The United Nations as a Predominant Force in Humanitarian Intervention - Case Study Example

Running Head: The United Nations as a Predominant Force in Humanitarian Intervention Student’s Name: Instructor: Course Code and Name: Institution: Date Assignment is due: Word Count: 2,000 Words Should The United Nations Remain The Predominant Force In Humanitarian Intervention? Thesis Statement The United Nations should and must remain the predominant force in humanitarian intervention for only the UN represents the ideology, carries the mandate, stands a chance in neutrality, facilitates post-invasion recovery and lacks ulterior motives in offering that intervention. Introduction The phrase humanitarian intervention has gained popular usage in recent days as a reference for armed interference by one or several sovereign state(s) in another sovereign state with the sole objective of the interference being to end or at least reduce suffering among the general population of the victim state1. The suffering of the populace in the victim state may be caused by crimes against humanity such as genocides, civil war, ethnic cleansing or similar human crisis. There is a lot of politics accompanying the concept of humanitarian intervention today. For instance, the only reason why a state may rise up in arms against another nation is in self defense or to respond to an impending threat of attack2. However, when states attack others without being provoked, actually in meddling with internal affairs of another sovereign nation, it solicits a dramatic rise of political temperatures and convergence of opinions fledged from every right, left and center3. That does not however belittle the benign role of humanitarian intervention. The disasters recorded in Rwanda and Sudan just as recent examples, have been lessons for the world. When the goal of humanitarian intervention remains saving lives, commanding the respect and appreciations of human rights, reinstalling the dignity and sanctity of helpless of circumstantial oppression, then it is called for and even noble. The sole aim of humanitarian intervention is to minimize or eliminate the suffering of innocent civilians within the state, for the sake of humanity and human rights. The goal here transcends annexation, economic exploitation, interference of territorial integrity, jeopardy of sovereignty of geo-political advantages. That is the reason why, for as much as humanitarian intervention is called for, only the United Nations (UN) should take responsibility as the only and the predominant force to sanction, monitor and operate the humanitarian intervention. There are many reasons why that is essential. For one, the UN will easily has the ability to remain neutral while planning for, during and after the intervention. Involvement of sovereign nations as interveners adds, many political underpinnings that lasts forever after the intervention is over4. Secondly, the UN has no interests in the parent nation and its motivation stands the highest chance of integrity. The same cannot be said when sovereign states initiate their versions of ‘humanitarian intervention’ when in actual sense they are eying the resources in the victim nation, the economic contracts to be acquired in post invasion reconstruction, the geo-political advantages etc. Thirdly, the United States stands for an ideology. It stands for a symbol of international law. The UN represents the global voice that is the only superior power to national sovereignty and has the right to hold sovereign leaders responsible5. If nations were empowered to invigilate others, to become super-states, to be the prefects of other nations, it will trigger global chaos powered by revolt. By retaining the UN as the predominant force of intervention, the world will be preserving an ideology that represents global peace and harmony. Finally, the UN stands the best chance of facilitating post invasion recovery without political influence and with the economic might of many nations. What the UN can do to help a nation rebuild itself is impossible to achieve if only one nation had carried out the intervention. In this essay, a review of the current humanitarian needs and the controversy surrounding each are reviewed before explaining the four reasons why the UN should remain the predominant force in humanitarian intervention. Contemporary Humanitarian Needs There comes a time when national sovereignty cannot be upheld since upholding it would adversely affect the notion of universal inalienable human rights, respect for life and dignity of being human. This is the chief rationale on which humanitarian intervention is built. Humanitarian intervention embodies the need to relief suffering of a people that have not been protected by the state's sovereignty. It is an embodiment of international customary law that serves and preserves common humanity6. In recent times, civil wars have led to disastrous humanitarian crises. Ethnic cleansing and dictatorial governments have wrecked havoc in many nations, especially the developed and under-developed nations. Mass murders, political silencing and anti-human right mechanizations have resulted to a great disrespect for human lives in Africa, Asia and Latin America. While natural catastrophes have had a contribution to humanitarian needs in recent times, most refugees in the world are victims of conflict. Most nations with the worst human rights violations have been powered by conflict. Intervening for humanitarian purposes in the internal affairs of other states has become a hot issue in public international law discussions. The same was a subject of discussion even before the two greatest conflicts of civilized earth. But it is perhaps the Second World war that triggered an emphasis on the need of humanitarian intervention than any other conflict has in the past. This is because the European nations had kept mum as Hitler pulled through the Holocaust and Nuremberg trials hoping to secure their own territorial integrity and fearing to override the sovereignty of Germany. They became the next victim of the Nazi reign of terror and they had to form an Allied force to overcome what they had neglected for so long. The entire globe was taken to war just because humanitarian intervention had delayed for so long, causing perhaps the worst humanitarian nightmare of all time. Yet the lessons learnt after the Second World War have been reinforced over and over again since then. The Biafra War of 1967 – 1970 was a post WW2 classic example of a conflict that demanded international action but in which humanitarian intervention was not offered. The conflict led to a disastrous famine that almost swept the entire population in one of the greatest suffering recorder by press. Yet even after wide coverage by the western press, world government leaders completely ignored the suffering all for maintaining of neutrality and once more, preferring non-intervention. The situation engineered the genesis of such NGO’s asMédecins Sans Frontières, to defend the ideology that public health scenarios can justify extraordinary action against the wishes and integrity of sovereign states7. By 1980, the concept had attained theoretical development with, Mario Bettati, a French politician and law professor helping elevate the concept into international forums. The support for the concept was still controversial. In 1992, the same transpired in Rwanda where half a million citizens were slaughtered in one of the worst humanitarian crisis ever witnessed. The ethnic cleansing civil war was started and perpetuated under the watchful eyes of the world and none dared to intervene. QA few years later, Southern Sudan would begin a series of humanitarian abuses to a scale that horrifies historians today. Yet, intervention only came when it was too late, lives had been lost in a grand scale and a nation had been destroyed completely. A few kilometers to the west of Sudan, Somali had dilapidated in lawlessness due to civil war beginning in around 1990’s. Somali is still a lawless land under civil war and intervention has been granted, albeit too late. In between here there had been the 1995 Bosnia civil war in which over 7, 000 Muslim males were slaughtered in what was later to be known as Srebrenica massacre. In this too, no humanitarian intervention was offered. But it has not been all failures. The famed Kosovo War waged in 1999 by NATO forces was a reaction to acute human rights violation, massive exodus of nationals and plausible ethnic cleansing. The Albanian 90 per cent majority population of Kosovo seemed at the mercy of the Serb minority. What makes the Kosovo War a landmark case is that despite having reasonable humanitarian intervention grounds, two nations with permanent members’ veto power in the UN Security Council, refused to grant the intervention sanction. NATO thus represented the assenting Europe nations and invaded Kosovo with air strikes. For the first time, a non-regional organisation without any authority to engage in an enforcement action lacking UN Security Council’s approval was recorded8. This case in point is very important to the argument of this paper. When there was evidence that humanitarian grounds sanctioned an intervention, nations always failed to respond. Interestingly, the leading nations never responded for the simple reason that they had no interests in those nations. After pulling out their convoys and nationals, they always left the locals to suffer the consequence of the sovereignty. The only time the nations tried to engage the UN was in Kosovo, where those nations without an interest in the Albania dissented. NATO did a seemingly benign act, but that us until one evaluates the motivation9. The move was inspired by an undisclosed strategic motivation, a craving and desire to finally demonstrate that NATO was a credible force after the Cold War10. There was need for the US to demonstrate its leadership in European security matters with or without external threat. That means that NATO’s intervention was not neutral and not just based on the respect for humanity11. Same can be said of US in its anti-terror campaign. It is common knowledge that Iraq and Afghanistan wars were waged on a pretext of self serving interests. This, despite the outright refusal of the UN to grant sanction for the purported humanitarian rescue and widespread public opposition12. The rationalisation of Iraq War is no longer justified by the threat to US security but by the humanitarian grounds of rescuing Iraqis from tyranny. In all instances when individual nations have been left to offer intervention on pure humanitarian grounds, they have failed to respond. But when there is a potential benefit accruing after the intervention such as national resources, territory, political advantage etc., the countries are far too quick to send their forces. There are suspicions that most dominant nations, in particular the United States and coalition partners, only use humanitarian pretexts when pursuing otherwise selfish and unacceptable geopolitical motives. Examples of such occurrences abound. Ethiopia only sent their forces to Somalia after expressing a need to expand their borders into Somalia lands. In 1971, India invaded East Pakistan (today Bangladesh) purportedly to deter Pakistani atrocities, Vietnam attacked Cambodia a year later to stop the terror reign of Khmer Rouge, a year later Tanzania entered Uganda to depose a dictatorship of Idi Amin dictatorship. In all these examples, intervention by neighbouring states was based on strategic interests and not the genuine humanitarian motivations13. Humanitarian intervention can only reinforced the need for international accountability among political leaders of sovereign states if conducted by the UN. Without question, the UN is the only that can serve the mandate of humanitarian intervention. The following are