Humanitarian Intervention - Essay Example

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ONLY OCCURS WHEN IT SUPPORTS THE INTERESTS OF THE POWERFUL 8 April Introduction After the Cold War and at the turn of the 20th century, the growth of the idea of humanitarian intervention as a means to bring aid to oppressed groups and nations under crisis was witnessed. The new generation ushered in by the advancement of the concept of humanitarian intervention has seen upholding of fundamental human rights at the expense of sovereignty. The revolution of moral concern in the world today has significantly been championed for by liberals who emphasise the need to intervene against violation of human rights and life. Although humanitarian intervention aims at protecting lives, it poses a challenge for the international community, whose foundation builds on principles of sovereignty and non-military intervention. Following world events that occurred in the 1990s especially in Rwanda, Kosovo, Chechnya, Serbia, and Haiti, the world came together to establish laws that prohibited genocide, forbidding oppression of civilians and principles for upholding the fundamental human rights. These are the humanitarian principles from which intervention could be justifiable in the event of abuse. The sovereign states are supposed to protect their citizens, but in the event of oppressive regimes, the international community will be obliged to provide humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention especially in terms of military saw a rise in the 1990s, more so among the liberal states, which championed for new humanitarian regulations among the international community. According to the United Nations, there was a need to protect forcibly harmless civilians from risks such as oppressive, tyrannical regimes and genocides. Although the United Nations agrees to this norm, there is no day that the United Nations Security Council has ever authorised military intervention, leaving the role solely to the powerful nations such as the United States, Britain, and France. These powerful nations call for humanitarian intervention if and only if, they have vested interests in the states that need help. For example, in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the world looked the other way when the country needed humanitarian assistance most because strategically, the powerful nations had no interest in Rwanda. It is evident that the powerful nations will provide humanitarian intervention either to safeguard their interests or any future interests in the state they are aiding. They just do not provide humanitarian assistance if they do not stand to gain either through political cooperation or economic reasons. Therefore, there is a need for the international body to define a basic framework that needs to be strictly followed in consultation with the victims who are experiencing the violation, before any intervention takes place. It should also agree that international laws for sovereignty should not hinder intervention in situations where there is a mass violation. Humanitarian interventions though occur within complex structures of conflicting principles that determine whether and how it takes place. It draws support from powerful human rights principles that have unparalleled power in modern politics. It may get weakened by means of geostrategic considerations that are defined by obligations of politicians to protect their citizens. The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention The humanitarian intervention concept is very broad in that intervention can take many forms so as to protect lives against oppression. The widely accepted way to define humanitarian intervention according to Ayoob (2002) is to describe it in a way that states apply force to a state that aimed at protecting civilians, by preventing or ending human rights violations without permission of the state within whose territory force is applied. It widely conforms to military deployment in those states, or it can take the form of diplomatic, economic or other sanctions. The question that needs answers though is are the interventions justified in a world where each state is supposed to enjoy sovereignty? The phenomenon of humanitarian intervention dates back to as early as the sixteenth century, where moralists could justify wars as a way to maintain laws and protect human rights. Conventional morality which roots from natural laws provides a comprehensive moral base for humanitarian intervention. Shani (2013) argues that it rests on neither positive law nor customs with the fundamental principle stating that human beings have a right to help, not as members of a specific community, but as a human community that is in a moral world. It is from such moral principles that the idea of intervention arises because human rights are universal to morality. It therefore follows that whenever there are oppression and violation of human rights anywhere in the world, international states are obligated to help because they form part of the larger human community. The moral principles provide a range of goals on which deliberation can rely on prescribing choices made. Similarly, the decision on what situation requires intervention calls for moral judgment and prudence that takes into account the political and legal realities. Modern international laws support the idea of humanitarian intervention, and the legislation take place