NATO's contemporary peace keeping activities

Established for the purpose of collective defense and the protection of the liberal democracy of the West, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) an intergovernmental military alliance, was established in 1949 in the midst of the Cold War. Originating from the Treaty of Brussels in 1948, NATO started off with only a handful of states but has now grown to include 28 member countries, some of which are former Soviet states. In addition to this NATO’s various partnership programs such as ‘Partnership for Peace’ and its dialogue programs see the involvement of additional countries, exclusive of NATO membership. With the passage of time there has been a growth and expansion in the scope of NATO, as what started off as a mere political association has now transformed into a military organization which provides assistance to a variety of countries for a myriad of reasons. The most prominent example of this would be the NATO led ISAF task force in Afghanistan which sees to most of the defense needs of the country, and the training of the Afghan National Security Force.

Due to this complex evolution of the aims and purposes of this organization, recently NATO has been subjected to criticism and controversy due to its peacekeeping activities, with special emphasis on Libya and Afghanistan.  Therefore in this answer this writer will analyze NATO’s role in the final outcome of the situation in Libya and determine if the intervention in Libya was a success or a failure.

With regard to the situation in Libya, initially coalition forces headed by the UK, France and the United States of America initiated a military intervention in Libya on 19^th March 2011, following the passing of UNSC resolution 1973. This resolution called for the establishment of a no-fly-zone over Libya and authorized the international community to use all necessary measures short of foreign occupation, for the protection of Libyan civilians. However in an attempt to unify and concentrate the command of the coalition forces into a small group, the mission was transferred into the control of the NATO beginning with the enforcement of the arms embargo on the 22nd of March, following objections raised by the Turkish, German and French governments to this plan. The full transition of control occurred on the 31^st of March and thereafter a multitude of other states joined forces with NATO, some of them being Sweden, Qatar, Morocco, UAE, Jordan etc. During NATO’s operation in Libya over 26,000 sorties were carried out with an average of 120 sorties, predominantly strike sorties. NATO also conducted a de-conflicting of nearly 4000 zones on land, sea and air to assist the carrying out of humanitarian projects carried out by the UN and a multitude of NGOs.

When evaluated prima facie, it seems like NATO succeeded in its mission when they won a decisive victory and ended the operation on 31^st October 2011. However this is not at all the case and NATO’s intervention in Libya has been tinged with criticism, speculation and controversy. Many people claim that the basis of the military intervention was not humanitarian grounds or democratic concerns, but was based on interest in Libya’s national resources. Libya, a member state of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), is one of the world’s largest suppliers of oil with the fifth biggest oil reserve in the world.

Additionally the country’s financial capital, such as its gold reserve with over 100 tons of gold and its national assets with an estimated worth of over $56 billion, have been speculated to be the real motivators behind the entire mission. The entire operation has also been criticized as being an imperialist mission with a plethora of state strongly condemning it, such as Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Namibia, North Korea, Russia etc. It was also speculated that the mission was carried out to counter Muammar Gaddafi’s plan of having nations outside Africa pay for oil in gold. NATO’s role in Libya was also strongly condemned not only by Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Chulkin, who called for an inquiry into the civilian deaths that resulted out of NATO’s activities in Libya, but also by the BRICS countries who collectively stated that NATO acted beyond its mandate by openly taking sides in a civil war by assisting the rebels to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. In addition to this, in an independent report released by the ‘Arab Organization for Human rights’, a human rights group based in the Middle East, it was stated that there is evidence to show that all three parties to the Libyan civil war, i.e. NATO, the rebels and the pro Gaddafi forces, are responsible for perpetrating war crimes and human right violations. The Libyan government also claimed that Gaddafi’s youngest son and three grandchildren were killed in NATO strikes in the country’s capital, Tripoli in April 2011.  NATO was criticized for classifying certain civilian targets as military targets and for strikes in September 2011 in Sirte which caused the deaths of 47 civilians. Should this be proved, it would be especially embarrassing to NATO who expounded continuously on avoiding any civilian casualties.

