For the first time in its history, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution allowing the use of force on a sovereign state. Political analysts and legal scholars argue that the international military intervention in Libya has legal grounds but still raises immense political and legal debates. There are evolving discussion on the legality of the use of force in Libya and the precedence of such exercises to intervene in the internal affair of a sovereign state in contemporary international relations. Here a brief analysis will be made on the justifications for intervention in Libya.
Humanitarian intervention is an armed intervention in another state, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, and protect civilian from a grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights. This responsibility to protect reflects a profound shift in international law, whereby a growing sense of global responsibility for atrocities is increasingly encroaching upon the formerly sanctified concept of state sovereignty. Today the international community vow to take action, against authorities who fail to protect their populations.
The situation in Libya is and continuous to be of grave concern to the international community in part, because the massive and indiscriminate destruction of lives and deliberate acceleration of human suffering in Libya poses a serious threat to the fundamental values of global peace, security and human dignity enshrined in the Charter of the UN. At this time in Libya, there is one immediate priority: stopping the killing and securing life-saving relief for the needy Libyans. To do so, the UN exhaustively used all peaceful means to resolve the crisis before moving to allow collective use of force in Libya. The Security Council authorized an international intervention to provide protection for and security to the people of Libya. The question is how does the UN coordinate implementation of military intervention?
The humanitarian disaster calls the Security Council to pass resolution 1973, ordered Gaddafi’s government to pull back from rebel-held towns, and the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect civilians from attack by Pro- Gaddafi forces, and for civilians to be allowed access to food, water and other humanitarian supplies. This entails two points of action. The first is humanitarian aid; this means access to food and water supplies, medicine and relief operations, for the affected. The second, the use of military force to contain violence and stop pro- Gaddafi forces from invading rebel controlled areas. The latter is a more extreme measure which calls for a series consideration including coordination and implementation as well what type of precedent will be set if the international community began to use force when dealing with political disputes in sovereign nations.
According to international law, military intervention in another state is justifiable if and only if it was made in self defense and/or for clear humanitarian purpose. Legal use of force in Libya has to be implemented with a clear mandate of halting the imminent treat and stopping the killing of Libyans. In his recent speeches, Gaddafi makes it clear that he will continue his attacks on civilians who rose up against his rule. He referred his own people as “rats and dogs” or “cockroaches”, and employing the bloodthirsty and vengeful language of a demented tyrant, reminds us the tragic genocide in Rwanda. Gaddafi ordered his forces to go door to door, punish through whatever means possible on those who opposed him. According to media and human rights group reports, his forces continue to sponsor and support the destruction of life, property, and deliberate acceleration of human suffering which ultimately pose a serious challenge to the fundamental values of peace, security, and human dignity enshrined in the Charter of the UN. The imminent therefore justifies the use of force to stop Gaddafi.
International law acknowledge that Gaddafi does not have unlimited power to do whatever he wants to the people of Libya, to commit whatever crimes he sees fit. The international community has the legal and moral responsibility to step in where the Libyan government failed, unable or unwilling to stop crimes or allow Gaddafi, the instigator of this crisis, to determine how and when to end it and what humanitarian aid to allow throughout the country. As Gaddafi continue to breach international norms, the international community is accountable and should force his forces to pull back, restore law and order and protect civilians.
For the intervention to be legitimate, its goal must be well defined. That is, if the intervention was carried out with the clear objective of stopping the systematic violation of human right, killing of civilians while also ensuring the safe movement and distribution of humanitarian aid in Libya, it should be considered as a means to uphold, promote, and protect human rights and human life in Libya. Time will tell to what extent the intervention achieve this goal. It is true that the violation of international law by pro Gaddafi forces must withstand the test of proportionality and necessity. There has to be a convincing necessity, instant, overwhelming, leaving no chose of means, and no moment for deliberation to stop Gaddafi’s force from engaging in reprisal.
It should be noted that if the intervention was politically motivated and aimed at creating a new political order or motivated by self interest using the issue of human right violations as a pretext, would not be acceptable and will further complicate things on the ground. Intervention based on mixed motives – even when accompanied with claims of humanitarianism – usually privileges the strategic and economic interests of interveners and results in disastrous consequences for the people on the ground. Many still believe the intervention will lead increased civilian deaths either directly as a result of an intervention or indirectly through reprisals against civilians identified as opponents. The question is not only how the US and NATO forces coordinate the implementation of the UN resolution 1973 but also when and how they will get out of Libya. Again, time will tell to what extent the major powers invested for their own interest.
At the same time, if the international community maintains a position of non-intervention in the situation in Libya, it unwittingly gives a vote for the continuation of humanitarian crisis, chaos, increase destabilization and an inevitable encouragement of Gaddafi forces to commit crimes against humanity. Humanitarian organizations suggest that the violence in Libya requires more engagement of the international community, the broader public, including civil society organizations, tribal and religious leaders, and pro democracy groups in and outside Libya.
Like Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan people are struggling to change their regime on their own terms and it should be left for them to do so. Friends and partners of the people must become involved in helping them to forge a genuine government of national unity. If Libyans fail to do so, the nation will gradually find growing purchase among its divided and disaffected citizenry, and it will only be a matter of time before another group of militants succeeds in mounting a coup or allowing an attack like the Lockerby bombing or a campaign against foreign interests in Libya or against anyone anywhere in the world.
(The writer can be reached at [email protected])
