Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse: The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq - Literature review Example

?Article Evaluation One of the important articles in ethics and international affairs, “Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse: The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq” by A.J. Bellamy (2005) explores the international engagement with Darfur. Based on the norm of humanitarian intervention since the 2003 war in Iraq, the article analyzes the actual reason behind the interference of the international community in the Darfur conflict in Sudan. The major discussion in the article centers on the distinction between the responsibility of international community to protect Darfur and the tendency to play the Trojan horse. Thus, he raises the question whether the states and regional organizations actually distinguish their “responsibility to protect” civilians at risk, or if the humanitarian intervention can be “perceived as a “Trojan horse” used by the powerful to legitimize their interference in the affairs of the weak.” (Bellamy 2005, p. 32). Therefore, the fundamental discussion of the article is on the subject of these two positions, in order to examine whether the Iraq war has shifted the balance between them, and the author poses an essential question about the legitimacy of the “supreme humanitarian emergencies” of the world. In his analysis, the author offers a brief overview of the norm of humanitarian intervention based on the ‘responsibility to protect’, and makes a detailed investigation of the international response to Darfur. This paper makes a comprehensive analysis of the article by A.J. Bellamy in the context of its subject matter and other literature on the area, by pulling out the key arguments by Bellamy and assessing them in the background of the existing literature on the topic. In a reflective exploration of the arguments of A.J. Bellamy in the article, it becomes lucid that he takes up a very relevant topic for discussion and offers some convincing arguments in a systematic discussion. Significantly, the context of its subject matter is highly important to the international debates in the background of the norms of humanitarian intervention since the 2003 war in Iraq. The norm of humanitarian intervention as put forward by the author has a great relevance in the context of rising interference of the international community in the affairs of the local governments and states in the contemporary world. According to the author, the situation in Darfur has been crucial in revealing two of the most delicate changes to the humanitarian intervention norm at the international scenario. A.J. Bellamy puts forward his arguments in a very effective way when he argues that the debates on Darfur have offered convincing evidence about the weakened standing of the United States and the U.K. as norm carriers of the international humanitarian intervention. He also makes use of the arguments by other writers on the topic to prove that there is a lack of confidence in the leading role taken by these states at the international setting, although there is no perceptible change in the level of consensus about humanitarian intervention. Another major argument by the author in this context is that the Darfur debates have provided an increasing interest in the focus on the language of a “responsibility to protect”, according to which the international society has the duty or responsibility to protect the interest of the regional states and governments. On the basis of the Darfur case, the author tries to prove that the language involving responsibility to protect “has now enabled anti-interventionists to legitimize arguments against action by claiming that primary responsibility in certain contested cases still lies with the state, and not (yet) with an international body.” (Bellamy 2005, p. 33). Therefore, the arguments made by the author in this article have helped highlight the important and responsible role to be played by the international society based on the humanitarian intervention norm. In other words, these arguments by the author are important eye-opener to the leading players of the international intervention in regional affairs and issues such as the Darfur issue to take up this role with an understanding of the “responsibility to protect”. In a similar discussion on the topic of the international intervention in regional affairs and issues of the Darfur, Williams and Bellamy (2005) prove that the international society’s feeble response on the Darfur’s crisis has failed to recognize the role of the “responsibility to protect”. According to them, three main factors are useful in explaining the West’s disinclination to intervene in Darfur. According to Williams and Bellamy, these main factors include aspects such as the increased skepticism about the West’s humanitarian interventionism, especially after the invasion of Iraq; Western strategic interests in Sudan; and the relationship between the crisis in Darfur and Sudan’s other civil wars. The most essential conclusion of their analysis is that “the emerging norm of humanitarian intervention remains weak and strongly contested, and that advocates of the ‘responsibility to protect’ approach have yet to persuade their governments to help save populations in danger.” (Williams and Bellamy 2005, p. 27). Therefore, the ‘responsibility to protect’ approach has been used