From Reaction to Permanence: Justification and Hypocrisy of Intervention in the Central African Republic (CAR)

Abstract

Since the end of the “Cold War” (1989), military interventions have gained more grounds as a conflict resolution tool in many parts of the world affected by conflicts. Following the liberal peace theory, the United Nations, regional and sub-regional organizations play pivotal roles in promoting peace and security through intervention. Power relations among strong States determines intervention in a weak or conflict affected country like in the Central African Republic. Like every international norm, external intervention in a country is justifiable: to protect civilians against armed groups or government forces that do not respect international laws governing conflicts in order to limit or prevent crimes, provide humanitarian assistance and rebuild the conflict affected State with respect of the third pillar of the responsibility to protect. Interventions often attract criticisms from international observers as well as from national opinion leaders. Such criticisms arise due to the hypocrisy of actors who intervene with moral concerns acceptable by the international community. In reality, these moral concerns pave the way for strong States to achieve geostrategic gains. Consequently, mandates are prolonged because missions fail to achieve their objectives. Broad mandates usually gives a lot of hope but achieving them is a challenge as peacebuilding activities form the bases of preventing the recurrence of conflicts. This is further compounded by the finance problems and the presence of too many actors that carry on humanitarian and peacebuilding activities without coordination. In order to overcome challenges that follow after intervention, jointleadership should be fostered between organizations and other intervening actors.