The nexus of the practice of intervention, decision-making of state building agenda and responsibility of international actors in promoting security in Afghanistan.
Reading Summary : Ayub, F. and Kuovo, S. (2008) ‘Righting the course? Humanitarian intervention, the war on terror and the future of Afghanistan’, International Affairs, 84/1, 641- 657.
By Subateeswarran Looganaden(Awarded First Class)
Introduction
Fatima Ayub and Professor Sari Kouvo are experienced policy analysts who’ve had engaged with multiple International organizations and have published extensively on issues ranging from human rights, state-building, and Afghanistan. The subject of this review is their article “Righting the Course? Humanitarian Intervention, the War on Terror and the Future of Afghanistan” published in International Affairs, 2008.
Fatima and Sari question how the US-led humanitarian military intervention decisions were made and how it affected the stabilization and state-building agenda in Afghanistan? Also, how did the international community respond to the aftermath of the intervention to promote peace, security, and democracy? The authors’ main argument is that the US-led invasion in Afghanistan after 9/11, was a response of self-defence targeted to eliminate Al-Qaeda, not a humanitarian intervention. Moreover, they claim that the US had no clear plans for state-building, long-term stabilization, and promotion of democracy in Afghanistan (Ayub & Sari, 2008).
Argument Discussion
The orthodox principles of state sovereignty in the international system were undermined due to the recent increase in interdependence, globalization, and humanitarian concerns (644). Accountability and responsibility to protect human rights of citizens was further prioritized than sovereignty of states. This ideational shift led to the justification of R2P and legitimization of humanitarian military interventions.
The article provides empirical evidence to showcase the failures of the UN in promoting peace and security after the end of cold war with examples such as Rwanda, Iraq, and Kosovo. The UN faced multiple criticism because it failed to set a precedent to execute military humanitarian intervention under the UN Charter, Chapter VII. Hence, ICISS was formed to provide states, the responsibility to protect its citizens from humanitarian crises, involving military intervention and to rebuild states after invasion. It also outlined principles to avoid illegitimate interventions (645).
The authors assert that, for its self-interest, the US backed up its (war-on-terror), counterterrorism policy after 9/11 with humanitarianism rhetoric. This was done to justify notions of (R2P) and to legitimize its military intervention, positioning under chapter VII’s legal umbrella. According to the article, successful interventions aren’t about minimal risk of violence or short-term peace but a stable governance that’s accountable to rule of law. Following this logic, the US-led intervention to eliminate potential terrorism that endangers its security failed dismally (647) as it accommodated social inequalities, poverty, paramilitary insurgencies, and illegal drug trafficking due to poor post-conflict state-building (648).
The transition from intervention to state-building, costed billions, but inevitably failed, due to inefficient reform policies. The authors identified, the shortcomings of the Bonn agreement were due to lack of coordination, competing incompatible agendas and marginalization of concerns such as justice and accountability amongst international actors (652). Consequently, the mission to “fix” Afghanistan also failed due to the disregard for good governance, legitimate political leadership, patronage, and pre-existing economic & security threats.
Conclusion
This article is an informative and valuable piece as it expands the boundaries of International Security to question the nature of humanitarian military intervention in international relations and the prospects for liberal peace. The author provides insights on legitimatization of US invasion and how it led to the culture of impunity in Afghanistan. They emphasized on the failure of international community in addressing state-building processes and the humanitarian paradoxes. Moreover, it aids the readers to better understand why the current status quo in Afghanistan is mainly due to the implications of US-led intervention, that aimed for peace without justice.
