How Humanitarian Is Humanitarian Intervention - Coursework Example

How humanitarian is humanitarian intervention? Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………..………….. 2 International Relations Theory …………………………………..……………….. 3 Understanding Humanitarianism …………………………………………………. 5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….…….. 6 References ………………………………………………………...………………… 8 Introduction The recent history of international events has seen a rise in the quest for power by new forms of government by nations that run contrary to the will and or best interest of their populace (Svolik, 2012, pp. 1-30). Somalia, Kosovo, and the Rwandan genocide are examples of the former (Simms and Trim, 2011, pp. 67-72), with Iraq (Gordon, 1996, pp. 44-53), and the uprising in Libya marking the most recent examples of a long-standing government administrations that did not operate in the best interests of its people (Patrick, 2011).   In terms of understanding the context of this study, humanitarian intervention is defined by NATO as “… an armed intervention in another state without the agreement of that state to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused by grave and large scale violations of fundamental human rights” (Centre for Strategic Studies, 2000, pp. 1). The intervention of the United Nations in Libya as well as other locales is provided under Article 94 of its Charter (2011) that states it is the duty of member nations of the organisation to comply with its rulings and those of the International Court of Justice regarding obligations as nations to protect the rights of its citizens.   In broaching the subject of humanitarian intervention Holzgrefe (2003, p. 18) tells us that it is "… the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied”. There are a number of definitions of what humanitarian intervention is, however they all follow the general principle of ending violations of human rights against the populace of a country that include tyranny or anarchy (Teson, 2003, p. 94): (Arend and Beck, 1996, p. 46).   In terms of humanitarian intervention, the issue that has been and is being raised is not its definition or concept, but rather its legality as well as legitimacy and under what circumstance if found to be valid is intervention justifiable (Wheeler and Belamy, 2005, p. 556). The title of Bayles, and Smith’s (2005) book “The Globalisation of World Politics” aptly describes the nature of the international community we now live in whereby its interdependence in terms of commerce, national defense as well as environmental and humanitarian issues. This is clearly evident in the United Nations Charter Preamble that states the organisation’s purpose and reason for existence is “… to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war …”, “… reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights …” and “… promote social progress and better standards of life …” (Charter of the United Nations, 2011). The end of these clear statements is stated to be “… to practice tolerance and live together in peace …”, “… unite our strength to maintain international peace and security …”, and “… to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples” (Charter of the United Nations, 2011).   The preceding has been engaged in as a means to set forth the depth and complexity of the subject matter of this study that seeks to equate “How humanitarian is humanitarian intervention?” International Relations Theory As brought forth by the above, in reading into the complexity of the subject one can see that in order to preserve and or protect humanitarian standards, the potential use of force represents a considered option in the process. This thus underscored the title of this exploration that asks if it is humane to use humanitarian intervention. As can be seen from the preceding, the undercurrents of the issue are complex.   In addressing the above, Weber (2005, p. 2) delves into international relations theory and provides us with an idea of the difficulties of this as a subject in that changes in terms of what has been and is occurring in the world and the vision we hold. As one can understand, these visions change in contemporary terms as to the developing understandings of humanity; human rights, justice, and appropriate balances refine and redefine themselves under the evolving nature of humankind. Weber (2005, p. 4) goes on to further explain this conundrum under conscious and unconscious ideology. Under the former, Weber (2005, p. 4) refers to Ball and Dagger (1995, p. 24). In terms of the context of this study conscious ideology represents “… a fairly coherent and comprehensive set of ideas that explains and evaluates social conditions, helps people understand their place in society, and provides a program for social and political action” (Ball and Dagger, 1995, p. 24). The above underscores the contemporary aspect brought forth above. Weber (2005, p. 5) refers to unconscious ideology as one “… that is not formally named and that is therefore difficult to identify”. This refers to the new situations and circumstances that international relations theory operates under in that new situations and circumstances present themselves under our evolving world views.   