The Libyan dilemma around the question of intervention versus non-intervention to provide protection of civilians should remain at the heart of the political debate and should not disappear in Libya’s ruins. The approval of the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 on March 17, 2011 was an important step for the international community to recognize the value of human rights and protection of civilians over the typical ‘national interest’ narrative.
However, the adoption of the UNSCR 1973 underlined a clear division among the world powers: the pro-interventionists and the ot
hers. France, the UK, the US and others led the international community into military intervention in Libya. The use of international institution marked a clear rupture with Bush’s unilateralism, symbolizing American imperialism. The others, Russia, China, Brazil, and India, the BRICs, and even Germany abstained. The rationale behind their abstention is embedded within realism underlining the fact that states do not intervene unless their national security is endangered, unless their national interests can be enhanced, and unless relative gains are at stake. Unfortunately, foreign policy makers, even prior the Treaty of Westphalia, have shaped states’ actions along these lines.
The BRICs, minus the R, are expected to become the next superpowers and lead the world not only economically, but also politically. However, their rise is very similar to 19th and early 20th century powers. For example, the US entered into World War one only in 1917. It was also reticent to lead outside of its sphere of influence until the end of World War two. The question is for how long will the new superpowers abstain?
In a world even more interconnected than a century ago, wherein challenges are transnational, deadly, and complex, such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, diseases, cyber-terrorism and so forth, international cooperation is more than ever needed. International institutions should remain the main platforms for discussion and actions.
Last summer, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted on a resolution based on a UNSG report on the notion of human security. To my great surprise, the concept of ‘human security’ was misunderstood and sometimes even unknown by political elites when in fact it has been studied since the mid-1990s. The UNSG report was slashed in the name of state sovereignty and national interests. The concept of human security in fact is a framework for protection and enhancement of human condition within society and country on case by case basis. One can only connect the dots on which governments were restraining any substantial debate on ‘human security,’ while limiting its implementation within UN legal body.
The point is simple: the threats are new, the actors are changing, but the rules and mentalities are the same. Will the 21st century be in fact a second 20th century? What a disappointment would it be! Europe understood the challenges it faced after WW2 and developed an alternative to its ‘violent heritage:’ integration. Could it be done at the international level? Could we live in a ‘society of states’ rather than a system of states?
