Libya is not Iraq but Canada’s leaders need to explain why not.
The UN Security Council’s recent decision to sanction armed intervention to protect Libyan rebels from Moammar Gadhafi’s regime has triggered widespread debate about the appropriateness of humanitarian intervention. Canada has joined some of its NATO allies in contributing military hardware and in condemning Gadhafi but Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not provided much in the way of explanation.
The decision to intervene in another country’s affairs is almost always controversial and leaders’ claims about the importance of human rights are viewed with enormous skepticism. Given the recent history of humanitarian intervention, this is understandable. The Bush administration sought to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq not only as a mission to rid the world of a dangerous dictator with weapons of mass destruction but as a mission to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of a mass-murdering tyrant. When disingenuous leaders use humanitarianism as a flimsy rationalization for war the public view of its importance is greatly diminished.
Harper has expressed a desire to see Gadhafi deposed and has stated that Canada will not put “boots on the ground;” but he has not explained why he is so committed to Libya and not, for example, Darfur.
This is unfortunate because there are good reasons to protect civilians when their government attacks them.
Failed states – often characterized by systemic atrocities against its citizens – pose major problems for regional stability and global trade. Somalia is a classic example of what happens when humanitarianism is abandoned and populations are forgotten. Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, off the Somali coast, has become a major issue for international shipping. Countless Canadians owe their prosperity to unimpeded seaways, which are now under threat by desperate, neglected Somalis.
In this regard, Canada’s political leaders have done little to persuade critics that this is anything more than a ‘well-the-Americans-are-there’ kind of mission. The Harper Government, now in full election mode, does not appear interested in getting too deep into the subject. This lack of coherent explanation has left Canadians to rely on other countries’ leaders – President Obama – for some indication. But if Canada’s leaders have agreed to participate they should be made to tell Canadians why?
Garnering domestic support is as essential to the success of humanitarian missions as military hardware. In order to build consensus at home, Canadian politicians need to explain their reasoning and engage in meaningful debate with their populations.
Clear reasoning is particularly important because, despite optimistic projections from officials, humanitarian intervention is a difficult and long-term process that requires a major commitment. It requires long-term support from voters and policy makers to be a success, and gaining this support requires a clear rationale.
Time will tell whether or not the Libyan intervention is successful. Military success can be measured in the number of civilians protected, the number of kilometres advanced, the number of casualties suffered. But the controversy about humanitarian intervention in Libya requires Harper to take a leadership role and present a clear vision of the mission's value.