Humanitarian Intervention: One of Examples of Imperialism Today

In the work “Humanitarian Intervention: One of Examples of Imperialism Today” we talk about humanitarian intervention as like modern imperialism or pluralism and will look on the causes of creating the organizations, which must keep peace in our world. Humanitarian intervention is a concept within International Relations, which has gained momentum after the end of the Cold War period in the 1990s. With the end of the Cold War, states were able to focus on other heinous crimes around the world, rather than their own security, such as outbursts of genocide with immense numbers of casualties, as seen in Rwanda in 1994, or governmental inability to protect it’s citizens, as seen in the Somalian Civil War. This concept analysis will outline what ideas the concept refers to, how it helps to explain core features of international relations and global politics, and portray the connections between other concepts and humanitarian intervention.

Humanitarian intervention is viewed as one of the most discussed and analyzed concepts within International Relations due to its subjectiveness and lack of defined understanding of the term. Many scholars of differing views such as realists, pluralists, and liberals discuss whether intervention is ever right, portraying this as the main idea of what the concept refers to and the focal point of discussion. Generally, realists have a negative approach toward intervention, due to their strong state-centric view. They strongly believe in the concept of sovereignty, therefore are led to believe that states will use any crime against humanity committed by another state as an excuse to intervene as a power tactic. Some would even go to the extent of calling it “modern imperialism”. In addition, they disagree with the idea that their soldiers should lose their lives for strangers.

A similar view may be seen through pluralism. Pluralists believe that due to the lack of rules of unilateral humanitarian intervention, the international order built on non-intervention and sovereignty, as set out by the Treaty of Westphalia, will be damaged or weakened, which in turn will threaten the structure of society, based on their belief that autonomous states are central to international society.

A common ground for both pluralists and realists is Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. According to the article, all 193 states, which are a part of the UN are prohibited to use force against other states for any reason. In light of the article, the traditional perception of humanitarian intervention should be prohibited, which would put a stop to the debate of whether intervention is ever right. However, this goes against the liberal view that humanitarian intervention does not necessarily mean violence.

Liberalism coincides with the doctrines of “Responsibility to Protect”, written in December 2001 by the ICISS. One of the core principles of R2P is the idea that if a state, or its citizens of it, are in serious danger and their government is unable or unwilling to protect them, the principle of non-intervention is dismissed, granting other states with the responsibility to protect. This is done mainly on moral grounds, seeing as human lives are at stake, and touches upon another of the key ideas the concept refers to, being human rights, however, it also helps to explain the idea that war is inevitable and that states will go to war even to protect. War is commonly viewed as retaliation and an event carried out for the personal gain of a country, be it territory or simply to procure more power. Humanitarian intervention goes to prove that countries cannot be at peace and will attempt war or a form of armed conflict even under the justification of protection. The UN has accepted R2P, therefore legitimizing the breach of Article 2 (4), at their consent, essentially discrediting the realist and pluralist argument of using the article against humanitarian intervention. Nonetheless, interventions are still a rare occurrence.

Humanitarian intervention is mainly portrayed as violent or begetting violence. However, that is not always the case. According to the ICISS, the word “humanitarianism” has been militarized and there is some truth in this. The majority of the humanitarian interventions that are remembered by the public have been violent, due to their higher success rates, but we cannot forget that interventions can be peaceful. They can take forms of safe havens such as those in Srebrenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Mullaitivu in Sri Lanka, which are “safe areas” under UN protection. They offer places for refugees to escape the fighting or give medical help, food, and shelter. This kind of humanitarian intervention can also be seen in the Yemen crisis ongoing currently. According to the UN, there are now 8.4 million people without food security, therefore NGOs such as Disasters Emergency Committee, provide humanitarian aid for those in need. Peaceful aid goes against the traditional militarized view of humanitarian intervention shared by realists and pluralists, however, its existence should be remembered and incorporated into the debates on whether intervention is right.

Whilst some may consider this an act of humanitarian intervention; seeing as it isn’t explicitly asserted that the intervention should be committed by a state, the majority of people all around the world, will not recognize it as such. This is due to an unofficial unification of humanitarian intervention and military action. Whilst this is understandable, seeing as a peaceful intervention in the form of aid has a significantly lower success rate than military action, many powerful figures, such as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, believe that they should be separate and not put under the same umbrella term. This has also been emphasized by the ICISS’s lack of use of the term ‘humanitarian’. Furthermore, what is in reality military action, highlights one of the core features of international relations and global politics being the inequality between states.