In understanding international organisations such as the United Nations Weber (2005, p. 24) refers to the fact that international relations theorists, as well as practitioners, state all nation-states are assumed to be sovereign. This is to an extent, in that their membership in an organisation such as the United Nations subjects them to its laws and regulations that supersede that (Weber, 2005, p. 24). The United Nations Charter recognises the sovereignty of its member nations, but also imposes conditions that call for its members to settle disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of force (Human Rights Web, 2010). In the context of this study, members of the United Nations under Resolution 1970 that was enacted specifically to deal with the Libyan uprising (Arend, 2011) revealed the changing nature of world opinion and use of powers under a humanitarian context. The Resolution expressed deep concerns regarding the use of force against civilians and the “… gross and systematic violation of human rights, including the repression of peaceful demonstrators ...” (Arend, 2011) and the UN enacted sanctions that imposed conditions indicating the potential use of force to ensure the human rights of civilians was seen to.   The preceding represents an example of humanitarian intervention that resulted in the use of force when Gaddafi did not keep his commitments to refrain from the further use of his military. As brought forth herein, intervention in the name of humanitarianism encompasses international relations theory of which Kenneth Waltz is the acknowledged as being the most influential as a result of his 1979 work “Theory of International Politics” (Waever, 2010, pp. 201-222). Waltz (Waever, 2010, pp. 201-222) approach to international relations theory is on the neorealism side that is also known as modern realism where the prevailing structure of thought serves as the field of action to be taken into account in international relations theory, thus explaining it as being evolutionary in that it changes. Waltz challenges the realism notion emphasis of military power (Waever, 2010, pp. 201-222). Political realism had been and still is the dominant theory of international relations that views sovereignty as the state of nations that does not have an international body to aid in providing or establishing limits on sovereign powers (Guzzini, 2000, pp. 45-61). This view is still active today that questions the authority of the United Nations in intervening in the internal affairs of nations. Understanding Humanitarianism The issue of intervention in the context of Rwanda, Iraq, Libya and other examples represent force was utilised to counter force. This is the core of the subject of this study that questions how humane is the use of force and the death and suffering that results, regardless of the stance of the actors involved (Smith, 2008). In this instance The United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 872 on 5 October 1993 “… to accomplish disengagement and demobilization of the fighting factions, and facilitate the integration process” (Smith, 2008). Intervention for humanitarian reasons was implemented in Somalia in the face of its civil war that unleashed untold suffering on the civilian population as a result of warlords (Clarke and Herbert, 1996).   The humanitarian intervention in Rwanda was undertaken to halt the slayings that claimed 500,000 Tutsi that represented almost three-quarters of the population of the country (Kuperman, 2001). The intervention in this country has seen this war-torn state rise under rehabilitation whereby the populace is no longer under the threat of genocide or starvation with agricultural production having risen dramatically (Rwanda Tourism, 2011). The humanitarian intervention in this instance was holistic and the country today is a completely different one that before intervention (Rwanda Chamber, 2011). The country has a stable government and is considered as one of the safer places for foreign investment in Africa (Rwanda Chamber, 2011).   In the case of Somalia, governmental instability still is the case as is the suffering of its civilian population in that the United Nations has been unable to aid in the establishment of a ruling government (Oster, 2005). In this instance, the action on a humanitarian level was temporary as opposed to holistic in that under the latter a commitment to restructuring, revising and rebuilding the country was not the approach (Oster, 2005). Thus, in this case, the suffering continues. The failed efforts in approaching humanitarian interventional from a holistic effort have not eased the suffering of the populace in that the conflict between warlords continues (Finding Dulcinea, 2011). In contrast to the rising economic and political situation in Rwanda, Somalia is currently on of the most impoverished nations in Africa (Finding Dulcinea, 2011).   Conclusion The question was posed by this examination that sought to look into the case as to if humanitarian invention is humane brought with it a broad number of aspects that were examined herein. These have resulted in a wide palette of theoretical approaches, law, rules, and regulations of the United Nations and the potential of peacekeeping forces of the United Nations in terms of conflict with ruling or controlling parties. The latter means that there is a potential for a possible escalation of conflict as shown by what occurred in Somalia. In that instance, humanitarian intervention has not brought about a lessening of human suffering in that the initial effort was under a temporary one as opposed to holistic approach that encompasses a full-scale commitment to ending the conflict, installing a new administration, seeing that law and order are established, creation of a stablisation plan for rebuilding as well as rehabilitation.   In the instance of Rwanda, and Libya that represented holistic humanitarian inventions, the fortunes of Rwanda with regard to the state and status of the country has resulted in a nation that is completely changed. The country has rebuilding programs in place and is considered as one of the safer locales for foreign investment in Africa. The removal of Gaddafi in Libya has been hailed internationally as a coup for democracy and the rights of people in that an oppressive regime has been removed. Whilst this intervention has happened too recently to provide a post case example, the fact that the country’s oil wealth will be distributed fairly provides a reason to believe that the future holds promise.   