Unfortunately many people believed that following the completion of NATO’s mission in Libya, the people of Libya would be liberated from a tyrannical and ruthless dictator, and that the future would be nothing but smooth sailing. However this couldn’t be any further from the truth, and it seems that the chaos is far from over in the country. Reports indicate that mass scale violence still continues, with torture, ethnic cleansing and revenge killing rampant across the nation. Libyan National Congress president Mohammed el-Megarif recently classified the southern portion of the country as a military zone due to high levels of drug, human and arms trafficking occurring there. The murder of US ambassador Christopher Stevens in September 11^th 2012 also opened the eyes of many people and gave an indicator of the current nature of the state.

Discrimination against the Christian minority who make up of 3% of the population is also present, and the recent bombing of a stone church in Dafniya is a testament to this. The weaknesses of the government were also manifested in the recent abduction of Benghazi Police Captain and Investigation Chief Abdel-Salam al-Mahdawi whose fate is still unknown. In addition to these two months earlier Police Chief Faraj al-Deirsy was shot and killed by unknown assailants. This goes to show that despite overthrowing an oppressive regime, life is far from perfect in the current context of the country.

However despite the less than favorable situation in Libya, it must be also noted that the NATO had some successes in this mission, most notably the fact that it saved many lives by bringing down Gaddafi’s air force and monitoring the Libyan coast. The fact that NATO also received authorization from the UN Security Council gives them a legal basis for the intervention. This mission was also based on the principle of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P), wherein a country is given authorization to intervene in a country which is in large scale chaos and turmoil and where the rights of the citizens are grossly violated. While R2P is more of a norm than a law, it has strong links to international law and therefore it has some sort of a legal basis. This operation has been viewed by many to have set a strong and positive precedent under this principle. 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon also commended NATO for its successful operation in Libya and also came to its defense by stating that “This military operation done by the NATO forces was strictly within (resolution) 1973”, countering claims by the BRIC countries who stated otherwise. The mission was also hailed as being one of the “most successful” in NATO’s history, by General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen. It must also not be forgotten that for NATO to be requested to carry out the operation, there must have been some faith and belief in its capabilities to resolve the tumultuous events in Libya. Kosovo, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been cited as NATO’s past successes, and therefore it must be agreed that at the international level there was a perhaps a great deal of approval of NATO’s intervention in Libya.

In conclusion it is extremely difficult to gauge if NATO’s mission in Libya was a success or a failure. Despite “liberating” the people of Libya and successfully completing the task it set out to do, NATO’s accomplishments in this situation is negated and overshadowed by dubious claims on the ulterior motives of the organization and alleged civilian deaths. However it must be remembered that NATO is an international organization which has experience in dealing with such matters and have so far (with the exception of Afghanistan) has had a mostly positive track record. It would be a utopian ideal to not expect any setbacks or mistakes, and therefore certain concessions must be afforded.  NATO now needs to clear up its name with a proper and speedy solution for the chaotic situation in Afghanistan. 

Photo: http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-AX010412.jpg?size=67&uid=0f41e24d-d14e-4239-8470-39b8c0ca09d0

Positive and Negative Rights

This writer would like to begin this assessment firstly by defining the main key terms in this question, starting with positive rights and negative rights. Firstly a right is defined as a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Positive rights are rights that require and involve a positive duty and action, and are classified as second generation rights. Social, cultural and economic rights are considered to be positive rights and are also known as distributive rights, because someone (usually a government) has to facilitate these rights by doing such things as building hospitals, schools and churches, generate employment, and provide food and other such necessities of life. Examples of these rights include the right to housing, education, health, right to social security, right to participate in the cultural life of a community etc.

Negative rights on the other hand mostly require inaction, i.e. in order to be facilitated they require non-interference. The best example of this would be the right to privacy, which in order to be maintained and respected requires the non interference of others. Negative rights are mostly civil and political rights which include the right to vote, right to hold office, the right to free speech, right to assembly etc. However there seems to be a certain exception as not all civil rights are negative rights. In order to fulfill certain civil rights a positive action is required. An example of this would be the right to social security, which would require the government to provide law enforcement tasks such as a police force to uphold law and order in the country. This involves a positive duty and action by the government towards the people, and therefore certain civil rights such as these cannot be classified as ‘negative rights.’ However certain philosophers such as Henry Shue believe that such a classification of negative rights and positive rights are unnecessary, as both types confer a duty, one being a positive duty to act and the other conferring a negative duty not to act.