widely to prove the inability of the international players to deal with the burning issues of the world with a humanitarian outlook. These points of view offer additional evidence to the argument put forward by A.J. Bellamy who maintains that “responsibility to protect” talk has been used in the international debates to contest international activism as much as to support it. (Bellamy 2005, p. 33). There have been similar discussions on the role of the humanitarian intervention norm based on the case of Darfur’s crisis and the intervention done by the international society. In one of the most recent articles on the topic, Kubicek and Parke (2011) argue that the EU nations failed to recognize the need for international intervention in Darfur based on the humanitarian intervention norm which ultimately resulted in the slow pace of the commitment shown by the EU in taking policy-based actions on the issue. According to them, the EU nations did not make use of the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to human rights and the emerging norm of the responsibility to protect in Darfur and the EU policy was found wanting. Exploring the EU’s actions and non-actions in Darfur in light of the “lessons of Bosnia”, the authors bring out the gap between EU rhetoric and policy, which ultimately demonstrates the need for humanitarian intervention norm in international affairs and interventions. (Kubicek and Parke 2011, p. 60). Therefore, Kubicek and Parke prove that the international society’s feeble response in the Darfur’s crisis highlight the significance of the humanitarian intervention norm. In his discussion on the norm of humanitarian intervention, A.J. Bellamy refers to the general acceptance of the UN Charter that that the Security Council has a legal right to authorize humanitarian intervention and the consensus among the liberal states that there is a moral right to intervene without council authorization in extreme cases. However, he maintains that these sanctions may result in the breach of the norm of humanitarian intervention and argues that there are two essential questions to consider in this context: “First, who has the authority to sanction humanitarian intervention when the Security Council is blocked by the veto? Second, when should a humanitarian crisis trigger potential armed intervention?” (Bellamy 2005, p. 34). Therefore, it is fundamental to realize that the arguments put forward by Bellamy have great significance in the context of the current international scenario, especially in the context of the “war on terror”. Based on the case analysis of the Darfur experience, Bellamy claims that no one can overestimate the strength of humanitarian intervention norm by arguing that the importance of this norm has diminished after September 11. On the contrary, he argues that the debates about how to respond to the crisis in Darfur have proved the claim that, as a result of the Iraq war, the credibility of the United States and the U.K. as humanitarian intervention norm carriers has significantly diminished at the international level. “Throughout discussions on Darfur, some states and organizations expressly rejected American- and British-led activism in the Security Council, while endorsing the AU intervention and calling for its expansion.” (Bellamy 2005, p. 34). Therefore, the author comes up with persuasive arguments for the discussion at the international level and proves that the discussions on Darfur provide significant evidence about the role of humanitarian intervention norm. As the crisis in Darfur represented a supreme humanitarian emergency, “the crisis in Darfur represented a supreme humanitarian emergency. It therefore provides an important test case of international society’s commitment to an emerging norm of humanitarian intervention.” (Williams and Bellamy 2005, p. 27). Significantly, some of the most celebrated scholarly studies in the area also prove that the humanitarian intervention norm has great relevance in the contemporary world scenario. According to Wheeler and Morris (2007), “the Security Council’s reluctance to act over Darfur is cited in support of this position, and it is evident that the Iraq war has made many states, especially the Arab world, conscious of the need to reassert the primacy of the non-intervention principle.” (Wheeler and Morris, 2007, p. 460). In an essential analysis of the arguments made by A.J. Bellamy in his article “Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse: The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq”, it becomes evident that these arguments have great relevance in the context of its subject matter and other literature on the area. In conclusion, it is important to recognize that the arguments proposed by A.J. Bellamy in this article have attained international attention which led to heated debates on the topic. Bibliography BELLAMY, A.J. 2005. “Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq”. Ethics and International Affairs. 19 (2), 31-54. WILLIAMS, Paul D. and BELLAMY, Alex J. 2005. “The Responsibility to Protect and the Crisis in Darfur.” SAGE Publications. 36 (1). pp. 27–47. KUBICEK, Paul and PARKE, Dana. 2011. “European Union and Humanitarian Intervention Bosnia, Darfur, and Beyond.” EU External Affairs Review. WHEELER, Nicholas J. and MORRIS, Justin. 2007. “The Iraq War as a Humanitarian Intervention.” The Iraq Crisis and World Order. Ramesh Thakur (Ed). Pearson Education. p. 460. Read More