Humanitarian Intervention: A Realist Perspective - Essay Example

Humanitarian Intervention: A Realist Perspective Introduction This essay attempts to show, by employing the logic of realism, that normative underpinnings of humanitarian intervention – use of military force by one country in another for the safety of the latter’s citizens – are essentially misplaced and intervention runs contrary to the practice of international relations. In the post-Cold War international system, humanitarian intervention has become a key issue of deliberation, and perhaps poses the greatest challenge to the norms of international society. Realism, characterized by the ideas of survival, self-help, and statism operating within international anarchy, offers a robust critique of the burgeoning movement to legalize humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian Intervention and Realism Humanitarian intervention can be functionally defined as military intervention by one or more countries in the territory of another for the protection of citizens other than their own from humanitarian calamities. Interventions in Somalia and Cambodia were pivotal in arming this movement with powerful precedents. The failure to intervene in Rwanda, and to a certain extent in Bosnia, also served as chilling reminders of what horrors international indifference could bring about. Some scholars have argued that it is only the changing normative context of international relations, rather than theories of power and economic interests, that can explain the rationale and requirement of humanitarian intervention in today’s world (Finnemore 1996). The lens of realism, instead, offers a clear and present vision of non-intervention and strategic restraint in international politics. Before outlining the key realist arguments against humanitarian intervention, it shall be prudent to take a look at the central tenets of the paradigm and its approach to world politics. Though there are many variants of realism, essentially all strands of the theory maintain that the international system is anarchical or without any central organizing mechanism, populated by nation-states that are in permanent conflict. Nation-states have lexical priority over all other institutions and their national interests are defined in terms of power; every state aims at the satisfaction of these interests by maximizing power (Donnelly 2000: 7-8). The primacy of nation-states and national interests in realism underscores the importance of the belief in sovereignty, non-intervention, and the non-use of force, which have been the fundamental principles of the international system since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. For realists, survival is the key national interest and, hence, no state can act on the basis of an overarching morality and concern for humanity, which humanitarian intervention demands. Rather, states intervene because of strategic and national interests. Further, leaders of states – entrusted with the responsibility of formulating rational foreign policies – have no moral right to engage their armed forces in bloody battles where their states’ immediate and long-term interests are not involved. Indeed, “[c]itizens are the exclusive responsibility of the state, and their state is entirely their own business” (Parekh 1997: 56). In addition, legitimizing humanitarian intervention in the form of international law shall give rise to the problem of abuse and preemption. Because states tend to intervene in accordance with their national interests, and since there is no objective determinant of whether a conflict can be deemed as a humanitarian crisis, countries may use the pretext of humanitarian intervention to pursue their national interests. If such intervention is legalized, strong states can always use it to their advantage against weaker nations (Wheeler & Bellamy 2001: 558). The basis for this last argument has evolved from the tendency of states to abuse the ban on the use of force, as enshrined in Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations (UN), by employing the excuse of self-defence. The American intervention of 2003 in Iraq provides an excellent case for the elaboration of this point. The United States (US) attacked the sovereign Middle Eastern nation due to the perceived threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Following the failure of unearthing any such WMD, the program of the war was conveniently changed to offer a humanitarian face: the delivery of the people of Iraq from the tyrannical rule of a murderous despot. However, as early as the fall of 2002, more than 30 leading realists had written a stirring rejoinder to the US’ plan of action by claiming that the war in Iraq did not serve America’s short- or long-term national interests (Dunne & Schmitt 2001: 179). Among others, they argued that there was no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al Qaeda, and even in the highly unlikely scenario that he possessed a nuclear weapon, the fear of massive retaliation from either the US or Israel would deter its use. Once the war got under way, realists termed it as “unnecessary” (Mearsheimer & Walt 2003). It becomes evident, thus, that it is the prevention of war and not unbridled belligerence which the realists promote. Instead, they warn against undue aggression, since nation-states can only go to war if their most vital national interest, i.e. survival, is at stake. No state wishes any interference in its domestic matters and hence, conversely, no state has the right to intervene in the matters of another, unless the latter is the source of an existential threat. Realism warns that it is more likely that humanitarian intervention shall be used as a guise by predatory states to advance ulterior motives. Yet, there still remains the question of mass atrocities and genocides – as in Rwanda, Bosnia (Srebrenica), and Darfur – that can occur when interventions are not forthcoming. In realist terms, though, these disasters could have been avoided just by the threat of use of force, which could have proved equally or more effective than intervention itself. Deterrence and containment are two cornerstones of realist theory, and applied with success at various times and levels during the Cold War. It takes relatively little political will to threaten intervention, but such an action can influence the outcome of a humanitarian crisis. The US setbacks in Somalia also indicate interventions are unlikely to be swift and successful at the same time; and one negative experience can turn a state’s stance on responsibility towards humanity (as in the case with the US in the mid-1990s). That makes humanitarian intervention arbitrary, with no systemic imperative for its application. Instead, realism posits that non-intervention should continue to be the guiding principle for international relations. Conclusion Thus, we find that within a realist framework, humanitarian intervention should not be permissible because it is arbitrary, open to abuse, and more often that not, detrimental to the national interests of nation-states. Since national interests trump every other consideration in the anarchical international society, realism calls for a reaffirmation of the concept of non-intervention; this principle can only be violated if a humanitarian crisis in one state carries an existential threat for another. At all other times, national interests demand restraint and the use of deterrence. List of References Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunne, T. & Schmidt, B. C. (2001) ‘Realism.’ In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations [3rd Edition]. Ed. by Baylis, J. & Smith, S. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 161-181. Finnemore, M. (1996) ‘Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention.’ In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Ed. by Katzenstein, P. J. New York: Columbia University Press: 153-185. Mearsheimer, J. J. & Walt, S. M. (2007) ‘An Unnecessary War.’ Foreign Policy, January/February, 51-59. Parekh, B. (1997) ‘Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention.’ International Political Science Review, 18, (1) 49-70. Wheeler, N. J. & Bellamy, A. J. (2001) ‘Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics.’ In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations [3rd Edition]. Ed. by Baylis, J. & Smith, S. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 555-578. Read More