Intervention, Prevention, and the “Responsibility to Protect”

Abstract

Can do in the world? This seemingly innocuous question is in fact loaded. While there seems to be a broad, though not universal, as will be discussed later, consensus on defining as a foreign policy that promotes peace, order, and good government on a global scale, there is much more disagreement on the manner in which such objectives ought to be promoted. Debates on the kind of intervention best suited for have recently revolved over the preferred nature (military or political/developmental) and framework of intervention (NATO, ad-hoc coalitions, or the UN). These debates have been fuelled, in part, by provocative publications such as Andrew Cohen's While Slept, which argued forcefully that had lost its place in the by becoming a free-rider and practising foreign policy on the cheap. They also have been fuelled by the process leading to the release, in April 2005, of Canada's long-awaited international policy statement.In this article, I argue that the problem does not lie with the choice of instruments to pursue Canada's foreign policy but with inconsistencies in the definition of the broad objectives of this foreign policy. Canada's outlook on intervention remains particularly plagued by contradictions. Taking a longer-term perspective on intervention and drawing on the lessons of international involvement in post-conflict nation-building, I identify some of the areas of concern and propose a framework to think about how to reconcile Canada's divergent interests.The article starts by spelling out the connection between security and development, which is at the heart of the argument. I then go on to address the disconnect between security and development objectives in Canada's recent international engagements, as illustrated in The responsibility to protect, the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in which played a much-touted role-and in the Martin government's international policy statement. the search for ways out of this quandary, I identify some of the tensions, if not outright contradictions, that pit the logic of intervention and that of prevention against one another. I finally conclude by suggesting a few guidelines to reconcile these contradictions in the framework of a coherent and integrated foreign policy.ON THE COMPLEMENTARITY OF INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION: THE SECURITY-DEVELOPMENT NEXUSSecurity and development are two faces of the same coin. Socioeconomic marginalization and political exclusion often provide the breeding ground for violence. Development problems are in fact highlighted by the World Bank as an integral part of what Paul Collier labels the conflict trap. While poverty as such is not correlated with conflict, ceteris paribus the chances of civil war increase five-fold for countries that fall below the US$1000 per capita income threshold.1 This is also consonant with earlier findings that it may not be absolute poverty but extremely unequal distribution of wealth-resulting in political or economic marginalization-that creates fertile ground for internal conflicts.At the Canada in the world conference, then-American ambassador to Paul Cellucci reaffirmed that it was in the joint economic and security interest of the US and to help countries lift their people out of poverty. This attitude is echoed in several key documents including former UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali's 1992 Agenda for and 1994 Agenda for development. More recently, the report of the UN high-level panel on threats, challenges and change recognized the need for better understanding of the intersection between development and security if the international community is to respond effectively to potential threats to collective peace and security. But nowhere is the relationship between freedom from fear and freedom from want better expressed than in UN secretary General Kofi Annan's recent report entitled In larger freedom: Towards development, security, and human rights for all, in which he states:Not only are development, security and human rights all imperative; they also reinforce each other. …