It is from this complexity that many criticisms of the R2P and humanitarian intervention come, as without defined expectations intervention can potentially magnify devastating situations and cause further international disorder. The effectiveness of intervention be debated and even with the parameters of the R2P, the intervention in Libya was not entirely successful, with the international community failing to fulfil the ‘responsibility to rebuild’ criteria for which they should have assisted Libya in restabilising after the conflict (Berti, 2013). Historically, intervention has had dire repercussions that continue to concern the international community when considering its necessity (Booth Walling, 2015) however it is the awareness and analysis
…show more content…
However, despite the negative consequences in in the early 1990s and the continued conflict, Stupart (2011) argues that the perception of Somalia as a “lost cause” is inaccurate and that another intervention, under the new guidelines and current international law, could be successful in restoring Somalia as a state. These guidelines are effectively antithetical to the previous core principles, with a focus on increased involvement over a longer period of time for both peacekeeping and development purposes (Stupart, 2011). It is possible that, with an international community concerned with R2P, future intervention in Somalia may be capable of repairing the state. However, the hesitance and lack of international interest proves that traditional notions of non-intervention are still influential and that the negative consequences of failure may still outweigh the potential gains (Stupart, …show more content…
Of particular concern is the threat of hegemonic states utilising intervention for non-humanitarian reasons. As Orford (2003) characterises there is a ‘narrative ‘of humanitarian intervention wherein the ‘hero’ provides progression and human rights to the victims This dynamic creates the potential for exploitation concurrent to intervention with both deemed humanitarian efforts. As those with choosing to intervene generally identify with the ‘hero’ of the narrative they miss the potential issues that the ‘victim’ of the narrative might understand, thereby exacerbating issues they were not involved in. An example of this was the 2003 invasion of Iraq which was initially motivated by the belief Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In the2010 Iraq Inquiry, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair gave evidence that the invasion also dealt with the ‘brutality and repression’ of Saddam Hussein’s regime’” (Bahador and Wright). Similarly, President George W. Bush made statements that Iraqis now had the “chance to live in freedom” without Hussein in power (Bahador and Wright). Both these leaders made retroactive claims regarding the degree to which humanitarian
However, despite the negative consequences in in the early 1990s and the continued conflict, Stupart (2011) argues that the perception of Somalia as a “lost cause” is inaccurate and that another intervention, under the new guidelines and current international law, could be successful in restoring Somalia as a state. These guidelines are effectively antithetical to the previous core principles, with a focus on increased involvement over a longer period of time for both peacekeeping and development purposes (Stupart, 2011). It is possible that, with an international community concerned with R2P, future intervention in Somalia may be capable of repairing the state. However, the hesitance and lack of international interest proves that traditional notions of non-intervention are still influential and that the negative consequences of failure may still outweigh the potential gains (Stupart, …show more content…
Of particular concern is the threat of hegemonic states utilising intervention for non-humanitarian reasons. As Orford (2003) characterises there is a ‘narrative ‘of humanitarian intervention wherein the ‘hero’ provides progression and human rights to the victims This dynamic creates the potential for exploitation concurrent to intervention with both deemed humanitarian efforts. As those with choosing to intervene generally identify with the ‘hero’ of the narrative they miss the potential issues that the ‘victim’ of the narrative might understand, thereby exacerbating issues they were not involved in. An example of this was the 2003 invasion of Iraq which was initially motivated by the belief Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In the2010 Iraq Inquiry, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair gave evidence that the invasion also dealt with the ‘brutality and repression’ of Saddam Hussein’s regime’” (Bahador and Wright). Similarly, President George W. Bush made statements that Iraqis now had the “chance to live in freedom” without Hussein in power (Bahador and Wright). Both these leaders made retroactive claims regarding the degree to which humanitarian