The Concept of Intervention and State Sovereignty - Essay Example

Humanitarian intervention has been a hot discussion topic among political analysts for decades. This is because its legitimacy and effectiveness in controlling the human rights violations across the world, has definitely been questioned. According to Mamdani’s perspective about human rights he feels that, the formation of the International councils of Justice like the ICC, which stands for the International Criminal Court, has raised the eyebrows of many countries. It is very clearly seen that in the name of humanitarian intervention, the US is taking double standards in its fight against terror. According to Evans perspective on humanitarian intervention Responsibility to Protect was the new concept, which was coined by the ICISS or the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. As per this, it needed the various states of the world to act in a very acceptable and responsible manner, whenever there was a gross violation of human rights, noticed in regions or countries across the world. But as per Mamdani, this concept has been an utter failure in recent times due to the political and humanitarian complications it has created. Walzer clearly brings out his own views regarding the concept of freedom and external intervention, to bring peace within a country or a state. According to Walzer he feels that, states or nations as such, do not like any intervention in their internal affairs. Only when the situation arises when there is a huge humanitarian crisis like genocide being committed on a population, that an external force or country should intervene to bring about peace and stability. But it is still not known to the international community, when to apply the concept of humanitarian intervention. Walzer believes that, such foreign intervention from an alien power could cause a shift in the political power of a state. According to him, if this force acts only for a brief period of time, then it cannot much change the balance of power and cause damage to the freedom of a state or a country. But if such alien intervention tends to get prolonged over a time period, then it will surely influence as well as challenge the political powers and freedom of the people, of that particular state or country. Indeed then it becomes a transgression of the international laws and will cause much harm to the society of that particular country. This view is very true and has been seen in the case of the Iraqi humanitarian intervention by the US. But when a clear comparison is made about all the above perspectives it is very clear that, in the name of humanitarian intervention mass crimes and atrocities are being committed on humanity, by the rich and powerful nations of the world. Mamdani believes that the whole concept of R2P has been misused by the powerful nations, to unleash terror on the poorer nations of the world. As a result he feels that the concept of R2P has to stand for Right to Punish and not for Responsibility to Protect. But Evans’ is totally defending this concept. It very clearly seen that Mamdani is giving a clear message about the concept of humanitarian intervention, which has become a very complex issue for the various countries of the world, to make a clear demarcation as to the cases where they need to intervene. But Walzer is very much certain that, only when the situation arises wherein there is a huge humanitarian crisis like genocide being committed on a population, that an external force or country should intervene to bring about peace and stability. Evans’ is very much certain that genocide has taken place in African countries like Rwanda, Uganda and Sudan and is asking the International humanitarian intervention in the affairs of these states. Hence the concept of Responsibility to Protect can very well be applied to these countries by the world powers to prevent and put down the mass atrocities taking place in these countries. As per the concept of Responsibility to Protect there were two agreed principles, one in which the state had the primary responsibility to protect its population against atrocities. The other, where in the case when the state is unable or is helpless in putting down a revolution or mass atrocities being committed on its population, then the international community can very well take the decision of intervening, using the concept of Responsibility to Protect. But has R2P been applied prudently by the International community is the question asked by Mamdani? According to this concept, there are three responsibilities that are being entrusted to the international community, which includes the responsibility to prevent, react and finally to rebuild. But the question really is, as to how far these three elements laid out in the concept, are being followed by the western countries more particularly by the US currently? How far this has been able to control the human rights violations and also enabled the states, to intervene in the humanitarian crisis across the world is yet to be seen? Though the concept is quite attractive and can effectively be used to check human atrocities that are being committed, it is rightly pointed out by critics, to see the practicality and effectiveness of such a system. But when we compare all the three perspectives it is very evident that Mamdani is very critical about his remarks on the human atrocities being committed by the powerful nations in the name of humanitarian intervention. While at the same time Evan’s feels that, by applying the concept of Responsibility to Protect the UN Security Council and more particularly the US, can act in a very prudent and sensible way as to when and where humanitarian intervention is to be put into action. But walzer is very certain that, humanitarian intervention is needed when genocide is being committed. Thus it is very clear that Mamdani, Evans’ and Walzer, together agree to the viewpoint that humanitarian intervention is currently being misused, by the powerful countries of the world for their own political and economic advantage. But all the three of them differ in their viewpoints when it comes to the application of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect, which has been created by the ICISS or the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Mamdani makes a mockery of the concept and does not believe that, the concept will help to put down the genocide and human atrocities in the various regions of the world. On the other hand he rightly believes that, it is a concept which will empower the richer nations of the world, to do injustice to the poorer countries. Oppression and mass crimes have been committed by such countries in the name of humanitarian intervention, only to turn things to their advantage. Thus human security has been considered as very important, to bring about international peace and development. Though many countries accept the principle of Human Security as a necessity and are working towards ensuring the same it is seen that, it is far from practical for the international community to act, in the cases of human atrocities being committed. The cases of Rwanda as well as Srebrenica are indeed, the greatest reminders of the humanitarian crisis and also pose many types of questions to the modern world. Indeed politicians have been confused as to how to deal with the genocide that is committed in these countries. These are thus exceptional cases wherein without the humanitarian intervention and an intervention into the sovereignty of these nations it is quite impossible to do justice and to protect the masses of these countries. These are accepted by Mamdani and Evans ‘and they feel that, it was correct on the part of the worldwide community to intervene. It has been clearly stated by Evans that, it was the concept of Bernard