CONCEPTUALIZATION OF HUMANITARIAN INTEVERNTION
5. CHAPTER FIVE: CASE STUDIES, DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
5.5. The Extent of Force Used in these Countries (Libya, Iraq and Kosovo)
additional harm against the Kosovar population.” The intervention was not directed or authorized by the UNSC. NATO decided upon itself to launch airstrikes to end the atrocities that occurred in Kosovo. The decision of NATO to intervene without the authorization from UNSC was informed by the dearth of will from the international community to act assertively in an attempt to end violence in Kosovo. However, on the other hand, the action by NATO undermined the efforts of the Security Council of encouraging resolution of disputes through dialogue. NATO transgressed the precepts of the international law that the decisions to identify threats to international peace and order should be taken by the UN Security Council. But the decision by the then US president Bill Clinton to order NATO to intervene in Kosovo received much support from the western allies, which was suffice to grant that intervention multilateral legitimacy rather than being seen as the US unilateral intervention. Be that as it may, the actions of NATO are hailed by scholars like Wheeler (2000b), as NATO managed to quell the atrocities that engulfed the Kosovar population.
He further postulates that the action by NATO towards saving the situation in Kosovo gave a new momentum to humanitarian intervention as it proved that failure of UNSC to act does not hinder other coalitions to act in favour of civilians (2000b).
The attempts were made by the international community to urge the Libyan government to desist and refrain from carrying out gross violations of human rights or what was classified as crimes against humanity. According to Ulfstein and Christiansen (2013), the UNSC attempts were preceded by the warning from Nadvi Pillay, the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights characterizing the actions of the regime as crimes against humanity. The failure of that warning to stop Gaddafi from carrying out heinous crimes against humanity necessitated intervention in Libya for humanitarian reasons. Resolution 1973 authorized NATO to use force in an attempt to stop the Libyan forces from bombing civilians. NATO intervened as per the mandate of UNSC however, the amount of force used was unwarranted. Even though it managed to quell the regime forces from attacking civilians. Moreover, during the time of intervention anti-Gaddafi forces had lost control over the Benghazi and Tobruk, which required NATO to relax its attacks and bombings, as they were faced with one target. Nevertheless, the political motives which triumphed humanitarian reasons propelled NATO to use excessive force against the Libyan government. As according to Rowley (2011), NATO was committed to effect regime change in Libya more than concerned with humanitarian reasons.
Moreover, the pursuit of regimes impelled NATO to apply an excessive force. The intervening brigade in Libya employed massive airstrikes (Fisher, 2012). These airstrikes were meant to protect civilians in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Benghazi. However, in the quest by NATO to bomb camps of the Libyan forces that were loyal to Gaddafi and other paramilitary groups that operated in Libya civilians became targets. Civilians died on account of NATO airstrikes and scores of others had to flee their homes to neighbouring countries. Furthermore, NATO’s brutal hunt for Gaddafi in his hideaways compelled them to drop more than 20 000 bombings in different towns of Libya including Tripoli. The application of such force indicated that NATO desperately wanted to oust Gaddafi out power more than it wanted to protect civilians from his cruel actions.
According to Engelbrekt, Mohlin and Wagnsson (2013), such actions were further confirmed by the assistance and training that was offered to rebels by NATO personnel. As such move was directed at empowering rebels to lead the ousting of Gaddafi’s administration. Civilians suffered and some got killed as the mad search led to NATO forces bombing convoys that were suspected to be transporting Gaddafi. The bombing of convoys driven by suspicion increased the number of civilians who died on account of NATO forces.
Iraq
: The mad search for WMD which was later justified as the intervention for humanitarian purpose. The US-led brigade intervened to stop Saddam Hussein from carrying out murderous attacks on his people. According to Roberts (2004), the airstrikes and bombardments directed to strategic places of Saddam’s forces did not only affect the targeted objectives. As these bombings generated more than 5000 civilian causalities that were supposed to be shielded (Bellamy, 2004).However, the suffering of Iraqis was not only generated by the bombs but combatants physical abused civilians when they were conducting search of weapons in their homes. Such physical abuse is reported by Emery (2004), combatants at times “humiliate the men, offend the women, and torture the very people who are supposed to be providing intelligence about terrorists and Baathist whereabouts.” Moreover, the bombardment of the strategic government areas is tantamount to destroying the country’s infrastructure. Destroying the infrastructure is not an ideal objective of humanitarian intervention, as it poses more suffering for the civilians. It is embossed in the findings of IICK (2001), the protected individuals should not be denied access to or disturbed from accessing services like public health as that further threatens their rights. In Iraq health personnel were interrupted from the reaching civilians who required medical attention. That interruption and demolition of infrastructure was manufactured by the employment of excessive force. Yes, in the words of Bellamy (2004), collateral damage is anticipated during humanitarian intervention however, it must not outweigh the good achieved.
In addition, the length spent by US and other foreign troops in Iraq exacerbated the situation. The situation in Iraq deteriorated even after the capture of the alleged dictator Saddam Hussein, as the external forces remained in Iraq for reasons related to peacekeeping. Goldberg (2010), provide statistics for causalities of hostilities or those who got killed during confrontation between the intervening troops and Saddam forces. The operations of the US-led coalition in the name of humanitarian military intervention in Iraq incubated a terrorist friendly society. As the removal of Saddam’s regime meant more looting of the state resources. Restoring peace became an increasingly difficult or an impossible task to achieve in Iraq. Human rights continued to be violated as there was violence that emerged after Saddam’s removal.
Kosovo: The employment of an excessive force seems to be the problem during humanitarian intervention. In Kosovo, the unauthorized operations of NATO included cluster bombings and airstrikes which were to some extent not precisely executed. According to Shaw (2012), the
imprecision of NATO bombing campaigns generated non-combatant causalities, which could have been shunned if NATO had used ground soldiers. The employment of air-to-surface missiles led to incidents where some bombs that were directed to military targets went astray and landed in residential areas. In addition, the application of an excessive force compelled people to vacate their places and that subjected civilians to the state of refugees within their own country. The application of airstrikes did not only end by threatening lives of non-combatants but also posed danger even to the future of the country through damaging of the infrastructure. As destroying the infrastructure of the country means that even the new political structure after the intervention will find it difficult to service the people. As the failure to service your people is equal to denying them some of their certain fundamental human rights.