Humanitarian Intervention (1)

Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention

What is Humanitarian Intervention?Humanitarian intervention is a state's use of military force against another state when the chief aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.However, there is no one standard or legal definition of humanitarian intervention. Differences in definition include variations in:whether humanitarian interventions is limited to instances where there is an absence of consent from the host statewhether humanitarian intervention is limited to punishmentand whether humanitarian intervention is limited to cases where there has been explicit UN Security Council authorization for action.There is, however, a general consensus on some of its essential characteristics:

1.Humanitarian intervention involves the threat and use of military forces as a central feature2.It is an intervention in the sense that it entails interfering in the internal affairs of a state by sending military forces into the territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not committed an act of aggression against another state.3.The intervention is in response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threats to states strategic interests, but instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives.

Since 2002, the European Union has intervened abroad sixteen times in three different continents under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention

Why is it controversial?The subject of humanitarian intervention has remained a compelling foreign policy issue, especially since NATOs intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

It highlights the tension between the principle of state sovereignty and evolving international norms related to human rights and the use of force.

Moreover, it has sparked debates over its legality, the ethics of using military force to respond to human rights violations, when it should occur, who should intervene, and whether it is effective.

To its supporters, it marks imperative action in the face of human rights abuses, over the rights of state sovereignty.To its critics it is often viewed as an excuse for military intervention often devoid of legal reasons, selectively deployed and achieving only ambiguous ends. Its frequent use following the end of the Cold War suggested to many that a new norm of military humanitarian intervention was emerging in international politics, although some now argue that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the US "war on terror" have brought the era of humanitarian intervention to an end.

GenocideGenocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national groupInstances of genocide have taken place throughout history.The Holocaust during World War two and the Nuremberg trials defined the crime of genocide under international law.Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behaviour is not a clear-cut matter. In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial.

Historical examplesThe Amerindians 1490 -1890Armenia 1915Jews/Slavs/Romany 1939-45Cambodia 1975-9Bosnia 1992-1995Rwanda 1994

Humanitarian Intervention Examples1991Northern Iraq. In the aftermath of the gulf war, the USA launched Operation Provide Comfort to establish safe havens for the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq by establishing a no-fly zone policed by aircraft1992Somalia. On the brink of catastrophe, a UN authorised and US led intervention sought to establish a protected environment for humanitarian operations1994Haiti. Following a military coup and growing lawlessness, 15,000 US troops were despatched to Haiti to restore order.1994Rwanda. Following the Rwandan genocide, and once the Tutsi had gained control of most of the country, the French established a safe zone for Hutu refugees1999Kosovo. With fears about ethnic cleansing of the Albanian people, a campaign of air strikes, conducted by NATO, forced the Serbs to agree to withdraw forces from Kosovo1999East Timor. As Indonesia stepped up a campaign of intimidation and suppression, a UN authorised peacekeeping force, led by Australia, took control of the island from Indonesia2000 Sierra Leone. After a prolonged civil war in Sierra Leone, the UK government sent a small force to protect UK citizens and to support the elected government against rebel forces that were being accused of carrying out atrocities

Why has there been a growing willingness for humanitarian intervention?Humanitarian intervention usually overlaps with national interests. For example, US intervention in Haiti was partly motivated by a desire to stop the flow of Haitian refugees (NATO in Kosovo also)In a world of 24/7 news coverage, governments often come under public pressure to act . This is the so called CNN effect. Examples include the failure to prevent genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica where governments were heavily criticised by the media.The end of the cold war rivalry, and the emergence of the USA as the world superpower, created circumstances in which it was easier to reach agreements to act. Neither Russia or China were able to block or challenge the USA is that now changing with Syria?In view of the possibility of building a new world order, politicians were more willing to accept that the doctrine of human rights lays down standards of ethical conduct. For Kofi Annan, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, human rights provides a basis for intervening in other states.

Is Humanitarian Intervention Justified? the arguments in favourIndivisible Humanity There is a common humanity. Moral responsiblities cannot be confined just to your own state. There is an obligation to save strangers if the resources exist and the costs are not too great.Global interdependenceWe are all connected and interdependent.States are not islands. Intervention can therefore be justified on the grounds of enlightened self interest, for example preventing a refugee crisis.Regional stabilityHumanitarian crises can have big implications for the regional balance of power. Major powers may opt to intervene to prevent a possible regional war

Is Humanitarian Intervention Justified? the arguments in favourPromoting democracyPeople may not possess the democratic means to deal with their problems.Humanitarian intervention normally takes place in a context of dictatorship.Democracy promotion is a legitimate long-term goal of intervention as it will strengthen human rights in the future.International communityIntervention provides evidence that the international community shares certain values such as peace, democracy and human rights.It strengthens these values by establishing guidelines for how people should be treated.

Is Humanitarian Intervention Justified? the arguments againstIts against international law. Intervention in another country is only authorised as self defence. State sovereignty is the surest way of upholding international order. If humanitarian intervention is permitted, international law becomes confused and weaker.National interests ruleSince states are always motivated by national interests, their claim that military action is humanitarian is false.If intervention was really humanitarian, the state would be putting its own citizens at risk in order to save strangers, violating its own national interests.

Is Humanitarian Intervention Justified? the arguments againstDouble standardsThere are many examples of pressing humanitarian intervention that are never considered e.g. Rwanda. This can happen because no national interest is at stake, the media is absent or because intervention is politically impossible e.g. Chechnya and Tibet.Simplistic politicsThe case for intervention is normally put in a simple good vs. evil way.This is often very distorted or exaggerated but also ignores moral complexities.This often leads to intervention going wrong.Moral PluralismHumanitarian intervention could also be seen as cultural imperialism.In other words, it is based on a western notion of human rights that may not apply in other parts of the world.Historical, cultural and religious differences may make it impossible to establish universal guidelines for the behaviour of governments.What is a just cause?

Exam QuestionsWhat is humanitarian intervention?What is genocide?Can humanitarian intervention be justified?