The ethics of peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention (Part 2: An answer to one of my critics)

While considering how to continue this series about peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention I recalled two stories about US engagement in the 1990s wars in the Balkans. The first was the story of how the Croat-Bosniac alliance was held together, despite huge tensions between the two communities after the battle for Mostar. As the story goes, the US and her European allies gave the Bosniac and Croat leaders a simple choice, either you join forces and unite against the Serbs, or we leave you to your fate. A similar situation is supposed to have arisen during the Kosovo conflict, with the Kosovan Albanian leaders at Rambouillet being told that they would sign the agreement, or they would get no assistance. I suspect that there was an element of bluff in both these cases, as I can't imagine the EC/EU or the US would have allowed the continuation of a brutal civil war, with all the negative security consequences that would go along with it, to have continued any longer regardless of the attitude of any of the belligerent parties.

This topic has particular resonance for me as the opinions being put forward by Waging Peace on the subject of Darfur have led to us being criticised for as part of the 'something must be done brigade'. One critic of proponents of intervention in Darfur who has committed particular time to attacking our cause is Johnathan Steele of the Guardian newspaper (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/). In continuing the series, and in reference to the idea that calling for intervention in Darfur may be irresponsible, I have opted to answer his particular criticisms.

Steele's argument is essentially this:

1. There has never been any chance of a western intervention in Darfur, and repeated calls for this to happen have irresponsibly raised the hopes of refugees in Darfur
2. Calls for intervention have followed simplistic analysis and focussed too much attention on the Khartoum government and President Bashir, while distracting attention away from the role of the rebels in the continuing conflict
3. That Darfur is not the 'world's worst humanitarian crisis'
4. That a Western intervention would be disastrous
5. The only chance of improving the security of the civilians of Darfur is to pursue a political solution between the rebels and the government

Although I do not seek to speak for Waging Peace in this blog, and certainly not for our partners in the Darfur campaign, I would personally answer these criticisms with the following:

1. We have only ever asked for an effective and swift solution to the atrocious security situation in which the civilians of Darfur reside. When we have identified Western assets that we feel represent the best option in order to achieve this goal, then I feel no shame that we have demanded their use.
2) I have not spent the many years of study of international defence and security in general, and the many hours over the past year spent studying Darfur, to provide simplistic analysis. However, you cannot launch a popular campaign by asking people to read a series of theses. We only get so many column inches, and if our reports were too long people simply would not read them. In short, our analysis holds the required depth, but we can only realistically seek to publish our conclusions. On the issue of the relative blame to be placed on the rebels and the government I would say two things. Firstly, if the government seeks to assert its sovereignty, then it holds a much greater responsibility for the security of its citizens than any other authority. Secondly, regardless of who is most to blame, if civilians are in dire need of protection and the government is EITHER unwilling OR unable to provide this protection then the international community must step in.
3) I personally agree that Iraq is a much greater humanitarian crisis than that taking place in Darfur. However, My colleagues and I cannot take on all of the world's problems at once, we must focus our efforts. Darfur has been my target because it makes greater use of my personal area of expertise and, I believe, is more in need of my efforts considering Iraq already receives countless column inches and multiple billions of dollars worth of resources. It is unfortunate that politicians sometimes make statements that are easily identifiable as untrue factually, but we do not control that.
4) Steele's argument that a Western intervention would be disastrous is not one that he seems to have spent much time developing. On occasion he has referred to Iraq and Afghanistan in relation to this argument, but has not (to my knowledge) directly made the link between the outcome of these situations and the likely outcome of a Western intervention in Darfur. I would argue, however, that an intervention is disastrous only when it is poorly planned and/or poorly resourced and/or poorly executed. I do not accept the argument of impossibility of success, there are differing likelihoods, but they can be managed by proper reference to these three factors, as well as a series of sub-factors.
5) I agree that a permanent peace can only be achieved through political settlement, but if such a settlement takes over 4 years to achieve, while over 200,000 civilians are killed and 2 million displaced, then seeking a political settlement is simply not enough. Protecting civilians militarily may only be a short-term solution, but is none-the-less a hugely important measure.