Not intervene for altruistic reasons the commission

This preview shows page 94 - 96 out of 100 pages.

not intervene for altruistic reasons, the Commission relies on the preventative aspect of the RTP doctrine to introduce biopower in non-Western states. This will allow Western states to better control the globalising marketplace through protecting the lives of non-Western populations. The Commission’s biggest vulnerability in its RTP doctrine is the mistaken assumption that non-Western nations operate biopolitically. Foucault theorised biopower as operating efficiently in contemporary Western society because it arose from within society. For interventions to be effective, the Commission assumes that non-Western countries can have biopower imposed on them by other (biopolitical) countries. However, according to Foucault’s theory, biopower must arise and be maintained by a population. Without the biopower operating in the countries that the Report identifies as needing intervention, it is difficult for the RTP’s doctrine to be fully implemented. The political lives that the Commission wants to save are simply not (bio)politicial enough.
Paradigm Research 2014-15 PF JanuaryOffensive Peacekeeping 95 Offensive PKOs Undesirable: R2PImperialism 9. Southern countries fear R2Pview as an excuse to intervene in their affairs Thierry Tardy, European Union Institute for Security Studies, “Protecting Civilians in Africa: The Risks of Issue-Linkage Between RtoP and Peacekeeping,” JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING v. 17, 2013, pp. 201-221, p. 216-217. In many ways, the Responsibility to Protect has met similar resistance from a category of states mainly from the Global South that are concerned about the implied normative change in relation to the use of force in international relations. RtoP seems to be increasingly accepted as norm (and categorically rejected only by a few states). Yet, the origin of the concept philosophically framed in the North leads to recurrent apprehension about new forms of Northern domination over the Global South. Concerns about its possible misuse, by Northern countries in particular that would interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the false pretext of humanitarian grounds, are also widely shared. Countries like China, Russia or India have often been vocal about the inherent dangers of RtoP and how it may open the door to the use of force in contradiction with the key principles of international relations. 10. Libya validates southern fears that R2P is just a “Trojan Horse” justifying Western interventionThierry Tardy, European Union Institute for Security Studies, “Protecting Civilians in Africa: The Risks of Issue-Linkage Between RtoP and Peacekeeping,” JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING v. 17, 2013, pp. 201-221, p. 217-218. Skepticism about RtoP was further reinforced by the Libya case in spring 2011. Libya was the first instance where the coercive dimension of RtoP was being implemented, and was therefore particularly important in terms of shaping further the concept and setting precedents. Yet, if there was any doubt about

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture