Summary Of Darfur By Alex Bellamy

Alex Bellamy’s article explores the international engagement with Darfur and the international norm of “responsibility to protect.” This notion asserts that states have a responsibility to protect their populations from mass atrocities. If states are either unable or unwilling to do so, then the responsibility is taken up by the international community to protect the populations in danger. the article analyzes the actual reason behind the interference of the international community in the Darfur conflict in Sudan. Bellamy questions the world's engagement in the crisis of Darfur. The major discussion in the article centers on the distinction between the responsibility of the international community to protect Darfur and the tendency to play

the Trojan horse. Bellamy’s article is useful for scholars as it is clear and easy to understand. His article provides a practical analysis of genocide prevention and peacekeeping. The examination of Rwanda, Bosnia and the ongoing crisis in Darfur provides the link between theory and practice. However, no matter how encouraging and forward-looking Bellamy’s assessment of the responsibility to protect as a potential basis for reforms in the field of genocide prevention may be, he remains constantly and rightly aware that “that the responsibility to protect norm can be used and abused by states to satisfy any political agenda. In that sense, I agree that the “Trojan Horse” exists in humanitarian intervention as often it is mixed with national interest. The white man’s burden is a cover up to fulfill their national interest.
The legal status of humanitarian intervention is not binding, however, the international community is excepted to prevent and protect populations from mass atrocities.

The “Trojan Horse” exists in humanitarian intervention as it is mixed with considerations of national interest, such as state influence, national power, prestige and access to potential oil supplies. For example, in Syria and Sri Lanka, the responsibility to protect norm has not done very little to protect populations within states. The author notes that the international community's feeble responsibility on the Darfur’s crisis has failed to recognize the role of the “responsibility to protect.” The West’s disinclination to intervene in Darfur raises skepticism about the West’s humanitarian intervention techniques, especially after the invasion of Iraq and western strategic interests in Sudan. Nevertheless, the notion of the responsibility to protect is important in the protection of human rights as it seeks to confront atrocity committed by states through prevention, protection or

prosecution.
Many Western governments, such as the United States, have used humanitarian intervention to morally justify their intervention even if it was not authorized by the Security Council.

A discrepancy exists given that although this is regarded as unlawful, the use of veto power exempts them from being held accountable. Western states hold these actions to be morally legitimate, however, it violates their state sovereignty. This is evident in the case of the United States invasion of Iraq and Syria. Consequently, Bellamy acknowledges that the responsibility to protect has been abused. Adam Branch discusses American perspective of morality over International law using the events of Kosovo. The military intervention was deemed to be morally justified by the American government, while other states believe it violated state sovereignty. It seems as a Western cultural arrogance to engage in humanitarian intervention as there always has been this notion of ‘white’s man burden.’ Branch argues that at the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War marked the beginning of two important trends that were to define UN military intervention. First, the “legitimacy of military intervention through moral claims were privileged” and second, the role of the Security Council (104). Branch notes the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect has no legal standing and does not hold states accountable. I agree with Branch’s overall argument that the responsibility to protect is limited by existing

international law and that it has been used to justify military intervention by powerful nation-states to use excessive force with having authorization from the Security.
In “the responsibility to protect: Is anyone interested in humanitarian intervention,” MacFarlane, Thielking and Weiss examine the question of whether states are really interested in humanitarian intervention. As noted above, both Bellamy and Branch believe a ultra-motive exists behind the notion of humanitarian intervention through military forces. MacFarlane, Thielking and Weiss article illustrates how the fundamental problem with the responsibility to protect is that “authority, political will, and operational capacity” dictates intervention (980). In “Muscular Humanitarianism: Reading the Narratives of the New Interventionism,” Anne Orford examines the decision made by NATO to use force in response to the Kosovo crisis. Oxford also examines the question of the legality and morality of humanitarian intervention. She criticizes what she coins to be the Security Council’s muscular intervention to illustrate it as a mechanism to protect and promote human rights. When it comes to intervention, Oxford suggests that interventionism narratives seek to “create a powerful sense of self for those who identify with the hero of the self” (679). This is very problematic as she argues that these narratives lay the foundation to depiction of the Western while men as the hero of non-white females. It provides a narrative that is unrealistic and portrays white men as savers is not the case as many people have been killed as a result of this interventionist narrative. I found that the intervention narratives are unjust and that they are used to meet national interest.