Gaddafi and Humanitarian Internvention

Foreign Affairs Magazine November issue presents an article by Benjamin A. Valentino, an Associate Professor of Government at Darmouth College, titled The True Costs of Humanitarian Internvention: The Hard Truth About a Noble Notion. 

The article states: Intervening militarily to save lives abroad often sounds good on paper, but the record has not been promising" A couple of lines later we read: This does not mean that the United States should stop trying to promote it´s values abroad, even when its national security is not at risk. It just needs a different strategy"

This last statement is exemplified by Obama´s speech: "There will be times where our safety is not directly threatened, but our interest and values are..In such cases we should not be afraid to act" Whoever believed isolationism from the US would be the natural consequence of the end of the Cold War made serious wrong predictions on the matter. But that alone would be another debatable subject to discuss.

The author then suggests Washington should replace its focus on military intervention with a humanitarian foreign policy centered on saving lives by funding public health programs in the developing world, aiding victims of natural disasters and assisting refugees from violent conflict.

I´m not a supporter of unnecessary humanitarian intervention and I strongly condemn violations on humanitarian law. However, I wonder how world legendary dictators such as Gaddafi could ever be overthrown, how crimes against humanity could ever be eradicated by funding public health programs or by assisting refugees from violent conflicts.

Intervening militarily has indeed often sound good on paper, but this time it has sound good to me in action as well. Too bad Gaddafi could not face the ICC. His death represented a lost opportunity for international law to show its strength to the still skeptical.