formally or informally. The principles underlying intervention evolve through informal arguments with no static agreement to explain state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. There have been discussions on the intervention principles that form the foundation of the laws favouring intervention. However, the dynamic principles should not hold the less powerful states with little choice to allow the powerful states to intervene. The United Nations, which is the custodian of human security and justice in the world, has had challenges dealing with humanitarian intervention issues on several occasions. The number of times the United Nations has justified humanitarian intervention are limited, with the powerful nations taking the responsibility to decide which state requires intervention (Chandler, 2001). These states moral permit to intervene in other states can be open to abuse, masking behind humanitarian crises to justify wars. Furthermore, the justifications for interventions run up against the issue how the humanitarian crisis has deepened before employing any force. Most states have mixed reasons for intervening and it is rare for countries to be prepared to provide military support overseas, unless they have self-interests. It is profound that genuine humanitarian intervention is unconsidered, unless it serves the national interests of the intervening nation. Therefore, the dominant nations will only intervene when it suits them. The strategies of humanitarian intervention are more likely to be aided by calculations of national interest, rather than the best interest of the individuals on whose name the intervention is carried out. According to Baylis, Smith and Owen (2014), the various arguments that have been put forward provide that states do not necessarily intervene on humanitarian grounds, as it is illogical for them to risk the lives of their soldiers to save foreigners and get nothing in return. Since citizens are the responsibility of the state and their state is their business, therefore, in the event that civil authority has broken down in that state, it is the responsibility of the citizens and their political leaders and not outsiders. In situations where there are no guiding principles to decide when humanitarian intervention is permissible, the powerful states have been found to espouse humanitarian intervention, as the alleged reason to pursue their national interests. For instance, Hitler’s argument to invade Czechoslovakia was to protect the country’s German population’s life and liberty. The creating reason for humanitarian intervention will always make it easier for the powerful states to justify their interfering in the affairs of weaker states. Over the past, the primary barrier to genuine intervention has been the self-interest of the powerful nations, rather than the sovereignty of the states that need humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian intervention especially military deployment has played a significant role in shaping international relations in the recent past. In the 1990s for instance, humanitarian efforts undertaken by NATO in response to the crisis in Kosovo and United Nations Security Councils authorization of the use of force in East Timor changed the international political agenda (Orford, 2003). The world experienced a change in international politics, as the growth of support within conventional international law circles for the idea that humanitarian intervention can be employed legitimately, as a response to the challenges facing people. The shift in support for the concept of humanitarian intervention resulted after the cold war. Under the United Nations Charter, the Security Council was mandated to expand its role in ensuring there is international peace and security. However, the Security Council has been paralyzed in its operations by the powerful countries that are part of the council, especially during the cold war when they could use their exercisable veto powers. Terry (2013) asserts that during this period, the powerful states used their veto power to ensure that no action threatening their national interest could be taken. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the terms changed and the veto powers were abolished in the Security Council, making it capable of performing its duties without prejudice. Although that has been the case, the powerful nations decide where and when to intervene, if they have national interests in that state. For instance in Rwanda, countries like France only intervened because they had interests in Rwanda. During the Post-colonial era, the colonial powers still wanted to establish themselves in their colonies. In the case of France, they wanted to maintain Rwanda as a francophone state hence they provided military support and weapons, although they were supporting the perpetrators of the atrocities. On the other hand, Belgium and the United States only intervened when they had to airlift their citizens from the murk. The United States did not see Rwanda to be of any strategic importance hence they could not provide humanitarian intervention (Orford, 2013). For states like Iraq, the United States intervened during the Gulf war because Iraq was vital to their national interests in the Gulf region, especially oil for economic reasons and the fight against terrorism in the region. Given no national interests in a state, these powerful states will always look