Ethical Considerations of Burkina Faso

African Studies Quarterly, 2000

pointing in this direction. It remains to be seen, however, whether the industrialised countries on both sides of the North Atlantic will defend with similar determination the victims of dictatorship and ethnic hatred in other regions of the world. The relative indifference of the international community towards notorious human rights violations in various parts of the world (Algeria, Myanmar, Tibet, both Congos, Sudan, etc.) sheds some doubt about the willingness of the major global powers to defend the basic rights of life, freedom and human dignity wherever they are threatened. Admittedly, human rights are not and cannot be the only factor to be taken under consideration in case of a foreign military intervention. Nonetheless, "feasibility" and "tradeoffs" are ambiguous arguments when it comes to basic principles. To defend human rights manu militari only where it can be done with little casualties, or where it is economically not too damaging, is not only mor...

Beliefs and Values, 2009

Over the last 50 years, Africa has experienced many wars, which have been grounded in an enduring and erroneous belief that armed struggle is a legitimate avenue to redress injustices. Yet, there are also some refreshing pacifi c values linked to a new wave of cosmopolitanism and a steady democratic transition across Africa. As a result, the values of pluralism, dialogue, reconciliation, and leadership accountability now have adherents across Africa, and are frequently invoked to support actions, policies, and practices that would have been anathema only a few decades ago. For every Somalia, there is a Botswana, and for every Zimbabwe, there is a Ghana. Africa can only be understood if such cultural complexities and contemporary trends are more fully appreciated by Africans and non-Africans alike. Over the long term, to promote peace and stability in Africa, we must engage others with whom we disagree, and showcase such efforts and conduct in our educational curricula and government practice; cultivate a pan-African commitment to protect our populations from armed confl ict, atrocities, and human rights violations; and actively strengthen democratic systems and civil society throughout the African continent.

Postcolonial World

In a brief book review published in 2002 Edward Said drew attention to a new sympathy towards classical imperialism amongst intellectuals. In the wake of “years of degeneration following the white man’s departure”, Said argued, there was decreasing tolerance for the “disorder and tyranny” instigated by Nkrumah, Lumumba and Nasser, and expressions of admiration for the development, security and order supposedly enabled by colonial rule, were more prevalent. Central to this revisionism, Said suggested, was the view that anti-colonial resistance had bred a barbaric, fanatical, anti-Westernism, for which the West itself could not be held responsible. Against this background, this chapter turns to the postcolonial politics of human rights intervention Against this background, this chapter considers the contemporary politics of human rights intervention. It examines the conceptual redefinition of sovereignty as responsibility that was pioneered by Francis Deng, and taken up by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) as the central plank of its “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) norm. It suggests that the view that colonialism should be bracketed in apportioning responsibility for violence and insecurity in de-colonized states re-occurs in contemporary arguments about human rights and the responsibility to protect. As Francis Deng et al put it, several decades after independence “it is becoming increasingly inappropriate to blame Africa’s problems on colonialism”. The chapter argues that the ‘responsibilization’ of the post-colonial state obscures the responsibility of former colonial powers for problems to which that they now portray themselves as solutions.

It would seem intuitive that the assertion of a responsibility to protect would help promote just that – responsibility. In this chapter, however, I argue that the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P), especially as it is applied to Africa, does not make political power responsible, but rather allows those with power to act in a politically irresponsible manner, at the cost of democracy and, often, peace. R2P can engender political irresponsibility due to two factors: first, it tends to reduce all politics in Africa to effective protection capacity; and second, it makes the legitimacy of the African state subject to determination by the ‘international community’ according to vague moral standards. Whether the African state is deemed legitimate and thus supported or deemed illegitimate and thus coerced, neither it nor those acting in the name of the ‘international community’ are accountable to those whose rights are supposedly being protected – African citi- zenries. This moralization and externalization of African politics undermines democracy and sets the stage for African and Western political actors to avoid having to justify their actions politically or to face the consequences of their actions. I conclude the chapter by arguing that political power will only be made responsible when it is held accountable by those who are subject to it. To this end, I propose replacing sovereignty as responsibility with popular sovereignty as a way of democratizing the R2P discourse – even if at the cost of R2P itself.

