The abstention by the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) failing to support UN Security Council Resolution 1973 raises serious questions about the future functionality of the multilateral system – a system in which the BRIC countries aspire to have a stronger voice. Effectively, the BRICs sent a message of opposition to allied intervention in countries experiencing fundamental political change. Their vote was an implicit acknowledgement that such collective action often has unintended consequences, and that it can result in one side being given an undue advantage over another. But a less obvious driver for their position is also the notion that one day such a vote could be cast against one of them.
It is premature to conclude that the collective opposition of the BRIC countries to allied intervention in Libya represents a formal coalition between these countries. While China and Russia have used their Security Council veto with frequency, aspiring permanent Security Council members Brazil, India, and South Africa are still finding their footing on the global stage, appear hesitant to blatantly oppose the collective will of the established five power permanent members of the Security Council. What they share is a long-held mistrust of Western-led military action and a more general stance in favor of non-intervention.
One of the major criticisms of the West’s decision to intervene in Libya by these countries has been the perceived hypocrisy of ‘selective intervention’. While a legitimate complaint, several of the BRICS countries risk spouting hypocrisy of their own in the process. For example, China and Russia’s willingness to put boots on the ground in foreign countries has been well documented. When, in response to Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, not a single sanction was imposed by the international community. While Georgia enjoyed widespread sympathy in the West, the action was not judged to be worth a potential rupture in the West’s relationship with Russia. China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and backed the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999 because these actions were viewed in its national interest at the time. In the end, of course, national interest is the ultimate driver of bilateral relations and participation in multilateral action.
India also has a history of armed intervention to protect its national interests. Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka have all experienced intervention by Indian military forces. Likewise, South Africa, the soon to be “S” in the “BRICS” has intervened numerous times in its post-independence history, most prominently in the Angolan civil war in 1975/6 and in the post-Apartheid era, and participated in multilateral intervention in Lesotho in 1998. After vocally supporting the principle of non-intervention, it eventually voted in favor of allied action in Libya.
With the exception of Brazil, all of the BRICS countries have a history of military interventions, but even Brazil is equally guilty of protecting its own interests. Brazil has strong commercial links to the Gadhafi regime, and major Brazilian companies operate in the country, including Petrobras, Odebrecht and Queiroz Galvão. It is not surprising, then, that Brazil opted to abstain on the Libya vote. It will be interesting to see how newly elected President Rousseff steers the Brazilian ship through international waters. She has recently signaled her intent by voting in favor of the creation of a Special UN Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran in the UN Human Rights Council. This is seen as the first major foreign policy divergence between her and former President da Silva.
The holy grail of permanent Security Council membership plays a powerful role in guiding these countries’ foreign relations with the West. Brazil craves the approval of the U.S. for its Security Council bid, and India, having already achieved this, does not want to jeopardize it. Economically and politically, neither can afford to count the U.S. among its enemies, however unlikely this may seem. Brazil and India would far rather join an international club led by the U.S. and European Union than one led by China or Russia. This reasoning may in part have spurred their abstention in the case of Libya.
The escalation of the Libyan conflict has surely prompted some of the BRICS countries to contemplate what is involved in having a seat at the world’s top table. The Libyan case further highlights the limitations of a global order struggling to reconcile principles of national sovereignty with principles of multilateralism. The modern history of the world has shown that there will always be crises that require multilateral action. The question has become when the BRICS will be willing to step up to the plate and place idealism above self-interest – an admittedly lofty ambition for any nation-state. Not that the U.S. and European nations have a pristine record in that regard, but they certainly do have substantial economic interests in Libya. The difference is that they have proven willing to sacrifice that interest to participate in sometimes distasteful and necessary political decisions. When was the last time the BRICS countries did that?
A very good article. Yes! All countries who have the power to do so have a history of intervention. However for some time now most countries intervene when they see a direct threat e.g. Russia and countries on its borders where recent “colour revolutions” took place.
The glaring exception to this are the some European countries and the English speaking countries of recent European extraction who have been fomenting strife and discord, even invading, all over the world e.g. Korea, Iraq, Kosovo, “colour revolution” countries, East Timore, Haiti etc etc.
