Debates and Dissents of Military Intervention
By Essa Badjie
Humans especially those that have experienced the long and ugly arm of dictatorship are constantly being confronted with issues of justice and the rule of law. The consequences are different to so many people depending on what tactics and instruments perpetrators use. People disappear, live in constant fear, maimed, incarcerated, or even killed in the process of seeking for justice and the rule of law. Gambians experienced all of the above and probably even more in the last two decades under a leader who gets to choose his own definition of justice and the rule of law by manipulating the laws of the land to suit him. That is a very strong characteristic of a dictator. So, for the past two decades, why is the international community quiet or not united against Yahya Jammeh in the face of gross human rights violations? The answer may not be farfetched; it could be that they are honouring the principles of sovereignty and national self-determination. It could also be that there was no valid case made for military intervention. By classification, the aim of military intervention is to halt or prevent ‘widespread and grave’ human rights abuses such as mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide (Bell, 2014). There was no mass murder (arguable), ethnic cleansing, or genocide in the Gambia and therefore no reason for military intervention to oust a dictator. The Gambia was neither Rwanda nor Kosovo. This is not to infer that she could not be any of them. Thirdly, it could also be that the Gambia with a population of about 2 million people with very little or no natural resources is of no significant interest to the more powerful states. What is clear is that intervention is a very controversial issue because it contradicts one of the basic principles of the international system namely sovereignty which dates back to the Peace of Westphalia signed in Amsterdam in 1648 (Anievas, 2014).
Given the current political situation in The Gambia in which the outgoing president unilaterally annulled the election results and at the same time seeking redress in what observers view as a non-existent and would be prejudiced supreme court, there are valid reasons for the public outcry demanding Mr Jammeh to step down and give peace a chance. As outlined in my previous comments, there could be something clandestine that the outgoing president is up to which is as good as anyone’s guess. Whatever his reasons are, it is threatening the peace in the country. The political uncertainty is having far reaching consequences in the economy which is already in negative growth this year. The international community particularly ECOWAS, AU and UN are all united against Yahya Jammeh. Why? The simple answer is that come 19 January 2017, Yahya Jammeh will lose the power of command, the right to rule or power to exercise authority within our borders. Reports that ECOWAS is preparing for an alternative plan (Military intervention) when diplomacy fails and both the AU and UN supporting ECOWAS, directs a very clear message to Mr Jammeh that there is no way he would be allowed to disturb the peace when his term as president ends. Why would ECOWAS talk about military intervention in a sovereign country? How far is the United Nations willing to support the position adopted by ECOWAS given what is enshrined in Articles 2(4), 2(7) and the Declaration of Principles of International Law which declare that ‘No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of any state’ (UN, 1970).
However, it did not stop other states like Russia, USA and Britain or group of states like NATO to engage in military intervention. Irag, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Georgia etc have all been subjects of military intervention in recent times. This is what proponents of humanitarian intervention refer to when they argued that other members of the international community have a right or duty to try to halt systematic abuse of human rights, using military force if necessary. Some states do it to flex their military strength against a weaker state. Cosmopolitans and post-colonialist such as Immanuel Kant and Edward Said respectively, gave conflicting arguments about intervention. The former being in favour and the latter against (Czajka, 2014). These are all theorists that have their own limitations like the realists and the liberals.
In the context of the Gambia, given what has happened, ECOWAS has a duty as a sub-regional body to ensure that the democratic will of the people is enforced and maintain peace and stability. It is nothing like a postcolonial power trying to dislodge a legitimate ruler, far from that. After all they are all products of colonialism. Their mission, will be to chase out a rogue man who maybe on the loose with intent to bring instability in the country and the sub region. They did it in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Mali and Guinea Bissau. The Gambia should not be an exception. What they will be doing is to protect the sovereign will of the Gambian people. I hope I am correct to say that Yahya Jammeh is delaying the transition process in order to seek amnesty knowing what is at stake post his presidency. I hope it does not come to any form of military intervention in the country and I hope that the Gambia Armed Forces will play by the constitution of the republic.
As we enter into 2017 with much anxiety about the future of The Gambia, we pray for the transition to take place without any single drop of blood or the sound of a gun on the street. May God Give PEACE.
Happy New Year.
1 Comment
Hallo
How can I Talk to You