2012

This special issue sets out to analyze-from different epistemological perspectives and based on different case studies-tensions that have arisen in a number of recent security interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. The character of international peace and security missions in the Global South has changed significantly after the end of the Cold War. On the one hand, we witness a greater willingness to engage in order to terminate or prevent violent conflict. This willingness is grounded in a broader understanding of security in which the protection of the population is prioritized over the claim to security of a sovereign state. A state's sovereignty is increasingly interpreted as entailing a responsibility to protect the citizenry. On the other hand, a broadened international will to intervene in conflicts in the Global South raises a number of controversial questions regarding when and how and on whose behalf to intervene. What should be the projected end state of such liberal interventions? What does a responsibility to protect entail, conceptually and in practice? Who are the principal actors in complex and ambitious missions aimed at creating stability, peace, or (human) security? When should a stabilization mission end? What are the consequences when (short-term) security or humanitarian interests and (long-term) state-building or development interest are all legitimized through a discourse of protecting vulnerable populations? And, perhaps most importantly, what stakes do the actors directly affected by the conflict and the international response have? These are some of the questions the contributors address and analyze in this special issue.

Ethics & International Affairs, 2003

Millennium-Journal of International Studies

Philosophical Books, 2007

The literature in ethics and international affairs has increased enormously in recent years, and any brief survey must begin by narrowing the subject matter. I shall limit myself here to three topics that seem to me especially important in recent work in this area: war (and just war theory); humanitarian intervention; and global justice. I shall discuss the first two topics loosely as a single group, given (what I believe to be) the important role played by central elements of just war theory in philosophical discussion of these topics. 1

2006

The United States is a country of contradictions, espousing ideals only to negate them in practice. While expecting other countries to accept its dictates, it ignores other people's interests. Its ideal of the 'promotion of democracy' is questionable because it has recently appeared like an ideological instrument of post-modern colonialism, an elaborate indirect system of controlling Third World countries using various 'democracy' agents. As a result, true democracy appears to be limited to the well born, who happen to be white, in line with the ideals of the founders of the United States who wanted equality among white men of substance but not for blacks who were meant to be slaves. Woodrow Wilson believed he had a right to use force to 'teach' the Mexicans how to elect 'good men' as he condoned racial discrimination, and loudly talked of making the world 'safe for democracy.' Ronald Reagan spoke of freedom for Russians and virtually ignored 'apartheid' South Africa that was an 'ally' of the United States. After the Cold War, the United States pressured its client states whose leaders had outlived their usefulness to 'democratise' and at the same time praised people who shot their way to power as 'new leaders' of Africa to be emulated, as long as they serve American interests. And when democratic elections appeared to produce 'unwanted' results, as in Algeria, the United States had no problem endorsing military intervention to stop winning by the wrong people. The 'promotion of democracy', it turns out, is a nice sounding expression designed to serve American interests but not necessarily to promote democracy and subsequently the receiving countries should take it with a grain of salt.

Wars are a critical part of human history and development. The history of societies, kingdoms and modern states are replete with different accounts of how great empires were formed and weak ones vanquished. Extant scholarly narratives explore the notion of justice in and during war (jus in bello) but with little or no attention to the very pertinent idea of postwar justice, that is, the lot of the ravaged societies and states, especially as it concerns their reconstruction and rehabilitation. This paper therefore interrogates the question of war and moral duties of States in Africa. Utilizing W.D Ross' notion of Prima Facie Duties, it establishes the moral agency of states and concludes that there is a pertinent need for International Organizations, Sub-Regional Organizations and States to begin to innovate and deploy indigenous and social approaches as a matter of duty in order to salvage war ravaged regions of Africa.