International Intervention for Humanitarian Reasons - Essay Example

? Assess the extent to which international intervention for humanitarian reasons is becoming a norm among the international community The main principles of modern international policy are peacekeeping and observance of human rights. World War II has significantly affected relations among members of the international community and modern international law thoroughly restricts using of force. International terrorism, cases of genocide, illegitimate coup d’etats, large-scale piracy, mass riots, ethnic conflicts, wars of aggression, crimes of war often shake the international community and are pretexts for applying intervention. Brief overview of historical examples allows tracing evolution of the intervention within the latest decades. To assess extent of the international intervention for humanitarian reasons one shall primary discover its foundation. In my opinion, regulation of human rights and freedoms are the basis for any humanitarian intervention in pre- and post-war period. Before signing the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other international documents they were regulated exclusively by national law. Their scope and variety depended on historical epochs. According to national law, humanitarian intervention was allowed only for protection of life and property of citizens, staying on the territory of another state, and also of ethnic minorities. French intervention to Syria (1860 - 1861) can be regarded as its classical example. Justification of the above intervention was the rescue of local Christian population. A short-term religious conflict between the Maronite Christians and the massacre provoked indignation of European community of those times. Houndari (1946) remarks that previously there has been tolerance between Muslims and the local Christian community. At the Conference in Paris the most influential European countries empowered France to perform the intervention for humanitarian reasons. In this case, right of France for humanitarian intervention is based on the old-fashioned pretext that each state supposedly has international liabilities to guarantee rights and freedoms, whenever they are being broken. Wheeler (2002) states that “the Sultan ‘consented’ to the intervention of the 6,000 French troops, but only because it was clear that non-compliance with the wishes of the European great powers would lead to strategic coercion being exercised by the Concert powers against Turkey.” Thus, in XIX century such intervention of the progressive state was quite normal, as oppressors were Muslims, ‘uncivilized foreigners’ and was grounded on common religion and humanity concerns. The French party significantly exceeded its authority, as the initially agreed term of 6 months was prolonged and conflict of power with the British government took place. It is a typical feature of modern humanitarian intervention campaigns (Iran, Afghanistan), where transfer of power to local administration is often prolonged and restricted. Although the French government tried to protect local Christians’ interests, it was just a pretext for power redivision with Great Britain in this region. Scale of the conflict was exaggerated, because most of the Maronite Christians were natives, not numerous and “and partly because clergy and laity alike were for the most part Arabic in language and culture” (Houndari 1946). On the other hand, the present intervention really improved the situation, as the Christian population was governed and protected by American Christian Governor. The Maronite Christians’ rights and social position strengthened. Special attention should be paid to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which authorized partition of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union. After World War I League of Nations supported independence of Poland as a buffer against ‘Red Russia’ and progressive Europe. According to agreements between League of Nations members, observance of human, civil and political rights for Polish citizens dwelling outside the country was guaranteed. Lerski (1996) defines international position of Poland in the period of intervention as ‘two enemies doctrine’. The doctrine itself “posed the very problem of survival for Polish foreign and defense policy” (Lerski 1996). In this case, the humanitarian intervention develops into unilateral one, because Nazi Germany broke Statute of League of Nations, pact of non-aggression with Poland etc. Germany and the USSR waged war with Poland for various ulterior motives such as boundary expansion, protection of local German and Slavic population. After an unexpected declaration of war on the part of Germany Polish government had to self-defend its sovereignty. Conquest of 1939 can be regarded as humanitarian intervention, although solely by the Soviet Union and its followers. According to Goodman (2006), legalization of unilateral humanitarian intervention (UHI) was advantageous for Hitler. Goodman (2006, p. 113) indicates that “it is well known that Hitler invoked the right of self-determination of German nationals as a pretext for his incursions in Austria and Czechoslovakia”. As for the Soviet Union, mottos of assistance to fraternal nations (population of Western Ukraine, Belarus, Bukovina) and historical proximity of western Polish regions were propagated in mass media and among the locals. To face of the world community the intervention was a commonplace broadening of its boundaries. Thus, UHI was beneficial for both regimes to lead military expansion in Europe. Short analysis of the above historical examples proves that legal extent of the humanitarian intervention is dynamic and it develops in parallel with international law evolution. Any intervention can be viewed from two standpoints – by its organizers and its victims. In spite of noble peacemaking intentions, many powerful states try to derive benefit in the invaded regions. For example, in 1970th – 1980th the United States rendered all-round assistance to Afghanistan during the conflict with the USSR. Soviet politicians represented this war of aggression as humanitarian intervention to