Kouchner the Right to Intervene that was coined in the 1987, which had opened the eyes of many countries towards the necessity to act and intervene in the affairs of the state, where mass genocide or human atrocities are being committed. Indeed it was based on this concept that, the US started to intervene in Somalia in the year 1992. But Mamdani’s view is that the US is more selective in its approach of humanitarian intervention and is more interested in the human rights violation that are taking place in the Gulf region while it totally lacks interest in intervening in the affairs of poorer African nations. We can surely agree with Mamdani since the present world condition is such that the actions of US on the basis of humanitarian intervention are being questioned by many countries. Indeed the legitimacy and the right to intervene by the US has become a hot discussion topic for political analysts and experts. Thus ever since the end of the Second World War, the Security Council had taken its roots and became a council, that has powers to control most other countries of the world. The Security Council is one, that has as its members the most powerful nations of the world and it is seen that even the ICC, has been made accountable and report to the Security Council and not the UN General Assembly, which has representations from almost all the countries of the world. The Security Council is controlled by the superpower US, which controls the functions of the ICC as well. The past crimes and its interventions in many bloody wars like Vietnam, Cambodia and many others have been totally brushed aside and no international committees or panels have been formed to try its military generals or politicians, who have committed these grave crimes against humanity. Again if the case of the US is taken, then the way in which it bombarded Germany and Japan during the Second World War, is a grim reminder of the genocide it had committed to these two countries. Indeed it has very well destroyed the economies of these countries. Mamdani has very well stated this and has a strong point of argument regarding this. As a result of this, many countries including India have disagreed to join hands and sign treaties which the US, otherwise forces upon the smaller and poorer nations of the world. These countries who are very much dependant on the US, in terms of aid and financial help are left with no other option, than to show their eagerness in joining hands with the US and its war on terror. But in reality it is only a victimisation of the helpless nations of the world, which is really taking place. Mamdani is very clear in giving the distinction between the terms war, counter insurgency as well as genocide but Evans’ and Walzer are very unclear about these in their perspectives. But foreign intervention itself becomes different, in the case of war and conquest of a particular nation. Walzer gives the case of what happened to Germany and Japan, during the Second World War. Walzer believes that, outside intervention in the affairs of alien state, should take place only in the case of extreme circumstances, when the people of the state really require outside support of a foreign nation, to bring about justice and political stability. The case of genocide being committed on a particular community within a state is one such condition, where outside intervention is really necessary, to bring about justice and put down the human suffering. Walzer gives the example of the Hungarian Revolution of 1849 in which, Great Britain took the side of Austria, Russia and did not support the Hungarian people, though it had till then provided them with military and arms support. Maybe it was for its own good and for the safety of Europe that Britain stood by the Austrian side, when Russia intervened in Hungary. It is very clearly seen that, the situation of many countries in today’s world, is not much different. Hence Walzer terms this as prudence on the part of nations. Today when US is engaged on its own in the Global war on terror, the same kind of prudence is shown by many nations, by being mere spectators to interventions and military manoeuvres of a superpower like US. Thus according to Mamdani if we delve into the past history it will be clearly seen that, the US has been a very perfect example of a nation, which has turned the table of things to its advantage. With its political and superpower clout for the past several decades, it has been meddling with the internal affairs of many smaller nations, thereby causing extreme damage to the stabilised governments, in the name of enforcing humanitarian rights. At critical junctures it has formed international committees and councils for enforcing human rights and brought the guilty to the International Criminal Courts. But at the same time it has helped its own military personnel and politicians, to escape from being questioned over issues of human rights violation. This opinion of Mamdani is very correct as the recent military operations by the US clearly points to this. Today the US, is very much dictating its own rules and acting on self proclaimed laws to enforce freedom in many parts of the world. Thus Walzer very cleverly brings out the fact that, justice as well as prudence are two sides of a coin and are always opposites. The way such powers act on their own to bring about international justice, in the name of counter intervention for liberating the nations is not justifiable but only adds to misery of the nations. The best example is the way atomic power was used in the case of Japan by the US in the Second World War, which shows what super powers can do to destroy smaller nations, so as to enforce international justice. The best example is the US war on terror, which was based on this doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the right to intervene, which has made them to carry attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. These as per experts and politicians have been found to be highly unjust. Indeed the death toll due to the humanitarian crisis that followed the war on Iraq, has accounted for more than the number of people who died during the actual war. This same kind of interventions and military operations could also be carried out by the western powers in the future as well, in the name of just war. According to Mamdani it is genocide that causes the gravest type of crime, which is being committed upon humans and civilian population. He makes a clear distinction between counter insurgency and war. The former is being done to root out the criminals and an extremist operating within a country and the latter is between two countries which occur following some issue or geopolitical dispute. Mamdani makes it very clear that under all the above conditions, the final people who suffer the most are the civilians of any country. The question of sensible military operation has thus by far disappeared from the doctrine of peaceful human intervention. The states that have allied in giving military backup for the operations have become selfish and selective, putting their interests first and supporting the most powerful of allies. The question of national interests and minimising the human casualties, have all disappeared from the checklist of the concept of Right to intervene. Thus the whole world is now a spectator to this sort of assault and atrocity, which is being committed in the form of humanitarian intervention for saving humanity. Hence it can very well be concluded that, out of the various perspectives about humanitarian intervention by Mamdani, Evans’ and Walzer it is Mamdani’s views, which have more relevance in today’s political situation. Mamdani is right in his views regarding the mass atrocities, high handedness as well as double standards by the rich and powerful nations of the world. Read More