US has biased view of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine

Mahmood Mamdani contends that such interventions are driven not by a genuine commitment to protect populations from harm, but rather by geopolitical interests and the desire to exercise control over resource-rich regions, says the writer.

Mahmood Mamdani contends that such interventions are driven not by a genuine commitment to protect populations from harm, but rather by geopolitical interests and the desire to exercise control over resource-rich regions, says the writer.

Published Mar 9, 2024

Share

Dugan Brown

Mahmood Mamdani’s seminal work, navigates the complex terrain of humanitarian intervention and condemns the international community’s selective implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.

Drawing on Mamdani’s astute observations, it is critical to look at Israel’s actions in its ongoing war with Palestine through the lens of R2P. By doing so, we can expose the flagrant violations of human rights and systemic injustices carried out against the Palestinian people.

Central to Mamdani’s argument is the distinction between the Responsibility to Protect and the Right to Punish. He critiques the instrumentalisation of R2P by powerful Western nations to justify military interventions in the Global South, often under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

Mamdani contends that such interventions are driven not by a genuine commitment to protect populations from harm, but rather by geopolitical interests and the desire to exercise control over resource-rich regions.

Applying this framework to the Israel-Palestine conflict, we see how Israel’s actions, far from protecting vulnerable populations, perpetuate cycles of violence and dispossession, while enjoying impunity on the international stage.

One of the fundamental tenets of R2P is the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens from acts of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories, in particular Gaza and the West Bank, have consistently violated this principle.

The blockade of Gaza, in particular, has created a humanitarian crisis, depriving its inhabitants of basic necessities such as food, water, and medical supplies. The indiscriminate use of force against Palestinian civilians, including children, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure further exemplify Israel’s blatant disregard for the principles of R2P.

Mamdani’s analysis sheds light on the hypocrisy of Western powers in their selective application of human rights standards. While championing R2P abroad, these nations often turn a blind eye to gross human rights violations within their own borders or those committed by allies.

Case studies abound, from the United States’ indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to European complicity in the refugee crisis at their borders. The failure of Western nations to hold themselves and their allies accountable undermines the credibility of R2P and emboldens perpetrators of injustice, including Israel, to act with impunity.

Mamdani’s critique of the selective application of R2P is especially pertinent when looking at the international community’s response to Israeli aggression.

Regardless of overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israeli forces, powerful nations remain reluctant to hold Israel accountable.

Israel has consistently evaded accountability for its actions in the Palestinian territories, thanks in part to the unwavering support it receives from powerful allies, particularly the United States. This impunity not only undermines the principles of R2P but also perpetuates a culture of impunity that emboldens perpetrators of human rights abuses worldwide. This reflects the political interests at stake, wherein the safeguarding of Palestinian lives takes a backseat to geopolitical alliances and strategic concerns.

Mamdani highlights the dangers of militarised humanitarianism, whereby military intervention is presented as the only solution to crises, often exacerbating violence and instability.

The Israeli government frequently invokes security concerns to justify its aggressive military campaigns and expansionist policies in the occupied territories. However, these actions often result in disproportionate harm to Palestinian civilians and exacerbate the cycle of violence and insecurity in the region. In Israel and Palestine, the application of military force to tackle security concerns has only propagated the cycle of violence and aggravated the humanitarian crisis.

Another significant component of Mamdani’s analysis is his analysis of the concept of sovereignty and the role of outside actors in enforcing their will on sovereign states. Israel’s continued occupation and annexation of Palestinian land directly erodes the Palestinian people’s sovereignty and right to self-determination.

* Brown is a BSocSci Honours student at UCT.

Cape Times