All Hesitant on the Western Front

The world should intervene in a nation’s affairs when innocent citizens are targeted and there is no form of protective government or authoritative power to rely on. This could be said of a situation where citizens are being fired at from the backs of ambulances or when a leader who is not ready to step down keeps holding on by whatever means necessary. Such could be derived from the current situation in Libya. An even more extreme version of this scenario is currently taking place in Cote d’Ivoire, or Ivory Coast, on the western coast of northern Africa. Both are teetering on the edge of civil war, and the world has watched from a distance for weeks now, without any action whatsoever.

“The world” can be referring to individual nations and their lack of involvement, or in the broader sense, to the United Nations, an organization that defines its existence as a force that works to facilitate international cooperation and maintain human rights. In either sense, the world has failed the Libyan and Ivorian people.

Libya and Cote d’Ivoire are in very similar places right now, as both are witness to the unraveling of their nations, following a leader who refuses to step down from power. Whereas Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi is facing a revolutionary force that calls for the removal of his seat of dictatorial power, Cote d’Ivoire’s Laurent Gbagbo refuses to recognize the results of a presidential election that took place in November 2010.

Each day that another piece of news comes out about either of these countries, we read statistics telling us how many people have been killed, wounded, displaced, and the countries they are fleeing to, along with approximations of numbers of refugees. Many of these statistics come from the United Nations, who don’t seem to have an issue with keeping tabs on the numbers, but have yet to take any action to prevent them from increasing on the daily.

While there is discussion among the major world powers and members of the United Nations about how to approach these issues, it is still disconcerting to observe the death tolls spiral upward and the control spiral outward to a state of chaos. It’s a bit of a stretch, but if we wait long enough, could we see another Rwanda or Darfur?

While it is not the responsibility of the United States to play mediator of all world conflicts, it is frustrating when it says one thing and does another. The United States makes moralist claims, but displays realist actions; that is to say, it prides itself on being the Democracy Enforcer and the Human Rights Crusader, but acts in favor of its own interests in more cases than not. It plays the advocate for democracy and freedom, but won’t always intervene when the rights of human beings are most challenged and denied.

The decision of action or inaction cannot be placed solely on the United States, but it is necessary for the nation, if nothing else, to play a major role in the discussion surrounding the next big move for this region, which will hopefully come sooner rather than later.

_Diana