the other way since they dont stand to benefit. In Kosovo, NATOs intervention was aimed at preventing a catastrophe, and they were to do this by reducing Serbian military and coerce Milosevic to accept the Rambouillet settlement. To justify NATO’s use of force, three arguments were deduced. Firstly, there was humanitarian emergency in Kosovo caused by Serbian actions. Secondly, there were crimes against humanity committed by the Serbians, including genocide. Lastly, Milosevic’s regime was using force against the Kosovar Albanians, which was against global norms (Bellamy, 2010). The justifications advanced by Westerners suggest that while humanitarian issues may have triggered intervention, they were by no means the exclusive impulse, but complex motives of interveners masked the character of intervention. Indeed, NATO was driven to intervene by a mixture of humanitarian concerns and self-interest that centred on the three issues. The first issue was the Srebrenica syndrome that was fear that if Milosevics were left unchecked, his henchmen could replicate Bosnias carnage in Kosovo. The second issue relates to the self-interests of the states whose concern was that the protracted Balkan conflict would increase the number of refugees across Europe. Finally, NATO was concerned that in the event they failed to contain the crisis, it would spread to several neighbouring states, especially Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia. It is evident that intervention can be prompted by a mixture of motives, especially if they are in accordance with the principles of the powerful states. The problem though could arise if the non-humanitarian reasons hinder the chances of achieving humanitarian issues. According to Fassin (2007), most states will not be inclined to provide humanitarian assistance, unless their national interests are involved either directly or indirectly. They may commit themselves to intervene for philanthropic and humanitarian reasons in the absence of pressing national interests. They will face a challenge in sustaining such a commitment once they are faced with human and material costs that their citizens are not willing to support. United States intervention in Somalia in 1993 demonstrates the threshold of pain facing states that undertake humanitarian intervention, in areas where engagement of their national interests lacks substantiality. Similarly provided decisions to undertake intervention are conducted at the national level then national interest considerations are likely to determine if states choose to intervene or desist. The idea that such interventions are done selectively based on the importance a state provides has resulted to discrediting of the efforts among many world members, as the interventions are seen to lack credibility and legitimacy. Hipold (2015) affirms that selectivity in applying humanitarian intervention results in inconsistency of the policy hence a problem arises when an agreed norm is at stake in multiple situations, although national interest will dictate a divergence of responses. For instance, NATOs intervention in Kosovo could be said not to be driven by humanitarian concerns because Darfur was facing a larger humanitarian crisis than Kosovo, and yet it was overlooked. Therefore, selectivity results in discrediting of the intervention efforts as there is a problem of failure to treat like cases alike. However, the selection seems to be inevitable since there is no universal imperative concerning these humanitarian interventions. There is possibility therefore resulting from a humanitarian political activity that is a construction of national interest, more so when it comes to the powerful states. Similarly, it is possible that such construct of national interest may run headlong at some stage into a limited real-politic construct that is likely to prevail because of economic and political reasons. According to Wheeler (2001), decisions for or against intervention will be made largely on the basis of strategic political and economic reasons that may have little to do with humanitarian concerns, even if they are justified by such ideas. Such situations, where it is impossible to the predominance of humanitarian concerns over states national interest, were witnessed in the case of Vietnam intervention in Cambodia and Indias intervention in East Pakistan. Most states had their reservations concerning these interventions, even though a lot of lives had been lost. However, it is clear that both Vietnam and India had strategic national interests because of the hostile relationships that had existed between the states hence humanitarian concerns were justifications for intervention. The humanitarian intervention has undergone manipulation by the liberalism of the western nations. Therefore, intervention is not waged in the name of the sovereign, but to protect everyone, thus the liberals justify their intervention the name of making life live. The liberals have upheld a bio-political nation that ways that do not conform to their western liberal values threaten society hence the need for liberal intervention. It is evident that regardless of the motives of intervention, the end results will be loss of lives and violence which has been trademark of liberal intervention. It is unclear whether the liberal humanitarian intervention saves lives and if so, who do they intend to better. Although the liberal governments claim to uphold the general