Do you hear it?

Without internet or the desire to purchase a newspaper while on vacation, I was blissfully unaware of the carnage in Lahore, the escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula and the ‘situation’ with the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. I won’t blame you for being somewhat disgusted by my use of the rather tepid term ‘situation’ here. In fact, I want you to demand that what happened aboard the flotilla be couched in more definitive, perhaps even aggressive, terms. I want you to demand that of me because something frightening is happening all around us. Something more frightening to me than the fact that armed militia stormed a mosque in Lahore and murdered nearly 100 followers of the Ahmaddiya sect of Islam. While they prayed. Oh, then they attacked a hospital. The accident and emergency ward, no less. Something more frightening than the fact that Israel seems to care less and less about the international repercussions of its military actions. Something more frightening than the fact that for all our scientific and safety advancements and investments, we seem completely baffled by this oil spill off the gulf of Mexico. It’s our discourse that is more frightening- the words we and our leaders have chosen to use when talking about the ‘situation’ with the Gaza flotilla. It’s frightening me, and I’ll gladly tell you why. It might take me a while though because this is not an academic submission and there is no client breathing down my neck making sure that I do not exceed the billable limits s/he set for me. This means I get to ramble as much as I want along the way to my conclusion!

It was precisely at the end of the chapter on the use of force and humanitarian intervention that I decided I was going to become a public international lawyer. As it turns out, I do more private international work than public, but that’s not quite the point here. Before you wonder, this is definitely not going to be some long winded account of my understanding of humanitarian intervention or what ‘the law’ has to say about Israel’s latest shenanigans. It’s about what you had to say about it. It’s about what your president or prime minister, foreign secretary and UN representative had to say about it.


Barack Obama is “heartbroken”. He is “outraged”. He says he “will not relent until the people unjustly victimised by this manmade disaster are made whole”. Powerful and reassuring words. Words that are consistent with what he said when accepting his Nobel prize: "I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace". Too bad heartbreak and outrage had absolutely nothing at all do with what happened aboard the flotilla. Those words were about the oil spill. Don’t get me wrong, I am really glad that BP is having to face mounting pressure over this spill from a White House that actually gives a toss about the environment and international press that, miraculously, is paying attention. But against the backdrop of these powerful words about the oil spill, the Obama administration’s attempt “to understand the circumstances surrounding the tragedy" leaves much to be desired, don’t you think? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the condemnation? I have been slapped on the wrist in the past for being too critical of the foreign policy of the United States of America. I also deplore the facebook status updates of some of my facebook ‘friends’ who seem to blame everything from Israeli military action to the Pakistani cricket team’s inability to bat, bowl or field on America. So let’s blow right past what the Obama administration didn’t say.


Nick Clegg and David Cameron said….what was it? Oh right, nothing really. So I’ll skip to the response of Ban Ki-moon: “I heard the ships were in international water. That is very bad”. Very bad? All the Secretary General of the United Nations could come up with was ‘very bad’!? People died. People died trying to get aid to an area that has been under economic blockade for far too long now. An area where there is a lack of fresh of water, electricity and medical supplies. An area where even members of MSF have been told they cannot go. An area where people have been reduced, in the words of a UN official, to a ‘sub-human existence’. So, yes Mr. Secretary-General, what happened is very bad. Let alone a blatant violation of international laws, including the laws of the sea and use of force. It was an act of aggression which, as per the UN Charter’s own definitions, could justify the use of force against Israel. So how can it be that some of the world’s most prominent leaders had so little of value to say? How can it be that we, as an international community, accept those statements? Don’t say it’s because ‘Israel has Uncle Sam on its side’. Don’t say it because it reeks of ignorance and it is simply not enough to dismiss the attitudes of our heads of state and international bodies apparently dedicated to the promotion of peace, security and the alleviation of poverty. Don’t say its because the Jewish lobby is too strong in the United States. Don’t say its because no one cares about the Muslims/Arabs. Dig deeper.


If you listen carefully enough, you might hear the dying gasps of that elusive doctrine that not even the greatest legal minds- one of which (Professor Ian Brownlie) we bid farewell to earlier this year- were able to define: humanitarian intervention. If you are too young to recall the horrific images of the Yugoslav war, I’m sure you will have read about it in class at some point. I bring up the Yugoslav war because people really thought that the Bosnian capital, and before long all of Bosnia, was about to be eradicated. People were starving under a relentless blockade, much like they are now in Gaza. Aid agencies were constantly subject to disruption, much like they are now in Gaza. Then came the intervention. Some will say it was based on a humanitarian impulse. Others, including myself, will say that there was more at play than humanitarian impulse. None of us should be so naïve as to think that massive, multilateral military operations are based on absolutely nothing other than a desire to help the helpless. But that is not the point here. The point is that international discourse of the 90’s embraced the idea that the international community may sometimes need to disregard the oft reified notion of sovereignty in the name of humanity. Public international law was enriched by discussion after discussion about the nature and limitations of humanitarian intervention. We talked about a duty to protect. It wasn’t just limited to the Yugoslav war. Remember the intervention in Somalia? Think a few decades back and you might even remember the Berlin airlift. Now don’t get me wrong; all of the so-called humanitarian interventions have been deeply problematic. The French intervention in Rwanda, for example, was dubious to say the least. I don’t deny that humanitarian intervention has often served as a justification for States to act in conflicts where there is no domestic support for more straightforward political interventions. These ramblings are not meant to serve as an unqualified tribute to humanitarian intervention. I am rambling because, at the expense of sounding dramatic, I am mourning the dying discourse on humanitarian intervention. For a brief period after WWII, I think the international community, via the United Nations and other organisations gave people hope. Mine is starting to fade. We the people have made a lot of pledges. Pledges to eradicate poverty, pledges to end long standing wars, I could go on and on. But think back to recent crises and you’ll find that more times than not, we simply watched. Burma: ASEAN didn’t want to touch the crisis with a mile long pole; Gaza 2008-9: the BBC wouldn’t even air an aid appeal, let alone talk about NATO staging a humanitarian intervention.


I know humanitarian intervention has always been a matter of political preference of the person making the argument. That is the frightening part. Those who walk the corridors of power today seem not to have a preference for humanitarian intervention. So the argument, and with it the entire doctrine, is dying. Here’s hoping that at the very least, a sense of humanity survives.