Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention, aimed at protecting human rights, faces numerous challenges in a
realist world order. Despite initial hopes for a more stable and morally focused world after
interventions in the Balkans, East Timor, and Sierra Leone, subsequent events have revealed
complexities and limitations.
The Liberal Dream vs. Realist Challenges
The liberal dream of shared values and international cooperation has been challenged by:
The disastrous failure to rebuild Libya after Gaddafi's downfall.
The West's impotence in the face of high death tolls in various conflicts.
Questionable US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
These challenges highlight the tension between idealistic goals and the realities of power politics.
Arguments For Humanitarian Intervention:
Moral Imperative
The primary argument for humanitarian intervention is the moral obligation to protect human
rights and prevent mass atrocities.
Responsibility to Protect (R2P): This principle asserts that if a government fails to protect its
citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, the
international community has a responsibility to intervene.
Stopping Wickedness: Intervening can halt ongoing atrocities and prevent further suffering.
Setting a Precedent: Failure to intervene can legitimise wickedness and encourage further human
rights abuses.
Historical Examples
Kosovo (1999): NATO's intervention was seen as a response to ethnic cleansing by Serbian forces.
Tony Blair emphasized the moral imperative to stop Milosevic's actions.
Sierra Leone (2000): British intervention helped stabilise the country and support a
legitimate government against armed groups.
Côte d'Ivoire (2011): French intervention supported the internationally recognised winner of the
presidential election against a leader refusing to step down.
Preventing Wider Instability
Regional Security: Intervention can prevent humanitarian crises from spiralling out of
control and threatening the peace of other regions.
Example: Intervention in Mali (2013) was justified to stop terrorist elements from
destabilising the region and threatening Europe.
Stopping Terrorism: In some cases, intervention is seen as necessary to prevent terrorism
from spreading.
Establishing International Norms
Holding Perpetrators Accountable: The work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other
international tribunals demonstrates a commitment to holding individuals accountable for
human rights abuses.
Setting Standards: Encouraging a universal standard of human rights, even if difficult to enforce,
is seen as a worthwhile goal.
Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention:
Sovereignty and Cultural Relativism
State Sovereignty: Intervention violates the principle of state sovereignty, which holds that each
state has the right to govern itself without external interference.
Cultural Differences: Diverse cultural traditions possess different approaches to human
rights, making it difficult to establish a universal standard.
Asian and Muslim interpretations of human rights may differ considerably from Western
views.
It is important not to presume that all cultures accept the same values or give the same
respect for human rights.
Imposing Western Values: Critics argue that humanitarian intervention can be a form of
neocolonialism, imposing Western values on other cultures.
Self-Interest and Hypocrisy
Selective Intervention: Interventions are often selectively applied based on the self-
interests of powerful states.
Examples: The West has been accused of intervening in some cases (e.g., Serbia) while
ignoring others (e.g., Rwanda, Syria, Myanmar) based on strategic interests.
Double Standards: Powerful nations like Russia and the US have been accused of human rights
abuses themselves, undermining the moral basis of their interventions.
Russia's actions in Chechnya and the US's support for authoritarian regimes in the
past are cited as examples.
Practical Challenges and Unintended Consequences
Likelihood of Success: Interventions can be costly and may not always achieve their
objectives.
Examples: The interventions in Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan are often cited as
failures.
False Expectations: Humanitarian missions can raise false expectations and make the
situation worse if they are not well-planned and resourced.
In Somalia, aid convoys were hijacked by warlords, undermining the humanitarian
effort.
Unintended Consequences: Interventions can lead to unintended consequences, such as
destabilising a region, increasing terrorism, or creating power vacuums.
The intervention in Libya led to a prolonged civil war and the rise of terrorist groups.
Erosion of Legitimacy
Lack of UN Support: Interventions without UN Security Council approval are seen as
illegitimate by some.
Loss of Trust: Failures in past interventions have eroded public trust in humanitarian
intervention as a tool for promoting human rights.
Domestic Support: Interventions can be undermined by a lack of domestic support in the
intervening country, especially if they are costly or result in casualties.
Key Considerations for Intervention
Before intervening, governments should weigh the likely consequences of action or inaction,
considering:
Clear Objectives: Is there a clear and achievable goal for the intervention?
Likelihood of Success: How likely is it that the intervention will save lives and improve the
situation?
Regional Support: Is there regional or international support for the intervention?
Minimal Harm: Will the intervention do more good than harm?
The Role of World Powers
The US has historically played a significant role in humanitarian interventions, but its
willingness to do so has varied depending on the administration and the specific
circumstances.
The Biden administration may be more favourable to human rights-focused foreign policy than the
Trump administration.
Emerging Powers
Emerging powers like China and Russia often prioritise state sovereignty and are less likely to
support humanitarian interventions.
The rise of these powers has made it riskier for Western powers to intervene, for fear of
the consequences.
The way in which the West's failure to prevent mass killings in Syria has led to a decline in its
influence.