Foreign Intervention in Human Rights - Essay Example

? Foreign Intervention on Human Rights Abuse Foreign Intervention in Human Rights The extent to which foreign powers should go towards the safeguarding the human rights of oppressed people outside their territorial jurisdiction can be assessed from a variety of factors. These factors revolve around the issues of universality of human rights, concepts of globalization, ethical considerations and the underlying legal concerns. There is always the question of universalism or the territorial scope of human rights. If human rights are to be understood as a timeless and space less concepts then it means that the systems and structures that protect them must be equally timeless and spaceless. What this means is that where there are gross violations of human rights without internal structures to mitigate the suffering of victims, alternative forces have the right and duty to intervene and correct the situation. It must be understood that governments that tend towards gross violation of human rights are necessarily despotic in nature (Engelhart, 2009). This aspect of their being means that they must systematically destroy systems that are structurally opposed to their ideals of violence and philosophies of oppression and suppression. In time therefore there is left no meaningful forces within the despotic system to safeguard the rights of the citizens. The absence of a corrective mechanism means that the violations will go on as long as the oppressor lasts (Engelhart, 2009). This situation therefore warrants the intervention of foreign powers to protect, restore, and sustain human rights. Moreover in situations where some of the despotic governments refuse to be party to international protocols that bind them towards the protection of human rights only external forces can move in to alleviate the suffering of the citizens. The provisions of international human rights as contained in the United Nations charter for human rights have inbuilt systems that encourage self –regulation of countries in the process of protecting human rights. Countries which fail to be part of these provisions leave vacuums in their governance structures so that there can never be opportunities for self regulation. When human rights violations set in, foreign powers have the obligation to actively intervene and rescue the suffering population. The relationship between governments and the international protocols on human rights can still be seen in the second dimension of member countries that still flout the codes for the preservation of the same rights they undertook to protect. There have been cases where countries which are party to the United Nations protocols turn round and start oppressing their civilians with little regard to the essence of rights, freedoms, and the sanctity of human rights. There are case studies all around the globe although parts of Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and The Middle East have featured most prominently in this disregard of human rights. Mass murder, arbitrary confinement, summary execution, and detention without trial are some of the examples that feature among the countries that renege on their legal obligations to safeguard their citizens’ rights and freedoms. This willful abuse and subjugation of the rights of individuals must be met with direct and active measure from whatever source for the sole purpose of restoring the just order as idealized in the principles of good governance and as enshrined in legal systems, both foreign and local. Another argument for this measure should be that laws are meant to be kept and that there must be consequences attached to non-compliance. One case study of such intervention is illustrative in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces intervention of the Kosovo crisis to ease the magnitude of human suffering and the trampling of individual rights and freedoms under the authority of the then president Slobodan Milosevic. Although the magnitude of human suffering was great it can be argued that the intervention of the foreign forces significantly mitigated the impact of loss of rights, freedoms, and lives. The mandate of the foreign powers to invade a sovereign state for the purposes of restoring rights and freedoms is anchored in the sacred need to protect lives, and uphold people’s freedoms in these expressions. The 1995 massacre in Rwanda which left close to a million people dead and occasioned mass displacement, maiming, rape and other violations is an example of how lack of foreign involvement in the rights and freedoms of foreign citizens might occasion disaster. Western powers and the African Union have been blamed for not responding to the distressing Rwandese situation occasioning the massacre. Arguments of territorial sovereignty must have governed foreign laxity in intervening in the dire situation. Rights, lives and freedoms would have been safeguarded had foreign governments made haste in containing the situation as it deteriorated with time. On the ethical score, governments and legitimate foreign powers have a duty to uphold sustain good over evil (Enabulele, 2010). It is to be understood that both good and evil are unseen realities that can only be manifested and supported by physical forms and systems. When a system of evil thrives in a given country thereby allowing the growth of oppression of rights and liberties, only a system of good can be enlisted to correct the situation. Therefore external intervention must be understood in the dimension of restoration of good. The systems of evil have often used the wrong forms of force to entrench themselves in a society. This has often taken the form of violence, corrupt legal systems, and brutality. Internally there can never be a holistic force that might disturb or stop the progress of such evil systems in their destructive enterprise. This means that if change is to be effected then it can only happen after the intervention of foreign powers, This intervention brings about a form of