four reasons why. The UN and Contemporary Humanitarian Needs Humanitarian intervention when justified, should only be left to the determination, suction and supervision of the United Nations. The UN has no political position and bearing. It does not represent any political inclination, western, eastern etc. It is based on a neutral ground of religion, race, doctrine, nationality or any other clinging. This ability to remain neutral while planning for, during and after the intervention helps make the nation to which intervention is granted to have no blames on political grounds14. This neutrality is absent when individual or coalition of sovereign nations intervenes with all their political underpinnings that lasts forever after the intervention is over. Further, the UN lacks economic, territorial and political interests in nation calling for intervention. Lack of selfish interests in the motivation to intervene gives the UN the highest chance of retaining integrity in the event of intervention. This is something that sovereign states lacks since whenever they initiate their own versions of ‘humanitarian intervention’ as in examples illustrated above, they are always motivated by such motives as resources in the victim nation, the economic contracts to be acquired in post invasion reconstruction, the geo-political advantages and such motives. In all incidences where individual nations have offered intervention, there has been great descent by those who read ulterior motives to the intervention. The UN stands as the best alternative that benefits with nothing after an intervention. Thirdly, the United Nations during an intervention is not just a body of armed force. The UN represents an ideology of global accountability for leaders in the sovereign states15. It stands as a symbol of international law and a global defender of human rights, a mandate that sovereign states lacks over others. The UN represents the global voice that is the only superior power to national sovereignty and has the right to hold sovereign leaders responsible16. If nations were empowered to invigilate others, to become super-states, to be the prefects of other nations, it will trigger global chaos powered by revolt. By retaining the UN as the predominant force of intervention, the world will be preserving an ideology that represents global peace and harmony. Fourthly, the UN has the framework and manpower in most nations of the world to facilitate a post invasion recovery. Once the intervention has been offered, the UN has no mandate to prescribe the political structure, the social reforms or any other changes for the people within that sovereign state17. Its works rests on humanitarian assistance and thus has no ability to exert political influence that individual nations like the US and Russia have had on nations they invaded. Again, the UN can pool together resources from many sources and with greater efficiency than a single invading nation, to facilitate the economic rehabilitation of the victim nation after the intervention18. Conclusion The United Nations should and must remain the predominant force in humanitarian intervention in the globalised world. Only the UN can aptly represents an ideology of international accountability for sovereign states, only the UN can retain neutrality in humanitarian intervention, only the UN lacks ulterior motives in offering that intervention and only the UN can efficiently facilitate a post-invasion recovery strategy that benefits the victim states. The future would better be entrusted on the UN and not on an individual state19. Bibliography Albrecht Schnabel and Ramesh Chandra Thakur, eds, Kosovo and the challenge of humanitarian intervention: selective indignation, Collective aid and international citizenship, United Nations University Press, New York, 2000, pp. 14 – 31. A thought provoking book centered on the role of the UN in humanitarian interventions. It reviews the aftermath and ramifications of NATO’s defiance of the UN protocols in intervening in Kosovo on basis of international humanitarian law. After raising a lot of controversial topics, the book helps build the future by recommending possible alternatives the current scenario, the UN remaining the predominant force in humanitarian intervention being one. Anthony Arend and Robert Beck, International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter paradigm, 1993, Routledge, London, pp. 217 – 313. Given that the UN is the only suctioning authority for armed interference in a sovereign state by another state, Anthony Arend and Robert Beck, argues the various scenarios why the UN has not played a lead role in humanitarian interventions of the past. The book also notes on the limitations in which the UN finds itself on the verge of humanitarian conflicts, mainly based on international humanitarian law and on the rights of sovereign states to conduct their affairs without interaction. Based on these limitations, the book objectively examines in the negative impacts of interventions that override the need for UN suctions. Anthony McDermott, The UN and NGOs: Humanitarian interventions in future conflicts, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 19 (3), December 1998, pp. 1 – 26. Anthony McDermott is a Research Fellow at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo and the co-editor of the Security Dialogue journal published by PRIO. In the article, he draws in a highly researched argument to elaborate that only the UN and credible NGO’s have the mandate to initiate and implement future humanitarian interventions and that state-based interventions are outdated. Chomsky, Noam, The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 1999. Prof. Noam Chomsky is perhaps best known for his linguistic theories that have led him to be referred to as the father of modern linguistics. But he is also widely known for his passionate critical writing on international relations, especially