Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq

Abstract

What does the world's engagement with the unfolding crisis in Darfur tell us about the impact of the Iraq war on the norm of humanitarian intervention? Is a global consensus about a “responsibility to protect” more or less likely? There are at least three potential answers to these questions. Some argue that the merging of strategic interests and humanitarian goods amplified by the intervention in Afghanistan makes it more likely that the world's most powerful states will act to prevent or halt humanitarian crises. Others insist that the widespread perception that the United States and its allies “abused” humanitarian justifications to legitimate its invasion of Iraq has set back efforts to build a global consensus about humanitarian action. A third group argues that the “responsibility to protect” inhibits the potential for abuse and, as a result, consensus is likely to strengthen post-Iraq for precisely this reason. Through a detailed study of the international engagement with Darfur, I suggest that the latter two arguments have merit but need to be adjusted. I argue that the humanitarian intervention norm has changed in two subtle ways. First, while the strength of the norm itself has not changed, the credibility of the United States and U.K. as “norm carriers” has been significantly undermined. Second, while the “responsibility to protect” has been invoked to support international activism, it has also re-legitimated anti-interventionist arguments.

The responsibility to protect as humanitarian negotiation: A space for the ‘politics of humanity’?

“…But, as the génocidaires-dominated refugee camps in the aftermath of the Rwandan Genocide demonstrated, such spaces can never be governance-free zones, and where the responsibilities of governance are eschewed, life can become nasty, brutish and short for particular groups all too easily (Terry, 2002). Meanwhile, the governance aspects of the RtoP have long been at the heart of the fundamental objection of those critics who see it as a 'Trojan Horse' for Western/liberal/US imperialism (Bellamy, 2005;Cunliffe, 2011). is why invoking R2P should never be accepted simply as an effort to inject some humanity into an inhumane situation (the possibility of getting the facts wrong is another reason; that too has happened in the past).'…”

Post-Cold War Military Intervention in Africa

“…Of the permanent members in the Security Council, the US has taken the most assertive stance against Sudan, but the threat of China"s veto has made pushing for tougher resolutions even more complex. 42 While realists might maintain that the Security Council deliberations over Darfur expound the triumph of state power and interests over norms, analytical eclecticism suggests a more complex relationship between norms, interests and power. Dissimilar to realism, constructivism does not presuppose state interests; to a certain extent, constructivists seek to explore how interests and identities are created.…”

The Solidarist Challenge to International Society and Humanitarian Intervention: The Cases of Kosovo and Darfur

“…It ultimately shows that there was unwillingness from the international community to take "responsibility-based" action in Darfur (Bellamy;Williams, 2005, p.29). Inaction there put in doubt the promise that if tragedies such as Rwanda happen again, "[the international community] will not walk away as the outside has done many times before 2 ", because it has a "moral duty" to provide military and humanitarian assistance to Africa whenever it is needed (Bellamy, 2005, pp.31-54).…”

“…Inaction in Darfur inevitably invited to comparisons with the slaughter in Rwanda during 1994 and highlighting the need "to avoid a repeat of international society's feeble response there" (Bellamy;Williams, 2005, p.29). However, despite this recognition, governments showed "little inclination to protect civilians suffering at the hands of their own government in the Sudanese province of Darfur" (Bellamy;Williams, 2005, p.27).…”

“…"There was a significant shift of attitudes during the 1990s, especially among liberal democratic states, which led the way in pressing new humanitarian claims within international society" (Bellamy;Wheeler, 2005). The United Nations Security Council started inclunding Protection of Civilians' (POC) mandates during peacekeeping operations, which often entailed the permission to use "all necessary means", including the use of force, to uphold human rights.…”