2011 Libya Intervention: Eleanor Carter
In 2011 NATO interfered on behalf of Liberian citizens in an act of liberalism because they believed that Libya had failed to exercise it's rights as a sovereignty properly. The country was being led by a man named Muammar Gaddafi, an eccentric new wave leader with bold ideas. His leadership sparked rebellion in Libya, and the country seemed to be on the brink of Civil War. Gaddafi was ruthless, and vowed to hunt down anyone who opposed his leadership and authority. An international report stated that Gaddafi's forces:
"fired indiscriminate rockets, mortars and artillery shells as well as cluster bombs into residential neighbourhoods, killing and injuring scores of residents. On several occasions they fired live ammunition or heavy weapons, including tank shells and rocket- propelled grenades (RPGs), at residents who were fleeing – in what appeared at times to be a policy of “shoot anything that moves."
This act of hard power received global attention, and NATO was made aware of the crisis that was ensuing. There was a debate as whether or not they should use hard power or soft power to help the country. In 2005 at a United Nations World Summit meeting the definition of the Responsibility to Protect, or RP2 was stated as following:
"Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity . . . We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it . . . The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council… should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."
Through this justification, NATO took actions against the Libyan government and swore to protect citizens and cavils from Gaddafi's onslaught. The coalition installed a "no-fly zone" and bored Gaddafi's military outposts. Through this a conflict began questioning weather NATO had overstepped it's boundaries under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. As of today Libya has been in a state of Civil War since May 16, 2014. Now Libya is occupied by two opposing governments who are fighting for control over this divided country. Many are worried that the division of power in the country between the rebels fighting and the government could tear the country apart.
I think in NATO's decision to interfere they believed it to be a liberalist act, because that is what much of NATO aligns themselves with. But in my belief their actions took a more realism approach, in that they used military power and sanctions to try and prevent further conflict in the nation. They acted in a way that aligned with the hard powers of NATO, as they have heavy hands on military control and access to weapons. However, realists more align with the states best interest in mind, and in branching out to try and help a country like Libya, would align with a more liberalist mindset.
"fired indiscriminate rockets, mortars and artillery shells as well as cluster bombs into residential neighbourhoods, killing and injuring scores of residents. On several occasions they fired live ammunition or heavy weapons, including tank shells and rocket- propelled grenades (RPGs), at residents who were fleeing – in what appeared at times to be a policy of “shoot anything that moves."
This act of hard power received global attention, and NATO was made aware of the crisis that was ensuing. There was a debate as whether or not they should use hard power or soft power to help the country. In 2005 at a United Nations World Summit meeting the definition of the Responsibility to Protect, or RP2 was stated as following:
"Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity . . . We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it . . . The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council… should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."
Through this justification, NATO took actions against the Libyan government and swore to protect citizens and cavils from Gaddafi's onslaught. The coalition installed a "no-fly zone" and bored Gaddafi's military outposts. Through this a conflict began questioning weather NATO had overstepped it's boundaries under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. As of today Libya has been in a state of Civil War since May 16, 2014. Now Libya is occupied by two opposing governments who are fighting for control over this divided country. Many are worried that the division of power in the country between the rebels fighting and the government could tear the country apart.
I think in NATO's decision to interfere they believed it to be a liberalist act, because that is what much of NATO aligns themselves with. But in my belief their actions took a more realism approach, in that they used military power and sanctions to try and prevent further conflict in the nation. They acted in a way that aligned with the hard powers of NATO, as they have heavy hands on military control and access to weapons. However, realists more align with the states best interest in mind, and in branching out to try and help a country like Libya, would align with a more liberalist mindset.
Comments