Success or Failure of Humanitarian Military Action - Essay Example

?Humanitarian Military Action Humanitarian military action is occasionally used with the view to improving the lives of many individuals at the risk of losing the lives of others. This is controversial in the eyes of many, as at times it can cause more problems than it solves. There are many conditions in which humanitarian military action has been considered successful and many where it has been a failure. In these cases, the military action itself may have violated the underlying themes of humanitarianism and been damaging to human rights. The purpose of this paper is to explore why humanitarian military action is controversial in the eyes of some, and how humanitarian military action can be useful in some situations. Using this as a basis, it will then explore the situations in which humanitarian military action has been successful and what conditions link these occasions. The same process will be completed for the failures, to provide a full overview of humanitarian military action and how best to judge whether it is the right choice in a certain situation. When Humanitarian Military Action is Accepted Many feel that there are situations where military action in the pursuit of protecting human rights is necessary. If, for example, a powerful regime is violating human rights of the citizen or resident, then many feel a more powerful or enlightened government should approve military action for the protection of these people. Humanitarian military action is also often approved with the aim of installing democracy in a country where it has not previously been the primary political system, with the attempt of improving the lifestyle, conditions and rights of the residents. It can also be to protect neighbouring countries or political forces who may be at danger without such intervention1. The central dogma of humanitarian intervention is that it is protective and so any attempts for military action without this cannot be classified as humanitarian. Evidently, this definition is broad enough that humanitarian intervention may be viable in the eyes of some, whilst not in others, and this is amongst the reasons why it can be unsuccessful. Why Humanitarian Military Action is Controversial Humanitarian military action is considered useful in many situations, but it is not without controversy. Many feel that it is an oxymoron, as military action will undermine the living conditions and lifestyle of those in combat and those surrounded by the action2. In this case, the military action can perhaps be perceived as going against the values of humanitarianism. In some cases, military action may provoke a civil uprising or the instillation of a new political regime that violates human rights more than the previous, which can again cause the action to be considered futile and damaging. There are also those who believe that geographical areas should be left to their own devices to evolve into the political system that is right for them3. In fact, proponents of this position often believe that democracy is not necessarily right for every country, and that forcing it upon citizens is a violation of human rights itself. One main reason why humanitarian intervention has become more likely in recent decades is that political and technological developments have allowed many events to be judged on a world stage and to found a modern international system. Politics has to carefully consider other nations. Despite this development, many feel that it is appropriate for each sovereign state to have immunity against intervention despite any atrocities carried out by any governmental system in place there4. It can also be suggested that the reigning regime in these opponents feel that they are correct in their views but do not feel the need to perform military intervention on the Western world. Either way, this ability and right to rule alone as is seen fit by ruling governments is seen as both part of the international stage and an anathema to it. The Conditions for Success or Failure of Humanitarian Military Action As previously noted, there have been many occasions where humanitarian military action has been approved and carried out, some of which have been successful and others have failed miserably. There are underlying themes that seem to dictate the success or failure of these operations, although it should be noted that there are no hard and fast rules about humanitarian military action and when it should be used. Firstly it is necessary to define success, which again is problematic because of the differing viewpoints that are at play in humanitarian military action. A success can be described as the intervention doing more good than harm5. This means that any tragedies occurring during the intervention are seriously outweighed by those that would have occurred with no intervention. This in itself is problematic, especially when judging cases in the past. Firstly, many figures quoted when describing the results of these so-called ‘just wars’ are inaccurate and may not accurately depict how the military action has affected the country6. It is also impossible to calculate the number who would have died had there been no military action. There is also the issue of those who did not die; if many of the population are seriously injured or maimed (as they would be, particularly if nuclear or biological warfare was used), then the non-death of these individuals is