As the cholera outbreak escalates, leaders and civil society around the world are calling for change in Zimbabwe. But sadly, effective international institutions, legal tools and processes for dealing with gross human rights abuses committed (or tolerated) by a country’s own government are few and far between.
For some, the European Union offers a model of supranational institutions and frameworks which can mediate to prevent conflict. Yet the world wars which led to the foundation of this institution are far removed from the current intra-state conflicts we see in contexts like Zimbabwe, where a state’s own leaders can go to war against their people.
On 8 December 2008, Kings College London, in conjunction with the Temple Music Festival, hosted a lively debate, ‘Law And Society: Which Is To Be Master?’ focused on the role of law in international relations. Perhaps inevitably, the thorny issue of humanitarian intervention came up. A key area of discussion revolved around the debate between ‘legality’ and ‘legitimacy’.
Arguably, any intervention which is viewed as ‘legitimate’ will be seen as more justifiable than that which is merely legal – and, in the absence of legality, legitimacy can still be bestowed, as seen in the intervention in Kosovo, which occurred without UN authorisation. Where legitimacy is in question however, no amount of legal arguments are likely to help (as the current experience in Iraq has shown).
But how can legitimacy – and legality – be conferred? There is now an emerging consensus around the concept of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’, a set of principles which clearly state that where a government fails to protect its own people, or indeed commits gross human rights abuses against them, then the international community has a responsibility to step in. Yet this concept has sadly remained just that; with no enforcement mechanisms, there is little strength behind the idea of ‘R2P’.
What is now needed is an international gathering to codify when countries can intervene in another country on humanitarian grounds. This Labour government, if it is as serious as it claims to be regarding ongoing abuses in Zimbabwe, should throw all its weight behind establishing such a convention.
And let us not forget that some important groundwork has already been laid. Tony Blair is perhaps most memorably remembered for his support for intervention in the Middle East, but long before Iraq and 9/11 he put forward a set of principles for humanitarian intervention in what has come to be known as his ‘Chicago’ speech.
As discussed at the KCL lecture, in his celebrated 1999 speech to the Chicago Economic Club, Blair outlined a ‘doctrine of the international community’ based on ideas of “just war”, or rather war to halt humanitarian disasters. In that speech he posed five important questions: Can we be sure of our case? Is this the last resort? Are the chances of success high? Are we in it for long term? Are national interests involved?
Interestingly, for Blair, national interest did not preclude humanitarian intervention; in fact, it was required for any case of intervention to be successful. And it might just be that it is this final issue which stands in the way of an internationally sanctioned intervention in Zimbabwe, as in practice a number of key states will oppose attempts to intervene in a state’s domestic affairs (not least Russia and China who have conventionally signed up to ‘non-interference’) and the post-colonial legacy will prevent others from ‘going it alone’.
However, as regional pressure appears to be building, it may emerge that it is Zimbabwe’s neighbours who have better answers to Blair’s five questions than the likes of the UK.
While the needs of those in Zimbabwe increase by the day, until international agreement has been reached on the framework for deciding on the legitimacy and the legality of humanitarian intervention (with proper enforcement mechanisms), we will continue saying ‘never again’ but be left powerless to stop history repeating itself.