The underlying question that hides in the nuance of this study is whether doing nothing in the face of suffering and the violation of human rights is deemed as acceptable as opposed to intervention. The answer seemingly lies in the policies, rules, and membership of countries in the United Nations that imposes varied obligations on its members, one of which is the duty of the government administration to protect human rights. This is a rule and regulation under the United Nations Charter whereby member nations pledge themselves to support "… respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms” (United Nations, 2011). The foregoing proclaims that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a requirement of membership that has to be supported and adhered to (United Nations, 2011). As a result, the subject as posed by this study as to whether humanitarian intervention is humane, the words of Edmund Burke suffices in that he states "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” (Greeson, 2010). Thus, intervening in the affairs of a country when humanitarian issues present themselves is the humane thing to do as opposed to doing nothing. References Arend, A. (2011) Text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1979 imposing sanctions on Libya. Accessed on 18 March 2012 from http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/text-of-united-nations-security-council-resolution-1970-imposing-sanctions-on-libya/ Arend. R., Beck, J. (1996) Humanitarian Intervention. In Holzgrefe, J., Keohane, R. Humanitarian Intervention Political Dilemmas. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press p. 46 Ball, T., Dagger, R. (1995) Ideals and ideologies. London, UK. Pearson Education. P. 24 Bayles, J., Smith, S. (2005) The Globalisation of World Politics. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press Centre for Strategic Studies (2000) Humanitarian Intervention: Definitions and criteria. Wellington, New Zealand, Victoria University. Briefing Paper. 3(1) Charter of the United Nations (2011) Preamble. Access on 19 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml Clarke, W., Herbert, J. (1996) Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention. Accessed on 189 March 2012 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/51844/walter-clarke-and-jeffrey-herbst/somalia-and-the-future-of-humanitarian-intervention Finding Dulcinea (2011) Conflict in Somalia. Accessed on 20 March 2012 from http://www.findingdulcinea.com/guides/Reference/Conflict-in-Somalia.html Gordon, R. (1996) Humanitarian Intervention by the United Nations: Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti. Texas International Law Journal. 43*5). pp. 44-53 Greeson, W. (2010) When good men do nothing. Accessed on 20 March 2012 from http://www.padfield.com/1997/goodmen.html Guzzini, S. (2000) A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations. 6(2). pp. 45-61 Holzgrefe, J. (2003) The Humanitarian Debate. In Holzgrefe, J., Keohane, R. Humanitarian Intervention Political Dilemmas. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. Human Rights Web (2010) Charter of the United Nations. Accessed on 19 March 2012 from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html Kuperman, A. (2001) The limits of humanitarian intervention: Genocide in Rwanda. Accessed on 19 March 2012 from http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1982/limits_of_humanitarian_intervention.html Oster, S. (2005) Humanitarian Intervention: Remembering Somalia. Accessed on 19 March 2012 from http://www.globalengage.org/issues/articles/peacemaking/539-humanitarian-intervention-remembering-somalia.html Patrick, S. (2011) Libya and the future of humanitarian intervention. Accessed on 18 March 2012 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68233/stewart-patrick/libya-and-the-future-of-humanitarian-intervention Rwanda Chamber (2011) Rwanda Today. Accessed on 20 March 2012 from http://www.rwandachamber.org/rwanda+today Rwanda Tourism (2011) Rwanda Today. Accessed on 20 March 2012 from http://www.rwandatourism.com/economy.htm Simms, B., Trim, D. (2011) Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. pp. 67-72 Smith, B. (2008) The need for humanitarian intervention in Central Africa. Accessed on 19 March 2012 from http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v3i3/rwanda33.htm Svolik, M. (2012) Which Democracies will last? Coups, incumbent takeovers and the dynamic of democratic consolidation. Champaign, IL, United States. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. pp. 1-30 Teson, F. (2003) The Liberal Case if Humanitarian Intervention. In Holzgrefe, J., Keohane, R. Humanitarian Intervention Political Dilemmas. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press p. 94 United Nations (2011) Preamble. Accessed on 20 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml United Nations Charter (2011) Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice. Accessed on 19 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter14.shtml Waever, O. (2010) Waltz’s Theory of Theory. International Relations. 23(2). pp. 201-222 Weber, C., (2005) International Relations Theory: A critical introduction. Oxon, UK. Routledge. Wheeler, N., Belamy, A. (2005) Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics. In Bayles, J., Smith, S. The Globalisation of World Politics. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press. p. 556 Read More