meaningless. Additionally, many of the areas in which humanitarian military action is carried out are in considerable political turmoil during and after the events, which means that census information is likely irrelevant or simply wrong. It would be impossible to suggest a true number of deaths (both prevented and in the cause of humanitarianism) because of these lacklustre head counts. Judging success also is problematic when time scales are considered, since many of the more recent acts of intervention (such as Iraq or Libya) have not occurred far enough in the past to be completely judged. Nor are these areas completely free from foreign occupation7 and therefore can still be said to be part of the intervention, despite how international media like to justify the actions. Despite this, the language of success has been used to refer to the effects of humanitarian military efforts and thus it continues to be a useful term when discussing the outcome of the intervention. Once the problem of definition has been overcome, the conditions for success become more available. One interesting case of humanitarian military intervention to consider is that of the United Nations and the government of Saddam Hussein in early 1990s Iraq. The Kurds are an ethnic group with a distinct culture and language that reside in large numbers across different countries of the Middle East, often under some degree of persecution8. In Iraq, they constitute around 17% of the population, and were backed by the United States government in an uprising against the government of Saddam Hussein. The humanitarian effort to provide a safe haven for these Kurds was eventually backed by the UN and a no-fly zone was declared above many important Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq. Many military actions took place in the area, and eventually led to the formation of a Kurdish self-governed area9. The formation of Kurdish Iraq, governed by the Kurdistan Regional Government, might be considered a success. The people living here have their own autonomous region and are relatively safe from persecution, especially compared with the plight of the Kurds living in neighbouring countries, such as Turkey10. However, this cannot be so simply defined as a success. During the conflict, it is estimated that Iraqi troops captured around 100,000 people Kurds, killing many of them11 There were two embargos during the early 1990s; one on Iraq by the UN and one on Kurdish Iraq by Iraq proper, which may have affected and killed many more12. These problems are further cemented by the fact that there are numerous human rights issues within Kurdish Iraq, which means that humanitarian military action may be considered again. This cannot be considered a success, despite the formation of this autonomous territory. There are many conditions that may have created this failure. Firstly, an embargo may not have been the most appropriate way for the UN to deal with Iraq. It caused considerable suffering to the people who considered themselves Iraqi and those who considered themselves Kurdish. It caused twice the suffering for the UN-backed victim of the situation, because they were subject to two embargos. The use of embargo in these humanitarian interventions is not uncommon, with the US enforcing one upon Cuba in 1992. This intervention in Cuba was against the political regime in the country, but actually caused severe malnutrition and illness amongst the population, who were again considered the victim by the intervening powers13. The state of Cuba also continued to exist in much the same manner post-embargo, which meant that this intervention can be considered a failure, and thus it would seem that embargo is a condition necessary for failure. Another element of the Kurdish Iraq example which might signal failure is that the uprising was supported by the UN, and many actions were carried out by the British and US government, but there was no direct military help given by these agents. The primary losses in this fight for independence were Kurdish and Iraqi individuals, and there were no significant losses to British or American troops. There were interventions, embargos and restrictions placed on the area, but these may not have been effective enough to prevent the failure of the operation. It could be suggested from this that humanitarian military action without providing any military force to the persecuted leads to a failure to establish safe communities with good human rights records. Additionally, Kurdistan remains scattered in pieces across the Middle East and is only an autonomous region of Iraq and is not exactly the separate democratic country the UN may have hoped for. Conversely, the case of East Timor reinforces the thought that actual military aid may be necessary to complete the goals of humanitarian action. East Timor is an independent republic founded in 2002 after many years of conflict in the area. The area was first under Portuguese control, but after it gained independence briefly in the 1970s it was captured by Indonesian forces. Many residing in the area were unhappy with this, and a UN-sponsored referendum in 1999 supported the bid for independence. However, following this, those who were anti-independence were backed by the Indonesian army and performed a scorched-earth campaign, forcing many hundreds of thousands of people into refugee status in West Timor14. This caused the UN to anticipate that military action may be necessary