Primarily, the countries we see at war, or undergoing a crisis, are normally post-colonial or economically unstable, for example, Rwanda, which was a German colony. In addition, the states that intervene, such as the USA, have greater military power and statistically, their success rates will be higher of those who are undergoing a crisis, emphasizing inequality between states. We also rarely see other countries intervening who don’t belong to the “Great Powers”.

In light of this, scholars are led to believe that superpowers, such as the USA, are attempting “modern imperialism”, under the pretext of humanitarian intervention, or the ‘war on terror’. The USA has approximately 800 military bases in 80 different countries - which causes great discontent. The presence of a foreign military in each of those countries may appear similar to the times during which the countries were under British, French, or German rule. The only reason why this is not considered as imperialism as such is that, in theory, the 80 countries are not governed by the USA. Nevertheless, the presence of the military has, and continues to be, one of the major power tactics used to control nations.

Not only does his touch upon the concept of imperialism, but it also highlights the idea that sovereignty is still prevalent, even during an era of globalization, presenting the idea that all three concepts are connected. Sovereignty and imperialism have gone hand in hand since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. However, with a greater focus on humanitarian intervention in the last two decades and it’s the core question of whether humanitarian intervention is ever right, it is impossible to miss the fact that the main factor behind the question is sovereignty.

As mentioned previously, the debates between countries, always refer to the idea of sovereignty, and as the Treaty of Westphalia declares, other states aren’t allowed to interfere in other states’ domestic affairs, ultimately barring humanitarian intervention. Possibly, without the concept of sovereignty, the notion of humanitarian intervention would not be questionable. It is inconceivable not to notice that globally, we begin to prioritize human rights, with the rise of NGOs such as the International Rescue Committee, and thus perhaps we should view humanitarian intervention in a different light, not just as interference in other states’ domestic affairs.

To conclude, humanitarian intervention encapsulates many differing concepts, such as human rights, imperialism, and sovereignty, whilst trying to answer the question if it is ever right. The ‘Responsibility To Protect’ strongly indicates that intervention should be plausible in an event where human rights are at stake, or heinous crimes against humanity have a high chance of happening or have already occurred. Whilst realist thinkers are right to an extent, in their belief that not every single country will intervene on moral and humanitarian grounds, if human lives or the conditions of thereof are at risk, liberals are right in thinking that we have a moral duty to aid those who need help the most, especially if their government is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens from harm.

Bibliography

1. Augustyn, A. (2019). Peace of Westphalia. Encyclopædia Britannica. Available from https://www.britannica.com/event/Peace-of-Westphalia [Accessed 19th November 2019]
2. BBC News (2009). Rwanda becomes member of the Commonwealth. BBC News. Available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8384930.stm [Accessed 17th November 2019]
3. Franck,T. And Rodley N. (1973). ’After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force’ American Journal of International Law, 67 (290), 275-305.
4. Hehir, A. (2008) Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Human Rights Watch (2017). Q & A: Safe Zones and the Armed Conflict in Syria. Human Rights Watch. Available from https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/16/q-safe-zones-and-armed-conflict-syria [Accessed 17th November 2019]
6. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty et al. (2001) Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
7. Keating, T. (2016). Pluralism and International Society. E-International Relations. Available from https://www.e-ir.info/2016/02/17/pluralism-and-international-society-2/ [Accessed 24th November 2019]
8. Lang, A. (ed) (2003). Just Intervention. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
9. Sakellaropoulos, S. and Sotiris, P. (2008). American foreign policy as modern imperialism: from armed humanitarianism to preemptive war. Science & Society, 72 (2). Available from https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/siso.2008.72.2.208 [Accessed 17th November 2019]
10. Slater, A. (2018). The US Has Military Bases in 80 Countries. All of Them Must Close. The Nation. Available from https://www.thenation.com/article/the-us-has-military-bases-in-172-countries-all-of-them-must-close/ [Accessed 19th November 2019]
11. United Nations (1945). Charter of the United Nations. United Nations. Available from https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html [Accessed 16th November 2019]
12. Walling, C.B. (2015), ‘Human Rights Norms, State Sovereignty, and Humanitarian Intervention’, Human Rights Quarterly, 37 (2), 383-413.
13. Wheeler, N. (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.