In our contemporary world, some horrifying events such as genocides, mass atrocities and even terrorist attacks are happening all around the world. With the end of the 20th century some significant changes occurred in our societies including differences in the nature of armed conflicts. Internal conflicts have replaced inter-state conflicts and as a result civilian populations now represent the majority of the victims. So the issue of intervention for human protection purposes was discussed in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and States Sovereignty or ICISS who encouraged the states to adopt the principle of the Responsibility to Protect or R2P, as it’s commonly known (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf, 2016). In 2005, the international community through the United Nations Summit recognised the principle of R2P and defined it as the obligation and the right the individual states and then the international community have to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity when a state fails in its obligations to protect its own population. The R2P embraces three major responsibilities; the responsibility to prevent, which is probably the most important according to the ICISS; the responsibility to react; and the responsibility to rebuild through multilateral and physical actions from the government. Even though the R2P and the interventions that flow directly from the doctrine have been legally defined by the United Nations since 2005, some of the benefits are coupled with risks for the populations and the rest of the world. The purpose of this essay is to investigate the benefits of the theoretical principle of R2P with its prevention and intervention’s responsibility in an effective way. Moreover, some risks due to the international interventions will be evaluated as the principle R2P has been enforced in several countries over the last ten years.
In theory, the intervention of the international community is subject to notified conditions defined in the ICISS report for a precise purpose. Indeed, prevention must be exhausted before any military intervention, even with the right intention, which means the primary purpose of the intervention is to protect from human suffering. The military intervention must be the last resort, as prevention is favoured with this principle, with proportional action and reasonable objectives. Those principles were defined for one main purpose: the protection of the suffering population. The intervention made in Côte d’Ivoire in 2011 is a successful example of intervention that protected the population and ameliorated the country’s situation (Oved, 2011). In fact, the country had two Presidents as the results of an election contested by both ex-President Laurent Gbagbo and President Ouattara, and the population was suffering of violence. After non-successful international negotiations with Laurent Gbagbo, the other President Ouattara asked for help from the international community to be legitimately recognised. Within a week of the international intervention, the former president who had refused to accept the defeat and had turned his country into a spiral of violence was arrested, and the majority of his forces had rallied to the legitimate President. So in two weeks, the political situation was restored with the intervention of the international community, as the objectives of the intervention were clearly defined. So in the short term, the R2P is a source of protection of the population with primarily non-military intervention and if needed the intervention by military force. Since the military intervention in Côte d’Ivoire, the United Nations Security Council is still present in the country with the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire also named the UNOCI. After the armed military intervention, around 5.500 UN peacekeepers or blue helmets from different countries including Nigeria and Senegal went working on the field with different long-term aims. The objectives of R2P are to keep the internal situation of the country in order and the UNOCI program leads some of those operational and humanitarian actions. Regarding the operational actions, the UNOCI helps the national authority to maintain peace, order and respect of the law in partnership with the Ivoirian military force and the government. Moreover, thanks to the UNOCI program, some infrastructures such as roads and bridges are built to allow the troop’s movement so they can fulfil their role of military protection and maintain the order throughout the whole country. They sometimes realise some work in favour of the Ivoirian road network, which is an advantage for the transportation of people and goods within the country and ultimately a real economic advantage for the country. In addition to the military force intervention, some military hospitals were built mainly for the blue helmets but these hospitals benefitted the general population with medical treatment and even vaccination campaigns. Despite the operational intervention, the UNOCI Military Force in Côte d’Ivoire fills the role to help the country rebuild itself (:: ONUCI -Opération des Nations Unies en Côte d'Ivoire ::, 2016). For those reasons, by respecting the principle of sovereignty and the primary responsibility of the country, the international humanitarian intervention is here to protect civilians who are directly threatened in specific areas of the country. Moreover, with the intervention of the international community, it is easier for the country to strengthen border control enforced by the national military institution and the international community. In addition, when the international military force intervention is successful, the intervention of the non-governmental organisations is facilitated and much less risky for the professionals of the humanitarian sector whose only objective is to help the civilians with emergency medical or food aid for instance. The R2P has an important role in the protection and the assistance of the populations who are suffering of violence. But in the long term, the intervention of the international community can also help the country to rebuild its political and even economic situation as the military intervention generally last not just a few weeks but a few years to stabilize the local situation and the world’s peace.
The interventions lead by the R2P have clear benefits but on the other hand lots of risks can be hidden behind this contemporary concept. The R2P principle emanates from the International Commission on Intervention and States Sovereignty, but any international intervention in any country which fails in protecting the populations suffering from mass atrocities such as genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, has to be authorized by the United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and ten non-permanent countries. In a political point of view, these influential states can use their power to authorize an intervention in a country where they might have some political and economic benefits of their own. Indeed, that is the case with the intervention in Syria from the international community and also individual countries such as Russia (Here's what Russian intervention in Syria means for oil, 2016). Behind this intervention, some countries might act more for their national advantage rather than the one of the local populations suffering of atrocities. Every one is aware of the presence of natural resources in Syria and any individual country that brings peace back in the area will have the right through the R2P principle to stay in the country to help rebuild the country. What if the real purpose of the intervention is to control the natural resources of oil produced in Syria? If this situation happens, it could lead directly to an international conflict. That is why, if there is any military intervention, it needs to be an intervention with a minimum two organisations. Furthermore, the long-term military intervention due to the R2P principle could lead the country to a dependence on the international community. The role of military forces is to keep peace and order, but the government and the population could risk not actively rebuilding their country and just benefitting off the humanitarian help without making any effort to develop the infrastructure needed to develop their economy. After an intervention, it is paramount that the government be able to manage the country, the population and its issues. Unfortunately, the force used by the military intervention might cause more fear in the civilian rather than the real persecutors. But in the point of view of the human needs from the Maslow theory (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs – Physiological, safety, social, 2016), the safety need is the second most important need after the physiological one. So the population suffering of mass atrocities in their country might only have one need: leave the country. That is why there are refugees in the bordering countries and in other attractive countries for the populations in need of safety. At the end of the process of massive migration, some problems appear for the country of origin and also the host country. The country of origin is abandoned by a population who does not want to return to a country that has disappointed them and where they cannot see their future anymore. On the other hand, the host country has to manage a mass arrival of immigrants threatening the whole organization of the country that can change as the flow of humans is often linked to the emergence of local threats, such as cultural conflicts or terrorism. However, terrorist attacks can be seen as a reprisal from the organisation that ceased its acts of violence toward the civilians by the international community and the members who participated to the intervention. As a result, the fear is no longer in the country where atrocities happened but now in the countries who tried to help these civilians.
The principle of R2P is an important doctrine of our contemporary society that was made for one purpose: the protection of populations. This is the main benefit of R2P in theory in addition to some secondary benefits resulting from international intervention such as infrastructures, a growing economy, medical care and prevention. But as a recent concept, the international community does not have the sufficient hindsight to analyse or anticipate the risks of any international intervention in one country or area. For this reason, there are many risks attached to any external military intervention where the aim of the countries that are providing assistance to the populations in need is not really protection but control of the area and its natural resources for instance. The R2P principle as a new theoretical concept needs to be applied and tested, even if all the interventions are not always successful and sometimes create hazards. The international community can learn from these mistakes by enforcement of R2P and eventually modifying the theory thanks to the practice.