"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
History bears many an example of schools of thought attempting to find the ultimate solution how to end the use of force in international relations. The works of authors like De Saint-Pierre, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham go as far as suggesting “Perpetual Peace” as the panacea that could cure all ills that exist in the way states relate to each other. Their idealism notwithstanding the world has and still is experiencing military conflicts of different varieties that are being fought for large range of reasons as the current events in the Middle East show. It would be interesting to reflect on the driving force behind nations’ decision making process to participate in a conflict in one part of the world and not the other.
Military intervention usually led by a coalition of forces has occurred in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and most recently Libya. The overwhelming reason has been to protect civilian lives from the abuse of rogue dictators, to prevent ethnic cleansing or to oust religious fanatics from causing harm. This seems to be a valid casus belli for the international community to interfere. Yet places like Rwanda, Congo and Zimbabwe have also experienced severe conflicts and loss of lives of civilians without substantial military engagement by the rest of the world.
The reality is that the international society is experiencing changes on its path to maturity not seen since the French Revolution which reverberated in the hearts and minds of people for generations. For years and years in the 20th century the predominant doctrine in international relations has been the idea of non-interference in any country’s internal affairs irrespective how corrupt or dictatorial its leadership could be. During the Cold War many undemocratic regimes survived due to the fact that they could always lean on one of the super powers in exchange for political “favors”. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the process of democratization that ensued in Eastern Europe and Asia however brought a completely new set of realities that found the repressive regimes unprepared. Suddenly it was clear that they were no longer at liberty to oppress their respective populations or to prevent them from seeking freedom of speech and independence as was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Additionally erratic dictators like Saddam Hussein found out the hard way that the international community was no longer indifferent to his megalomaniac and disastrous war mongering and usage of brutal force to suppress dissent. What happened in Iraq (the controversial claim for weapons of mass destruction notwithstanding) and the riddance of a brutal dictator caused an unprecedented ripple effect in the whole region. In the years to follow the young population of the Middle East became more restive as the citizens realized that it was possible for dictators to fall. The eventual uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya rubberstamped the new reality in international order-oppression is no longer safe from international condemnation that could include force at times to protect the people’s struggle for freedom.
There are several factors that seem to influence countries to interfere when making decisions for the use of force against a brutal dictatorial regime. Libya for instance is a clear case of an erratic dictator that has caused a tremendous hardship for its people and the world for over 41 years. Additionally the Arab League played a major role in condemning Moammar Qadhafi’s actions to use brutal force against its own population. The participation of regional states as Qatar in the international effort against the Libyan regime is a clear sign of the new reality in the Middle East and its evolution from a rigid and intransigent block of undemocratic countries to a slow but steady liberalization in the making.
The reason behind the international community decision to act against a brutal dictator seems to be the existence of clearly defined goals of the population to achieve freedom. Here lies the difference between the conflicts in Somalia or Congo where it was difficult to determine which faction was fighting against whom and for what reason, and countries like Libya or Kosovo where it was rather obvious for the independent observer to see long time dictators fighting to suppress people’s natural desire for freedom.
The current events in the Middle East are just the start of the new development and evolution of the way the international community handles conflicts. What is certain is that the old status quo is gone forever and dictators across the globe are no longer safe when trying to suppress people's free will. Only countries that adapt quickly to the new reality in world affairs will prosper and reach stability. It is possible that during this process of evolution and steady democratization the world will finally achieve the goal set by De Saint Pierre, Rousseau and Immanuel Kant-namely the coveted “Perpetual Peace”.