humanitarian principles, they always place the lives of their citizens ahead of those they are supposed to protect. Take for instance the case of Somalia intervention; once 23 United States rangers were killed in Mogadishu, United States withdrew its troops immediately from Somalia. In Rwanda, foreign citizens were given priority of evacuation and when the killing started, even the Belgian soldiers who were part of the peace force were withdrawn. Edkins (2003) asserts that liberal humanitarian intervention serves only the interests of the state that is providing humanitarian assistance, and they care less about the citizens who need help. These humanitarian interventions can be viewed as a means of international policing operation that the powerful liberal states employ to justify their intervention in authoritarian states, in the name of bringing peace and justice. However, their primary goal in these endeavours is to pacify and manage the risk of these risky populations, so as to ensure the security of the liberal western world. The only times the liberal democracies have been seen to exercise restraint and peaceful intentions is when they are dealing with their fellow liberals, who do not pose a threat to their western ideologies. Liberalism contends to create a world of lasting peace through the spread of their liberal democracies. In order to perpetuate their ideologies, liberalism must attack those nations that do not conform to these doctrines so as to preserve universal liberal identity. Therefore, these western liberals will only provide humanitarian intervention if they see suitable ground to spread and perpetuate their western ideologies hence ensuring the security of the western world. The bio-political concepts of human security allow the western liberals to discriminate between good and bad life hence having repercussions for the conditionality of state sovereignty. Liberalism is characterized by its unfailing conviction in the moral rectitude of its mission hence they believe indeed that their values are universal. Therefore, any society that is beyond the liberal pane is subject to intervention for its good. In spite of the exclusion of a broad category of people from liberalism benefits, intervention is still justified in humanitarian terms. The War on Terror has been among the principles upon which liberals hide in to justify their intervention on humanitarian grounds. The liberals will attack suspect states justifying their intervention on the oppression and disrespect of life in these states. The liberal response to terrorism is a reversion of the understanding of truth and to them, their version of truth and morality is the right one that has invested itself in narrow-minded and intolerant ways. After September 11, the forceful attack on Afghanistan and Iraq is a typical example of ways the West propagates its imperialism. According to Donnelly (1993), the moral imperatives that were the basis of intervention in the 1990s have been overlooked by the wests security issues, and any legitimacy humanitarian intervention might have gained is undermined by use of humanitarian arguments to justify war on terror waged on behalf of the liberals security concerns. Therefore, the liberals are significantly concerned with conflicts and suffering in distant states, because those states pose a threat to western security. The war on terror has added urgency to the liberal goal of pacification thus allowing liberal regimes to justify their interventions like in Afghanistan, by employing exceptional measure to fight the particular threat to humanity caused by terror. It has thus provided international liberalism with means to defend the spread of liberal values by force if necessary hence putting them in a better position to control the world. Realism strongly opposes the use of state finances and military resources for advancing anything apart from the interests of citizens. Therefore, realism is grounded on a pessimistic world view of an international structure that is characterized by actors trying to overcome others. Each state should try to maximize its power in relation to other players, at the same time providing security and welfare for its people. Therefore, commitment to providing military activities such as helping strangers is not justifiable since pure humanitarian intervention does not add value to the states power. In a realist world, a just intervention has to be motivated in line with the states interests. Realists do not consider intervention on solely humanitarian grounds, although some may accept intervention in order to help the needy provided it does not challenge the states interests, such as security and imposition of heavy tax on the taxpayer. The argument advanced by Finnermore (2008) is that the benefits of humanitarian intervention are not clearly spelled or may be distributed among freeloaders whereas the cost of intervention has to be borne by the intervening party. Following this, leaders of democratic states have carefully to frame the costs of intervention and benefits with the probability of success, so as to garner public support to justify the intervention. Therefore, the states will accept to tolerate the losses and costs of intervention that serve their national interest. Minimal interests will make countries more reluctant to intervene so as to keep costs minimal. To back up their claims, realists give an example of the operation restore hope