In 2005, the United Nations approved a new doctrine called the “responsibility to protect,” nicknamed R2P, declaring that world powers have the right and obligation to intervene when a dictator devours his people. The Libyan intervention is putting teeth into that fledgling concept, and here’s one definition of progress: The world took three-and-a-half years to respond forcefully to the slaughter in Bosnia, and about three-and-a-half weeks to respond in Libya.
There are times when action is imperative. There are times when the application of force can and should be necessary.
The words I have quoted are from Nicholas Kristof, in an op ed titled HUgs from Libyan, which begins with the downed American airman being hugged and thanked by Libyans grateful for his bombing their country. That they welcomed him, that they are grateful for what we and are allies are doing matters, but not so much as this - that if we had not intervened the slaughter would be massive, as it was in Bosnia. As Kristof points out, by the time the French began their bombing runs, a firefight was occurring outside the hotel in Bengazi where foreign journalist were staying.
I am a Quaker. I am reluctant to see the use of military force.
I am human. I am unwilling to stand by and do nothing while people are slaughtered.
There is more to the Kristof piece. It is worth reading, as are most of his pieces. Read it.
I have further thoughts of my own.
Would we have participated in the intervention absent oil being present in Libya? Perhaps not, although the presence of oil in Sudan was insufficient for us to intervene in Darfur.
Still, as Kristof rightly notes, just because we do not and maybe can not intervene in every situation does not mean we should refuse where it is possible to make a difference.
Libyan airspace is easily accessible without having to cross the territory of a nation which might oppose our action. The same was not as readily true of Darfur. That does not justify are reluctance to apply greater pressure to the Sudanese government, but it is a reality.
In this situation, the United Nations Security Council was willing to provide the international blessing.
And in this case, another nation was willing to take the lead, so that this was not seen as primarily a US action.
Kristof says this is more like 1991 than 2003, more a time of international outrage. Perhaps. But I remember that even after the concerted effort to drive Iraq from Kuwait, we did not fully destroy Iraq's military, and then were slow to react when Saddam Hussein began to slaughter his own people when they tried to rise up against him.
Some criticize the Obama administration for not seeking the approval of Congress before taking this action. If I may quote from Wikipedia:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
The appropriate notification was given, and we have not yet come close to the 60 day window. Thus there should not at this point be a criticism of acting to save lives because it is NOT in violation of the most appropriate Congressional action, one past over the veto of Richard Nixon in the aftermath of his invasion of Cambodia.
Some argue that the provisions of the Resolution would require a direct threat to the United States. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but would note of the more than 100 cases where presidents have made notifications to Congress since the resolution became law, few would actually meet that test. And we have accepted as justifications our obligations under various treaties. For example, had it been another NATO member that had been attacked in September of 2001, Article V of the NATO Charter would have required us to respond, even if we had no troops in the nation in question. That ratified charter views an attack on one as an attack on all. It committed us to the defense of Western Europe against possible Soviet aggression. The provision is why the nations of Western Europe came to our immediate aid, and why the operations in Afghanistan are under NATO authority.
Among the stated functions of the UN Security Council, as found at this page at the UN Website are these:
"to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;"
"to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;"
"to take military action against an aggressor;"
Perhaps some might not see in these the authorization for the kinds of actions being taken in Libya. But perhaps an examination of the principles of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which one can explore here, are worth noting, especially that there is a
responsibility of international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt mass atrocities when a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations.
The development of this doctrine was a direct result of the world's horror at what had happened in Rwanda. It is worth noting from the same Wikipedia article the following:
The African Union pioneered the concept that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in crisis situations if the State is failing to protect its population. In the founding charter in 2005, African nations declared that the "protection of human and peoples rights" would be a principal objective of the AU and that the Union had the right "to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity."
When the UN moved to approve Responsibility to Protect, the US supported the movement.
If we are committed to the principles of the United Nations, whose charter is a ratified treaty, it seems to me that we have an obligation to participate in actions approved by the Security Council that are taken to preserve lives.
I will repeat.
I am a Quaker.
In general I am opposed to war.
I am a human. I refuse to stand idly by while people are being slaughtered.
Allow me to return to Kristof, to his final paragraph, because I believe it is pertinent.
I’ve seen war up close, and I detest it. But there are things I’ve seen that are even worse — such as the systematic slaughter of civilians as the world turns a blind eye. Thank God that isn’t happening this time.
We cannot turn a blind eye. We may not always be able to make a difference. This time we could, this time the world was willing to act.
It was almost too late. It still may be insufficient.
But at least it is not another Rwanda. Not yet.
And for me that is sufficient justification for the involvement of US forces in this international effort.