that elite club of 5 permanent members who carry the burden of ensuring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1945 is upheld – and their own behaviour stand contrary to everything that declaration stands for.
Persecution of dissidents and muzzling freedom of the press have been the norm of governance in these two nations and it would be ridiculous to expect that the UN could do much with these two wielding veto powers. Look no further than the humanitarian crisis of Zimbabwe – China has clearly said it is an internal matter and the international community should stay away.
This bizarre while completely expected stance of these nations would ensure that the Pope’s call for the international community to intervene within the norms of UN resolutions would be very difficult if not downright impossible. The UN Security Council is a godsend to every tin pot dictator and their cronies as they know as long as China and Russia have human rights issues no one can take their carte blanche away. And, that is why Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe continue to happen in this day and age.
Critics on both sides of the political and ideological divide call for isolationism in some form or the other. Those on the left say that US and its allies have done similar things such as China and Russia during the cold war and its continued support of Israel’s policies towards Palestine cedes the moral ground they claim to have. Those on the right say its not our problem and let those who are in the mess sort themselves out and we should not spill blood of our soldiers – our young men and women – for things that don’t directly impact us.
Both sides have some valid points – yes the behaviour of US and its allies in Asia, Latin America, Africa and Middle East during the cold war days have been disastrous for the people of those regions. There are numerous examples ranging from Chile to Congo to bombing of Cambodia. Similarly, one has to accept joining the dots between the war in Afghanistan and Iraq to a safer Britain or US is not easy – especially when progress seems to be so hard to achieve. And, when your family member especially your son or daughter makes the ultimate sacrifice you want to know why?
But if we do not intervene in deep humanitarian crises and protect the rights of human beings including those of access to opportunities and a good quality of life then the secure world we live in could come down in tatters. It is not altruistic on part of the international community to take action but it is in our interest, our security and our prosperity and that of our future generations that we all must act and ensure that every child born in this world have their human rights upheld. And, if the UN Security Council is not allowed to act it falls on the nations to build coalitions outside the control of UN and act decisively to stop atrocities and gross human rights violations.
Yesterday, the unions in South Africa made a huge statement in deciding not to offload arms from China destined for Zimbabwe – maybe the African Government especially the South African President Mbeki should take a leaf out of that book and stop Mugabe.
Tony Blair was pushed out of office by his own party but the Blair Doctrine of liberal intervention seems to be here to stay and rightly so. The question remains if the leaders in the world would have the political courage to do the right thing? That remains to be seen.