Unfortunately the strain on the UN has been too great and it has already gone the way of its predecessor The League of Nations. It may have provided a fig leaf for the invasion of Libya but how many now have any respect for the UN. The highjacking of the UN by the Americans and attacks on UN personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan tell us this.
“The difference is that they have proven willing to sacrifice that interest to participate in sometimes distasteful and necessary political decisions. When was the last time the BRICS countries did that?”
I can’t speak for the rest of the “BRICS” but I believe, India was responsible for “stopping” a genocide in what was once called East Pakistan and helped the local “Muslim” populace form Bangladesh ? And in Sri Lanka, Indian soldiers perfomed a police action against Tamil insurgents despite widespread support for the Tamil cause domestically and it being in the Interests of India to support the Tamils! How many Indian soldiers died in that conflict ? Only to have the Sri Lankan soldiers start attacking Indian soldiers because Indian soldiers were a little too rough while waging war when ironically the Sri Lankans themselves used far worse tactics and far worse methods to end the war.
I can’t speak of other nations but India has intervened in other countries when it was necessary. Yes, sometimes it suited India’s interests as in the creation of Bangladesh but sometimes it didn’t suit India’s interest and brought about terrible consequences as a result like the suicide bombing of the Indian prime Minister.
India has learned from these experiences that freedom not earned is not really appreciated or valued. People have to liberate themselves, only then is there any meaning. That means sitting back and watching some atrocities unfold. Rushing off to solve every injustice is a fools errand and something the West has been very eager in engaging over and over again despite the same lesson being taught to them, that people don’t need to be saved, they just need to be given a chance to do it themselves. Arab world’s recent uprising is prime example, despite the Wests attempts for the past 50 odd years, the Arabs did on their own what the Western world has failed over and over again in doing in the Middle East.
The fact that the BRIC group abstained is actually a mark of cowardice and real-politic on their part but in reality NATO hasn’t really saved anybody with their heedless and detrimental actions. Had Gaddafi prevailed, the average civilian would have seen order restored far sooner. Less of these rebels would try foolishly to wage war against a trained military and people would be able to support themselves without massive refugee camps in Egypt and Algeria. The only thing NATO has rescued in this bombing campaign is their own ego. It was wise for America to extricate itself. The French economic interests in Libya are well known and thus the ruse of civilians being bombed. If they cared so much, they wouldn’t have armed the Libyan military that they are no so eagerly bombing! The world is not naive and stupid to fall for your pretensions and your rhetoric about what the “West” is doing.
I ask, can the West sit back and watch nations destinies unfold without poking their nose into everything ? Can the West risk its economic interests on the principle of non-interference in other nations culture and destinies ?
The West are the ones that have to learn that the world doesn’t need their saving!
Daniel Wagner is an idiot.
First of all China does not use its UN Veto with frequency, it rarely uses it, check it out, USA has been using it the most in the last 20 years, just like USSR used to previously.
Secondly
All of the BRIC interventions you described were with their neighbors, Which makes it totally different
Last is checked Neither USA nor UK was Libya’s neighbor
Hence STFU
Varun,
You’re a very nice man, I can tell.
I think you’re missing some of the central points of the piece.
Daniel
I think the authors need to be a little realistic on the following points:
1. The ‘permanent’ members who matter are are the US, Russia and China. I dont think Brazil ,India and South Africa give a damn about Britan or France. ( as much as the authors would liek to think otherwise).
2. The BRICS want to create a stable forum for ‘NO Multilateral Action’ ! ( and not the other way around..as the authors argue).
3. The ‘European Union’ is not going to be leading anything anytime soon. Their most Powerful member (Germany) actually voted with the BRICS in abstaining from the UN vote.
4. Ever hear the term ‘New normal?’ . In todays world the BRICS and Germany are sanguine enough not to indulge in costly interventaiosn at the expense of their growth.
5. The US ( again plz note: the UK and France do not matter), will no Nothing about Saudi Arabia or Bahrain ( or even syria ). It only intervenes when it suits them. Libya is a perfect example ( a regime hated by even saudi arabia !).
Face it :The BRICS play the exact same game that the US does.( do what suits them) when it comes to libya and they will continue to do so.
I would not be too cynical. There are nations who have some common decency. We can only judge by results. There are also nations who have oil and these have to be especially vigilant.