save local pro-Communist regime. In fact, pro-Communist Afghanistan would have become a time bomb in the Near East, that’s why the world community used all possible protest means; for instance, boycott of Olympic Games in Moscow. Later the situation changed topsy-turvy, because Afghanistan became a cradle of international terrorism. An efficient post-conflict reconstruction was not provided. The international community did not adopt the role of territorial administrator and the state was under control of stratocracy. Previous military assistance of the US got them into trouble, because local troops were trained by American officers and used provided innovative weapons. After 9/11 the US legitimated using of force against Afghanistan through self-defense and, thus justified its actions before the international community and Security Council. Struggle with international terrorism served as a cloak for establishment the hegemony in both dangerous and strategically important regions. “The USA is engaged in ‘self-defence’ in its war on terror. The self it is defending is an imaginary one, defined by a belief in its capacity to achieve closure against that which is perceived as foreign”. (Orford 2003) From this standpoint the present humanitarian intervention can be regarded as purely preventive war. The world is frightened with a sudden splash of terrorism in the USA and Europe, that’s why the UN has authorized the intervention in Afghanistan. Its main purpose was the destruction of Osama bin Laden and of seats of terrorism in the region. In post-conflict period major part of Afghanistan population disagrees with Western intervention, because Western democratic patterns often contradict Muslim customs and traditions. For instance, right to vote for women was hostilely apprehended in patriarchal Muslim environment, where women have not been involved in social life. Analysis of Afghanistan humanitarian intervention shows that Western democracy is not highly efficient in regulation of internal conflicts. Large socio-cultural and religious differences are the main reasons of discords with local population. Nevertheless, broadening of human rights and freedoms, strengthening of international organizations (the UN, EU), peacemaking policy, globalization and other factors are directed for amicable regulation of various conflicts. Humanitarian intervention is directly connected with nature of international society. Wheeler (2002) determines three components of modern international society: a realistic model of state, restrictions of the world society membership and a rule-governed activity. Altogether these components predetermine a scope of legal norms when viewing any case for potential humanitarian intervention at the level of the Security Council. They are connected with state foreign policy, liabilities as members of international organizations, norms of international and national law. “If states systematically and massively violated human rights, then there might fall to the international community a duty of humanitarian intervention” (Wheeler 2002). Nowadays the international society quickly reacts to large-scale violations of human rights and outrages upon humanity and the above components allow developing a flexible humanitarian intervention against the states or groups in fault. Practical experience shows that Western democracy should be regarded as the key driving force of the intervention; only multiparty establishments and unions with Western countries involved can manage the successful interventions. Wheeler (2002) analyzes several cases of successful humanitarian interventions such as Tanzania in Uganda (1979), India in Pakistan (1971) or Vietnam to Cambodia (1979). In Cambodia Pol Pot’s regime performed numerous outages on humanity, having killed millions of civilians and violated all possible human rights. Vietnamese government independently decided to overthrow the regime without consent of the UN and the international community. “Many states in the Security Council and General Assembly recognized the terrible suffering of the Khmer people under Pol Pot, but they also affirmed the principle that human rights violations could not justify the unilateral use of force.” (Wheeler 2002) Although Pol Pot’s ruling was stopped, extent of the humanitarian intervention in face of the world was unclear. On the one hand, many socio-economic sanctions have been imposed on Vietnam for breach of sovereignty and non-intervention rules. On the other hand, their own ignorance and non-intervention also seems to be felonious, as millions of Cambodians guiltlessly died in execution of the international law. Extent of the humanitarian intervention is determined not only by internal law, but also successful cooperation, mutual understanding and tolerance, protection of human rights and freedoms. Standpoints of Wheeler (2002), Goodman (2006), Houndari (1946) and Orford (2003) on the humanitarian intervention have been discovered and they show that its extent varies with international law and foreign policy tendencies of supreme states. Break of state sovereignty should be authorized by the UN and Security Council and should be supported by proper evidence. Modern technologies provide efficient means of evidence collection and, thus, an urgent and fair use of force or application of other sanctions is possible. Bibliography 1. Goodman, R 2006, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts for War’, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 100, pp. 107 – 141. 2. Hourani, A H 1946, Syria and Lebanon: A Political Essay, Oxford University Press. London. 3. Kuperman, A J 2004, ‘Humanitarian Hazard: Revisiting Doctrines of Intervention’, Harvard International Review, vol. 26, pp. 12 – 14. 4. Lerski, G J 1996, Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. 5. Orford, A 2003, Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 6. Patrick, M 2008, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and the Distribution of Sovereignty in International Law’, Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 22, pp. 19 – 24. 7. Wheeler, N J 2002, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 8. Read More