Thirteen years have passed since the African Union’s (AU) failure to protect its member state, Libya, from NATO’s intervention in 2011. The intervention, authorised by the UN Security Council to protect civilians, ultimately led to the downfall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime and Libya’s destabilisation.
NATO’s intervention in Libya, but standing aloft will while thousands of innocent civilians blood is being shed in Ukraine and Palestine, raises questions on the organisation’s selective application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle.
The 2011 Libyan crisis saw NATO go beyond its initial mandate under a UN Security Council resolution to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and ended up killing.
However, similar actions have not been taken in Ukraine and Palestine.
It has become evidently clear that the sole aim for the so-called Responsibility to Protect intervention in 2011 was to eliminate the man who was really uniting Africa and understood the African Union concept, just like the C.I.A. did to Kwame Nkrumah.
Muammar Gaddafi played a significant role in promoting African unity and development. He proposed the creation of a United States of Africa with a single government, defence force, and foreign policy, anchoring the long standing dream of Ghana’s first president, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.
Gaddafi was instrumental in the formation of the African Union (AU) in 2002, which replaced the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) by donating millions of dollars to the AU’s operating budget and paying the membership fees of several poorer African nations. He pushed for economic integration among African countries, proposing a single currency and passport and easier travel between nations.
He supported various liberation movements across Africa, including the African National Congress in South Africa, which later betrayed him.
Empowering Traditional Leaders, Gaddafi initiated a forum for traditional leaders across Africa, recognising their importance in promoting unity and development.
While Gaddafi’s methods were sometimes controversial, his commitment to African unity and development is undeniable, and his legacy continues to influence African politics and international relations, and we daresay, “The African Union had a responsibility to protect him but failed.”
Today, it has become more evidently clear that the application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, a global norm aimed at preventing and halting mass atrocities such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, which was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, is really influenced by political interests and power dynamics rather than purely humanitarian concerns.
In Ukraine and Palestine, NATO has been hesitant to intervene directly, as it did in Libya, despite Russia’s invasion of Israel’s abuse of human rights and humanitarian crisis.
a pure show of double standard on the part of the UN Security Council and NATO.
The Russia-Ukrainian War has resulted in significant human suffering and loss of life. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), as of February 2023, reports at least 13,000 civilian deaths, including 3,300 children, and over 30,000 civilian injuries, including 7,000 children.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reports that 12,800 civilians were killed and 28,000 civilians injured as of April 2023.
It is also worth noting that the conflict has resulted in significant displacement, with over 1.5 million people internally displaced and over 4.5 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, according to OCHA.
As we speak, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has resulted in a significant loss of life, particularly in the Gaza Strip.
It is reported that more than 43,000 people have lost their lives, with 41,802 being Palestinians and 1,706 Israelis.
The majority of casualties have been civilians, with women and children making up a substantial portion of the deaths.
The question is, WHERE IS THE REPLICABILITY TO PROTECT?
What is stopping the authorisation by the UN Security Council and NATO’s intervention?
Do civilian lives no longer matter?
Yes, they do, but Gaddafi’s did no matter to NATO.
The main focus of the intervention in Libya was to eliminate Gaddafi.
But why not blame the A.U. for such a shameful intervention in Libya?
Divisions among A.U. member states:
Some AU member states, like South Africa, supported NATO’s intervention, while others, like Algeria and Zimbabwe, strongly opposed it.
“Sorry, Gaddafi, after spending millions of dollars trying to unite us, we still remain divided.”.
Not only that, the so-called African Union lacked the capacity and resources to effectively intervene and enforce its will. Paving way for external Western powers, particularly France, the UK, and the US, to exert significant influence on AU member states, undermining the organisation’s unity
The AU’s response to the NATO intervention in Libya highlights the challenges faced by regional organisations in asserting their influence in the face of external intervention.
NATO’s selective intervention highlights the challenges and inconsistencies in applying the Responsibility to Protect principle. As the global landscape evolves, re-evaluating NATO’s role in protecting civilians and promoting stability remains essential.
We do agree more with President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo of Ghana when, during an address to the UN Security Council, he emphasized the diminished mutual trust among nations and the cohesion of societies and therefore called for a reform of the UN’s organs, particularly the Security Council, to correct the injustice of the Council’s composition in representing African countries and noted that the Security Council cannot continue to be structurally limited from being effective while demanding universal acceptance for its decisions.
By:
Mathias Bonzo-ewereko BOATENG
Executive director
Centre for Global Affairs and Responsible Governance
DISCLAIMER: The views, comments, and contributions made by readers or contributors on this website do not necessarily represent the position or views of The Sikaman Times. The Sikaman Times will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements made by readers or contributors on this website.
