Executive Intervention as an Approach to International Development

I intend to examine the United Nations, United States, UK, and France's intervention in Libya. Analyzing these events is relevant and important to our ongoing discussion of development, because it is a form that we have not readily discussed – executive intervention. I termed it this because these transnational and national institutions have made “executive” decisions to interfere on behalf of the rebels. This is quite different than the approach of the Millennium Development Goals. Yet , I still feel it falls under the umbrella of international development. I suggest this on the premise that these countries are intervening to improve the quality of life for individuals in Libya. This seems to be the root of international development. However, it should be noted that it is difficult to discern what is international development since there is no consensus in the international community. I intend to discuss executive intervention as a strategy for international development.

I woke up this morning to learn that UK and United States fired at least 110 missiles yesterday to protect rebel-held areas (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568). These countries along with the United Nations have chosen to help depose Gaddafi. For those who aren't aware of the situation in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi has been in power since 1969. While coming to power in coup d'etat promising a cultural and administrative revolution, his regime has been marked by a centralization of power and wide-scale violence. Starting in February 2011, a stream of protests started inspired by the events of Tunisia and Egypt. The international community has responded to the calls of these protesters and is backing rebel groups against Gaddafi.

Is this, executive intervention, a successful and useful form of international development? In past Beyond Border's blogs, we have discussed the trend in international development to solve the consequences of problems not the root of the problem: corruption, lack of accountability in leadership, limited infrastructure and so on. Examined under this criterion, executive intervention is a step in the right direction. In Libya, Gaddafi hampers Libya's growth by committing human rights violations and acts of corruption. The United Nations is attacking the root of the problem. Yet, it is still yet to be seen if this will lead to improved quality of life for people in Libya. Who will replace Gaddafi and what role will the people have in transforming their country if the rebels succeed?

While I see certain advantages to this policy for international development, I also think it is ripe for abuse. A country could claim that there using executive intervention on behalf of the people, but it could be to serve ulterior motives. I think we can see this in the case of Libya in the surrounding region.

For example, why has the the United States intervened in Libya but not in Yemen or Bahrain? 45 people were massacred yesterday in Yemen by its leadership. Is this any different than Colonel Gaddafi? What makes Libya, a moral outrage, but the conditions in these other countries acceptable? Here, we can see how the interests of the “donor” country come into play. The United States is allies with Yemen and Bahrain and not with Libya. I would suggest that the interests of “donor” countries come into play in almost all forms of international development. We put stipulations on aid money. Is this a problem or just hypocrisy? Just because the use of executive intervention might be biased, does not mean it should not be instituted.

Therefore, it seems that executive intervention is a legitimate strategy for international development. Yet inside, I still have a moral quandary with it. I can't identify why exactly. What really separates this from other forms of international development such as the Millennium Development Goals? Perhaps, it is even better because these governments are responding directly to the cries of the people, and no one is decreeing what people want. Could executive intervention be interpreted as a bottom-up form of development? I think these questions are debatable and open to interpretation. However, I argue that there isn't a massive difference between executive intervention and other forms of development such as handing out mosquito nets in terms of foreign involvement.

I think my moral quandary stems from executive intervention's unpredictability. As I stated before, I don't know what would happen to Libya under new leadership. Would it be like Georgia after the Rose Revolution or Guatemala after Arbenz? Handing out mosquito nets has less uncertainty, and if it had negative impacts, those impacts would be on a smaller scale.

I am stilling developing my stance on executive intervention as an approach to international development. I think its consequences outweigh the potential benefits, and is a reason why it should not be readily used. However, I appreciate its direct course of action. Please anyone reading this, elaborate and comment on what I've said here. I'd appreciate your help in developing my thoughts on this matter.