positive change that replaces the structures of government so that the adjustment that results creates a force of good that in turn provides an environment that allows for the return and flourishing of good (Engelhart, 2009). An analysis of the pre-conflict Iraq might be seen in some way as a government that based its sustainability on progressive dehumanization of its citizenry. The Saddam Hussein regime was described by series of summary executions, arbitrary arrests and torture and collective punishments of whole civilization which lasted for the entire decades that the reign of Saddam lasted. Iraq under Saddam was classified as a regime with one of the poorest human rights records around the world. The invasion of the country by the United States of America and British forces occasioned a forceful dismantling of the system which left room for the emergence of a new governance dispensation that is anchored on democratic ideals. Despite the heavy loss of human life and property damage, the creation of anew world order has brought in its wake some promise of good. The invasion and dismantling of the despotic order might therefore be justifies when looked at from the dimension of correcting an injustice that is anchored on a seemingly functional government. To this extent it has been argued that the intervention of a state into another with the objective of restoring human rights can have heavy costs and penalties incurred but in the long run there occurs a change that ultimately configures the human rights record of the invaded country towards progress (Lauterpacht, & Elihu, 2004) . The phenomenon of globalization has meant that what affects one affects the other. With globalization came the aspects of liberalization of the market economy and the interdependence of governments along many spheres. In the modern world it is not possible for countries to survive in isolation and carry on with their exclusivist agenda. Cooperation is inevitable because the last decades have seen movement of capital from one metropolis to the next in the end creating a situation where countries are stakeholders in others along many interests. A country that keeps a poor record of human rights threatens not only itself but all other countries that are necessarily linked with it through market associations, or other forms of bilateral, or multi-lateral relations. When the human rights records in that country threatens the survival of its other partners then the use of external forces, or intervention to remedy the situation is warranted. This is because the inter-relations between countries often translate into the fact that what affects one country directly will most certainly affect the others indirectly. This intervention however must only be in cases where a legitimate government turns against its people leaving no options for the masses to turn to. All forms of interventions must be cautionary and specifically targeted towards the objective of restoring human rights. Where systems alternative systems of redress exist in the affected country, the foreign powers should approach their interventionist mission through a piecemeal approach that will involve cooperation with the internal mechanisms that are fighting the same cause. Proponents of external intervention for the sake of restoring human rights and freedoms have argued that this approach is most appropriate in situations where sanctions have failed (Rosa, O, 2001, & Brownlie, 1990). In most cases the international pressure that is often brought to bear on despotic regimes has never managed to force a shift in policy of the affected countries. This is because the operational structures of most of these sanctions are that the government and the governors are comparatively less affected than the poor people. The import of sanctions therefore is that it only heightens the level of suffering of the already oppressed people, which means it is counterproductive (Koskenniemi, 1992). Until the advent of targeted restrictions oppressors or systems that support oppression rarely feel the impact of sanctions. It was probably after the realization of the ineffectiveness of travel bans that travel bans targeting leaders were introduced. But in closed societies such as Myanmar, the travel bans have little impact because the leaders ordinarily never seek relations outside their boundaries. Trading blocs and international rivalry has also defeated the objectives of sanctions of all forms because the targeted country will often forge new associations with alternative states. This situation therefore calls for the intervention of countries in a despotic regime that thrives on the systematic suppression of rights and freedoms. In summary it might be argued that human rights and freedoms are universal and form part of the structure of most constitutions around the world. The task of safeguarding these rights is a duty that all forms of government must take. The laws of territorial sovereignty must fall below the provisions to preserve human rights and this should give reason for external intervention in cases of flagrant abuse of rights. This intervention should be multi-faceted in that it should incorporate both peaceful means of correction and force. It must be tampered with caution so that fresh tensions are not ignited from within the affected system. References Brownlie, I. (1990). Principles of Public International Law. New York: Clarendon Press. Englehart, N. A. (2009). State Capacity, State Failure and Human Rights. Journal of Peace Research. Vol 46 (2). Enabulele, O. A. (2010). Humanitarian Intervention and Territorial Sovereignty: the dilemma of two strange bedfellows. International Journal of Human Rights. Vol 14 (3). Rosa, C. O. (2001). Unity and pluralism in public international law. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Lauterpacht, H. & Elihu, L. (2004). International Law: Disputes, war and neutrality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koskenniemi, M. (1992). International Law. New York: New York University Press Read More