Libya - A new Framework for Liberal Interventionism?

The intervention in Libya is one of the more interesting case studies in modern times. Similar to the war in Iraq, it has provided a fascinating case study for what's legal, and what's right in international affairs.

Right throughout this decade, must thought has been given to the question, "when is it all right for the west to intervene?" Neoconservatives said that it's justified for The United States to invade an undemocratic country in order to impose democracy. More recently, there has been much discussion about the concept of a "responsibility to protect", whereby the international community feels it is justified to intervene in the affairs of the country if that government will not (or can not) protect its own citizens.

I believe the Libyan intervention should be seen, thus far, as a comprehensive foreign policy victory for the international community. In 6 months, a violent dictator has been brought down, without the need for the west to introduce ground troops. And so far it seems like a rebel opposition has been organised enough to act as a transitional government.

But this conflict has the potential to be so much more than that. After the clumsiness and injustice of the Iraq War, this conflict may be able to create a new policy framework for liberal interventionists.

The key difference between this conflict and the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq was the behaviour of ordinary citizens. In Afghanistan and Iraq, ordinary citizens were silent, unarmed and unorganised. In Libya, the vast majority of citizens were also unarmed, but they were certainly not silent. They decided to speak out, as their brothers in Egypt and Tunisia had done.

Of course, when you live in a dictatorship, speaking out is extremely dangerous. Organising opposition can get you killed, tortured or imprisoned.

Yet hard nosed pragmatists will realise that all governments hold office only on the consent of the governed. If there is a dictatorship, silence is consent.

The withdrawal of that consent to govern requires a demonstration of power. In a democracy, that means a mass demonstration of power through the ballot box. In a dictatorship, the power of the people must be demonstrated in other ways - through either violent, or non-violent confrontation.

In Libya, protesters did demonstrate this. In Iraq, the people did not.

If we work on the principle that governments of all persuasions exist only by the consent of the governed, Saddam Hussein did have the implicit consent of the governed through the silence of the governed. The people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya acted differently. They demonstrated, through their public protests and non-violent civil disobedience, that their government had lost their consent to govern.

If an enormous number of ordinary citizens is protesting against their government on the street - that is a demonstration of power through non-violent confrontation. That power can either be acknowledged or ignored.

In Egypt, their government responded to the protesters through the removal of the President and a transitional government that agreed to a pathway to democratic reform (or at least appeared to). By doing so it regained its consent to govern, because the protests stopped.

Gaddafi responded to the same sort of non-violent demonstrations of power by using the military to kill civilians. That is a crime against humanity - worthy of intervention on its own. But more than that - a government had clearly lost the consent of the governed, and responded by sending in the military to kill civilians.

As someone on the centre-left, it's my reflex to be highly skeptical of western intervention in the affairs of other countries. But in my opinion, intervention by the west can be justified if:

- an organised majority of the citizenry of a country demonstrates that they have withdrawn their consent for the incumbent dictatorship,
- the organised citizenry genuinely support the replacement of a dictatorship with a democratic government,
- the current government refuses to listen and cracks down through the use of military action
- the organised majority requests assistance from the international community to protect unarmed civilians.

In the case of Libya, the rebels did make a request of the international community for assistance in protecting civilians. The international community did finally grant that request through UN Security council resolution 1973 (UNSCR.1973), and did so just in time to prevent Benghazi from being invaded by Gaddafi's forces.

The next vexed question becomes: when does regime change through this framework become acceptable? Many of the countries who supported the intervention would not have approved of regime change from the outset.

US Congressman Dennis Kucinich has argued that the actions of NATO, especially how it worked in an organised way with the Rebels to invade Tripoli may have breached the mandate given by the UNSCR1973 to protect civilian life (and indeed this conflict has caused many civilian casualties).

So when does it become okay to extend the humanitarian action to regime change?

In my opinion, western interventions under these circumstances should be aimed at bringing the two parties to the bargaining table at all times, to negotiate and organise a form of government that does have the consent of the governed. Attempts were made during the conflict to get Gaddafi to the table to negotiate through the African Union but these talks collapsed.

Kucinich suggests that a solution was close before it was scuttled by the US State department, but I think he ignores some other factors. Firstly, Gaddafi refused to step down. Secondly, the protesters took a hard line on democratic reform.

Finally, Gaddafi did not help himself when he announced a cease-fire but then refused to honour it. If requests for the withdrawal of armed force are not honoured by the dictatorship, then clearly its a demonstration that one side is not negotiating in good faith. From there it's possible to conclude that the protection of civilians may require the removal of the dictatorship.

I believe this is what NATO will try to argue. It's a very big stretch of the UN resolution, and it may indeed be a breach of international law. Is it legally justified? And whether it is or not, is it morally justified?

What do you think? Let us know your thoughts below.

Posted in: Foreign Policy,Gaddafi,Liberal Interventionism,Libya,NATO,United States