An inherent clash however exists between negative and positive rights. This is due to the fact that these rights are polar opposites and cannot coexist together, as certain negative rights are foregone in order to facilitate certain positive rights. This is done on the basis of importance and priority where the lesser right is trumped by a right of greater importance and significance. A fine example of this would be where the right to privacy is violated in order to uphold the right to safety and security of another in places such as airports etc. This clash came to the fore especially during the years of the Cold War, where the two ideological camps, namely the communists and capitalists, campaigned for the importance of one set of rights over the other, with the USSR and its emphasis on the importance of the collective over the individual for positive rights, and the west with its emphasis on a liberal democracy placed significance on the protection of negative rights. Therefore the main problem that exists in the matter of human rights today is whether certain rights can or should be violated in order to uphold the greater right.  

Currently this battle of supremacy between negative and positive rights has manifested itself in the United States of America with the introduction of President Barack Obama’s health reform package, ‘Obamacare’.  Accordingly the US government places a greater emphasis on the protection of positive rights, such as the provision of healthcare which would require higher taxation in order for this health service to be funded adequately and redistributed evenly. However every human being has the negative right of not having their money taken away from them, and should the government insist on upping the health sector, this negative right is taken away on the premise that the provision of such service is greater than the protection of this negative right. However Libertarians and individualists claim that this negative right is greater and that this positive claim on the resources of others should not be upheld at the expense of other. Therefore they opine that the government should not increase taxes in order to fund the health reform package.

It seems apparent that many governments place a greater emphasis on positive rights, as it is with these rights that human beings are enabled to lead a prosperous life. However the violation of negative rights can lead to serious ramifications as these are the rights associated with one’s liberties and freedoms. Unfortunately as pointed out earlier, both these rights cannot exist in their entirety concurrently as it is necessary that certain rights are forgone for the utilitarian principle of the “greater good”. In accepting this reality it is now understood that in this case, any government’s responsibility would be to maximize the availability and to facilitate the maximum amount of rights possible. 

Unfortunately this is more of a utopian concept than reality, and this deficiency has led to serious consequences, the finest example being the Arab spring where the violation of certain rights led to massive uprisings, which in most cases led to the overthrow of governments and regimes such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya etc. In this instance amongst a myriad of other factors which led to the revolution, deprivation of the population of a stable and corruption free government, the freedom of religion, freedom of expression, a stable economy, the lack of political freedom etc. created a conducive environment for unrest and dissatisfaction.   This problem has now become a long term one, with Syria still in much chaos and turmoil and with the international community conflicted and unsure of how to tackle it without a further violation of rights. This goes to show that one cannot simply violate a right with impunity, there are far reaching consequences for such actions and retribution is bound to be unforgiving. The fate of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, who violated many rights such the freedom of speech, protests, right to life and fair trial etc. of his citizens, is a testament to this.

                      

To analyze this matter in the local context it must be noted that during the thirty year long civil war of Sri Lanka, several negative right violations occurred on the part of both parties to the war, i.e the LTTE and the government. Such rights included the right to life, freedom from arbitrary arrest, right to due process of law, freedom of association etc. etc. However since then the government has attempted to foster reconciliation and amend the bonds broken through the violation of these rights through the LLRC. 

Currently the government also seems to be making significant and genuine attempts in the facilitating of positive rights through the ‘Divineguma bill’, which aims to uplift the poor through the provision of micro financing schemes and other such financial assistance. This attempt on part of the government should be commended as the facilitating of such rights have a high probability of leading to elevated living standards of the country, and involve low income earners in the economy and development process as well.

In conclusion human rights whether negative or positive should be enhanced, facilitated and protected in any given situation. Classifications are irrelevant as no set of rights is above the other; both are equal in priority and therefore should be given the same prominence. A government is deemed responsible and legitimate based on its human rights track record and therefore it should not override rights with impunity, but must act in a way that affords citizens their maximum rights. While this is easier said than done in most instances, it is a necessary effort that should be taken by the government not only to protect its people, but now to protect themselves as well. 

Image: http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-MI-148-0103.jpg?size=67&uid=009da137-45bf-45f1-b03c-34d5ebc00ebe