Poor governance and extreme poverty has contributed to the rise of Boko Haram, a radical Islamist movement, in the northeast of Nigeria. John Campbell argues that to defeat Boko Haram governments must focus on humanitarian assistance and work to improve the lives of northern Nigerians.
The three articles in this package provide an overview of recent interventions, an explanation of the responsibility to protect and when it should be applied, and a critical analysis of humanitarian intervention.
Humanitarian Relief Organizations Research Links direct volunteers and donors to organizations that provide assistance during humanitarian crises. See Development Research Links for more research organizations focused on aid.
Laurie Garrett says before American cruise missiles reach their targets, serveral diplomatic steps must be taken in order to stop the further use of nerve gases by the Syrian regime against its own people and prevent the use of chemical weapons from becoming the region's "new normal."
Global support for the "responsibility to protect" doctrine weakened after the UN-endorsed no-fly zone that helped topple Libya's regime, and debate continues over the threshold for mounting armed humanitarian interventions, explains this Backgrounder.
According to Micah Zenko, "We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we need more time to "think through" U.S. military intervention options for Syria. We have an excellent understanding of what those options are, and a vast majority of officials, policymakers, and the American people do not believe they are worth the effort."
Asked by Jake C., from University of Texas at Tyler
A number of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Qatar, have been providing support to the opposition in various forms, ranging from humanitarian aid to military supplies, such as weapons, armor, and communication devices. However, these efforts have not been enough to turn the tide, and after three years of fighting, a diplomatic solution still seems unlikely.
Authors: Michael Scott Doran and Max Boot New York Times
Michael Scott Doran and Max Boot lay out five reasons for why the United States should intervene in Syria, arguing that President Obama is forgoing his "lead from behind" approach where it would benefit the United States the most.
Intensification of the violence in Syria presents renewed cause for military intervention, either to protect innocent civilian lives or to potentially police or enforce a peace agreement or political settlement, says CFR's Paul Stares.
The Council on Foreign Relations' David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's "think tank"—is home to more than seventy full-time, adjunct, and visiting scholars and practitioners (called "fellows"). Their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda. Download the printable CFR Experts Guide.
The authors argue that it is essential to begin working now to expand and establish rules and norms governing armed drones, thereby creating standards of behavior that other countries will be more likely to follow.
The author examines Pakistan's complex role in U.S. foreign policy and advocates for a two-pronged approach that works to quarantine threats while integrating Pakistan into the broader U.S. agenda in Asia.