in Somalia, where the United States public supported the action of providing relief to the starving Somalian population, provided it did not cost lives. When American Rangers were killed, the operation had to be withdrawn as it threatened to harm the governments political standing. Therefore, humanitarian intervention has no way forward because it involves contradicting the concept of bloodless war. Realists argue that in order to make humanitarian interventions effective, then national interests must prevail when deciding to intervene. The higher the interest stakes, the more likely the state will be willing to intervene so as to achieve its objectives. If the interests are peripheral intervention, they will then occur in a limited nature if at all they are going to occur. Indeed, national interest and humanitarian intervention are connected and according to realists, governments are rational egoists who take action only in pursuit of their interests (Caney, 2000). Raising state interest in the course of humanitarian intervention is a requirement for intervention on the basis of otherwise humanitarian grounds. Therefore, states will only intervene if there is vital interest at stake, a claim that negates the existence of altruism in the international sphere. The presumption goes that states are rational actors, and they cannot be guided by emotions in decision-making. Therefore, conservative realism holds that altruism has never been a primary motivator for humanitarian intervention, but rather national interests are considered first. Conclusion The international law establishes that a violation of human rights is a serious matter of international concern hence inaction is not a feasible option for the international community when abuse of human rights occurs. The Rwandan genocide and global inaction in Darfur demonstrate a cosmopolitan moral awareness that is yet to be translated into a universal agreement for humanitarian intervention. The western liberals are sensitized of human atrocities, but their sense of compassion is selective in response to these violations. It is evident from their acts of humanitarian intervention in Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo yet during the same period a lot of people died in Rwanda, Darfur, Liberia and Angola, with no humanitarian effort to save lives. Sovereignty in itself should no longer be used to shield perpetrators of these atrocities hence the international community should respond. The United Nations Security Council should provide procedures and guidelines for the mechanics of intervention, and even the powerful nations should follow suit. The responsibility to protect should be explored further, and a legal framework provided that the international actors should follow to reach consensus on intervention. The realist view of relaxation and non-intervention in times of crisis can only result in more abuse and violation of human rights by individual states. Although their concern can sometimes be valid, they do not offer a solution for handling the crisis. For the cosmopolitan actors, they are doing a commendable job in impacting on the setting of international objectives by protecting lives of helpless citizens. The concept of the responsibility to protect has helped in changing the political language used to explain the concept of humanitarian intervention. However, the real test is whether the idea will generate new political will from the powerful states, to incur costs and risks of helping strangers from crisis. References Ayoob, M., 2002. Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty. The International Journal of Human Rights, 6(1), 81-102. Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P., 2014. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bellamy, A. J., 2010. Humanitarian Intervention. içinde Alan Collins, Contemporary Security Studies, 359-377. Caney, S., 2000. Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ethics in International Affairs: Theories and Cases, 117-33. Chandler, D. G., 2001. The Road to Military Humanitarianism: How the Human Rights NGOs Shaped a New Humanitarian Agenda. Human Rights Quarterly, 23(3), 678-700. Donnelly, J., 1993. Human Rights, Humanitarian Crisis, and Humanitarian Intervention. International Journal, 607-640. Edkins, J., 2003. Humanitarianism, Humanity, Human. Journal of Human Rights, 2(2), 253-258. Fassin, D., 2007. Humanitarianism as a Politics of Life. Public Culture, 19(3), 499. Finnemore, M., 2008. Paradoxes in Humanitarian Intervention. Cambridge Studies In International Relations, 107, 197. Hilpold, P., 2015. Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A New Paradigm of International Law? Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. Orford, A., 2003. Reading Humanitarian Intervention Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Orford, A., 2013. What Can We Do To Stop People Harming Others? In Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (Eds) Global Politics: A New Introduction. London and New York: Routledge. Shani, G., 2013. Who has Rights? In Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. (Eds) Global Politics: A New Introduction. London and New York: Routledge. Terry, F., 2013. Condemned to Repeat? The Paradox of Humanitarian Action. New York: Cornell University Press. Wheeler, N., 2001. Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics. In Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More