on the futility of war. In this text, Noam Chomsky authored a seminal paper passionately repudiating the purported humanitarian claims of US’s engagement in the Kosovo War. Hovden, E and Keene, E, eds, “Liberalism at the Global Level: Solidarity vs. Cooperation”, in The Globalization of Liberalism, Palgrave, New York, 2002, pp. 75–98. A credible and in depth discussion on the many political constraints that face international humanitarian intervention by Richard Falk. Independent International Commission on Kosovo, The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 116. An Independent reports that details the deliberations and achievements of the International Commission on Kosovo formed after NATO’s invasion of Kosovo without the UN’s sanction.teh report sets guidelines based on historical incidences and the Kosovo War to determine the cause of just wars. Jacques Moreillon Brun and Charlotte Ku, Neutrality and the ICRC Contribution to Contemporary Humanitarian Operations, International Peacekeeping Journal, Vol. 10 (1), Spring 2003, pp. 56 – 72 Jacques is a former chairman of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the leading NGOs in operation today and deeply entrenched into humanitarian aid. In this book, the authors use the important role ICRC in not only offering humanitarian aid, but also in conceiving, developing, building on and monitoring the international humanitarian laws. The book is very neutral and thought provoking, probably due to extensive use of comprehensive examples of past incidences. It has a bias however towards the post-conflict arenas more that the pre-intervention period. Jacques Moreillon Brun, Contemporary Challenges to Humanitarian Law, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 24 (3), Special Issue on Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Sage Publications, September, 1987, pp. 215-218. In this article, Director General of the International Committee of the Red Cross goes on to exemplify the challenges that the world of humanitarian intervention faces in legal complexities, through the eyes of the Red Cross. Marjorie Cohn, Nato Bombing of Kosovo: Humanitarian Intervention or Crime against Humanity? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, Vol. 15 (1), March, 2002, pp. 79-106. This article contextualizes the 78 days in which NATO forces and the United States bombed the Yugoslavia capital, in the process killed many civilians and devastated the infrastructure. NATO justified the bombing as a humanitarian intervention motivated by the need to end President Slobodan Milosevic from taking the ethnic cleansing targeting non-Serbs, too far. The book uses the case study to argue against the use of force in sovereign states by other states on the basis that it is a violation of international law. Michael Walzer, Arguing about War, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 2004, pp. 81. A great argument on the criticism and justifications of waging war against sovereign nations on the basis of humanitarian intervention. Michael Walzer is a world expert on the consequences and morals of waging war, known for his criticism of Western invasions in the name of human rights vigilance. Orford, Anne, Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 91 - 102. Anne Orford is perhaps the world leading author on humanitarian interventions respected for her balanced perspective into the use of force in advancing humanitarian initiatives. In this bestselling book, Anne explores the impacts of using force to advance humanitarian causes on the international law. The book is a very informative, comprehensive and well documented in research. Richard Falk, Humanitarian Intervention: Elite and Critical Perspectives, Global Dialogue, Vol. 7 (1-2), Winter/Spring, 2005, pp. 47 – 62. Richard Falk article on humanitarian intervention is a great argument against sovereign states who intervene in other nations with self serving motives. Being the Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus at Princeton University and also the Visiting Professor in Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, he uses his great law resource and experience to put out a case against nations interfering with the sovereignty of others without the express approval of an improved United Nations. Shawcross, W. Deliver Us From Evil: Warlords And Peacekeepers In A World Of Endless Conflict, Bloomsbury, London, 2000, pp. 73 – 94. Of all books written to condemn the use of force in humanitarian intervention by sovereign states, Shawcross has written arguably the most convincing. The book shows the futility of using force justifiably to end humanitarian threats most of which are cause by use of force by sovereign governments in the victim nations. In most cases, Shawcross argues, the forceful intervention does as much damage as the reigns of terror that had previously threatened national peace. Thomas Weiss, Triage: Humanitarian Interventions in a New Era, World Policy Journal, Vol. 11 (1), Spring, 1994, pp. 59-68. Thomas Weiss is the associate director of Thomas J Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies. He is also the Brown University Associate Dean of the Faculty besides being the Executive Director of the prestigious scholarly institute, Academic Council on the United Nations System. In this book, Thomas draws on great scholarly works of the last two decades and examples of many humanitarian crises in the world to offer great insights to the role of Humanitarian intervention in the globalised society. Wheeler, N J, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, pp. 54. Wheeler’s book is solely an advocacy of the role of the international community in humanitarian intervention and the irrelevance of state-based intervention. It is a very argumentative book using numerous examples of the failures of the UN to respond to justifiable humanitarian intervention needs in the past. Read More