Stories behind the western-led humanitarian intervention in Libya: A critical analysis

Abstract

The Western-led NATO intervention in Libya attracted global attention, causing a misunderstanding of the concept of 'humanitarian intervention'. The level of controversy is not alleged to stem from the imperative 'to intervene or not to intervene' but rather from the question 'what interests were intervening states possibly pursuing'? Comments from the Western hemisphere mainly focused on Qaddafi's deliberate attempts to obstruct Libya's path to democracy and fiercely claimed the right to intervene on behalf of the Libyan masses. In another side, however, claims are vehemently made about the primacy and continued resonance of the concept of 'national sovereignty', seen as incompatible with any such coercive coalition intervention. While proposing to briefly revisit the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, this article sets out to demonstrate, basing on variables that tie past to present, the degree to which the Western-led NATO intervention in Libya was encouraged by realist interests. Besides confronting the human rights rhetoric of the world leading imperial elites with Qaddafi's past misdeeds, the paper draws on the various Marxist approaches to neocolonialism to try to determine the reasons for military intervention and the extent to which it was conducted on humanitarian grounds.

Fighting with words: humanitarian security and the changing role of law in contemporary armed conflict

“…Even though official R2P documents make an effort to distinguish between ‘traditional’ or non‐violent humanitarian action to relieve human suffering, on the one hand, and military intervention to protect civilians from mass atrocity crimes, on the other, the two have become mixed in public policy discourse. In March 2011, when the R2P principle was triggered in the context of the Libyan civil war, the intervention was quickly branded as ‘humanitarian’ by its instigators (Nguirane, 2013). Ostensibly, this was motivated by a desire to present the intervention in a more favourable light and to secure public support for the use of coercive military power.…”

Does Democratic Peace Theory Genuinely Envision Global Peace? A Critical Approach

“…Yet, Gaddafi had condemned the expansionist actions of the foreign colonialist in Africa and had adopted an anti-Western stance in the international arena. This stance of Gaddafi and his resistance against the rules of the imperialist structure facilitated to label Libya as one of the rogue states after 9/11 (Cheikh, 2013). In this regard, the pretext of the imperialist powers to intervene in Libya was to replace the authoritarian Muammar Gaddafi regime with his pro-democratic opposition.…”