in the area, and the International Force for East Timor (INTERFET) was formed15. Although there were problems during the military action by INTERFET, the fact that East Timor is now an independent republic with a good human rights history and a significantly lowered violence rate means that this intervention can be considered a success. This success, as has been noted, may be due to the use of actual military force in the humanitarian intervention, providing back-up and power to those supported by the Western forces16. Further evidence that military support is needed for those being helped by the humanitarian military action can be seen by the action and results of the recent conflict in Libya 17. Whilst it is early stages, this can be considered a success because of the collapse of the abusive regime and the uprising of those supported by the UN. Again, there was a coalition military force involving factions from the US, Great Britain and France18, amongst others. It could be suggested that perhaps it is provision of help that is necessary for a successful humanitarian campaign. Evidently, many of the areas which are targeted by such interventions are often living in fairly bad conditions: weaponry and force may not immediately be available to them19. It makes sense that providing them with this help will allow them to be on equal footing with the regime against which they are fighting, and encourage the success of the battle. What is more interesting is that it seems to dictate success after international forces have left the area, particularly in the case of East Timor, and perhaps Libya. This may not be a direct result of the military provision, but could be due to the UN issuing advice to these nations following the turmoil. A final common thread that can be found in many campaigns, both successful and unsuccessful, is the attempt to reinstate a new political set-up in place of the one that has collapsed. Again, this seems to further the chance of success from the humanitarian military action. East Timor was helped by the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor, which allowed the country to transition more easily from the previous Indonesian occupation20. The formation of the democratic republics of Serbia and Montenegro came from the ashes of the NATO action in Yugoslavia, and again these were formed with UN guidance and exist in a relatively peaceful state today. Whilst this guidance can be a criterion for success, it is important for the UN and independent nations to avoid arrogance on the matter, because it should not be assumed that a democratic republic is necessarily the best solution to these humanitarian problems. For example, the creation of Israel was a humanitarian action sanctioned by the UN, and it has become one of the most hotly contested areas on the globe. This suggests that guidance may be critical but not necessary in humanitarian military action, but should be used with caution. Conclusions In conclusion, it is obvious that humanitarian military intervention has developed on a great scale and is likely to continue whilst many regimes and governments disrespect the human rights of citizens living within the area. This need to continue with humanitarian efforts means that each occasion where this military action has taken place needs to be analysed carefully: successful or unsuccessful. By doing this, there are a number of recurrent themes that illustrate the importance of the situation, the regime and the world stage on the military action taking place. Firstly, it seems that humanitarian action can only be considered a success if it brings about a situation which is preferable to that which existed before. Simply pertaining to the wishes of the victim state is not enough, as evidenced by the situation in Kurdish Iraq. Providing military backup has greatly helped in situations like East Timor and perhaps Libya, so this is an important criterion for success in many cases. Advice on overthrowing the regime and instating new political styles in the area can help (as in East Timor) but should be used with caution so as to avoid a UN-backed disaster area such as Israel. As a final note, it seems that there are no strict criteria for success or failure of this type of action, so it should be approached with great caution and deliberation. References Fisher, L., 1998. Military Action against Iraq. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 28(4), pp.793–798. Gunter, M.M., 2011. The Kurdish Conflict: International Humanitarian Law and Post-Conflict Mechanisms (review). The Middle East Journal, 65(1), pp.152–154. Henkin, L., 1999. Kosovo and the Law of“ Humanitarian Intervention.” The American Journal of International Law, 93(4), pp.824–828. Kingsbury, D. & Leach, M., 2011. East Timor: beyond independence, Monash University Press. Mamdani, M., 2011. Libya: behind the politics of humanitarian intervention. African Awakening: The Emerging Revolutions, p.151. Ralph, J., 2011. Some lessons are being learnt from British policy in Iraq for Libya. But only in how to leave UN resolutions sufficiently ambiguous. British Politics and Policy at LSE. Schoultz, L., 2011. Benevolent Domination: The Ideology of US Policy toward Cuba. Cuban Studies, 41, pp.1–19. Seybolt, T.B., 2007. Humanitarian military intervention: the conditions for success and failure, Oxford University Press. Walzer, M., 2006. Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations, Basic Books. Read More