Humanitarian Intervention: Two sides of the Same Coin Essay

Humanitarian intervention has been an issue for discussion for decades. After the Holocaust the international community swore that they would not admit such crimes against humanity any more. But Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and particularly Darfur (Sudan) showed that the problem has not been solved. It is reasonable to find out what we should understand under ‘humanitarian intervention’. Weiss (2007, p.5) provides the definition of ‘humanitarian intervention’ by Adam Roberts as follows: “Coercive action by one or more states involving the use of armed force in another state without the consent of its authorities, and with the purpose of preventing of widespread suffering or death among the inhabitants”.
In this respect, both military campaign in Iraq and humanitarian crisis in Darfur should be considered from the point of humanitarian intervention. While the war in Iraq can be seen as the ‘intervention’ that was put into practice, the crisis in Darfur (Sudan) should be viewed as a failed one. Humanitarian intervention has always been a disputable issue and it often stays very close to the political and economical benefits of the states which intervene. The duality of ‘humanitarian intervention’ mostly lies in the other states willing to help and to protect people, on one hand, and the state sovereignty, on the other hand. But, international experience shows that the motives of the intervention can vary from the mentioned ones. Very often humanitarian intervention can be related to political interests and ambitions of the other states.
The outcomes of humanitarian intervention, as well as, its ignoring by the world community can be quite different either. The example of USA military actions in Iraq revealed what the negative ones could be like.
Main body
The question of the USA and the UK credibility level among the international community is a disputable one. The opinions and attitudes to the USA and the UK are quite different in Europe, Arabian countries and the Americans and the British themselves. Muslim countries demonstrate negative view on both states, except, Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco which show favorable attitude to them. Turkey does not support the USA actions in Iraq. Majorities in Muslim countries do not believe that the war in Iraq was the USA attempt to fight international terrorism; they stick to the idea that it was an effort to control Mideast oil and to show their dominance in the world. Numerous surveys concerning the problem show that the war in Iraq has undermined America’s credibility in the world. European community, particularly Germany and France, Russia and Asian countries remained aside the Iraq war issue. The results of the surveys in these states show that their attitude to the USA and British (as a supporter) intervention into Iraq was not legitimate and right. There are doubts about the motives behind the USA starting the war against the international terrorism, growing percentage of European people want their state to establish their policy independent from the USA in particular. Though, most American and British people support the actions of their administration in Iraq. To our mind, the credibility of the USA and the UK as “norm carriers” has diminished since the Iraq war. Numerous publications and public discussions containing open blame of both states administrations prove that many people doubt the legitimacy of such policy of intervention. A significant factor in world view of the US is the perception that the USA pursues its international policy without taking into account the interests of other nations. The UK experiences less suffering, as they gave support, but were not the initiators of Iraq campaign.
As we know, the USA has led a policy of carrying democratic norms their governments in realization of these values in their countries. Georgia, Ukraine and some other countries can be mentioned in this respect. Now it is obvious that these issues are not privileged by the present administration of the USA. They have been working on restoring the USA reputation and credibility in the world by their new democratic decisions and new international policy making.
We think that in this case Bush’s administration reputation suffered the most. The war in Iraq is mostly associated with this leader of the USA. And as Barrack Obama’s government has changed the policy towards Iraq, the world community will soon have more confidence in the USA. The same situation concerns British participation in the conflict. To our mind, wise and reasonable policy of the present government can improve the situation and return credibility and trust to the UK as the carrier of democratic values in the world.
Without even consulting legislative documentation and acts most of us will agree that the responsibility to protect civilians in a humanitarian crisis is the responsibility of the state. This is what any constitution or other higher acts claim. But the question obtains another assessment in the situation when the state has abused their citizens, when crimes have been committed against them by the administration and human rights have been neglected by the state authorities. Civil war and genocide, humanitarian crisis require another strategy and reaction from the international community. Here the question of humanitarian intervention arises. To our mind, such cases as Darfur should be a matter of a collective body. Most officials acknowledged the situation in Darfur as genocide, the crime again nation. But we could observe that the reaction of the international community was not very active and quick. The assistance to the civilians and the public discussion of the issue do not correlate with the horror of the situation inside the state. Once again it proves that world community has no universal strategy for such occasions. In 2005 at the United Nations (UN) World Summit the commitment, entitled the Responsibility to Protect, was suggested. This document includes the main points concerning the protection of civilians from war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Though, the problem continues arising. Darfur crisis proved that there are no effective mechanisms of the international influence on the involved state. The international sanctions can be ignored and world community requirements can be neglected. Military sanctions are not always the best way out. In his famous Chicago speech on the nation of an “international community” in 1999 Tony Blair (Elliott 2011) proposed five “major considerations” about humanitarian intervention. “First, are we sure of our case? War is an imperfect instrument for righting humanitarian distress; but armed force is sometimes the only means of dealing with dictators. Second, have we exhausted all diplomatic options?… Third, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation, are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake? Fourth, are we prepared for the long term? In the past we talked too much of exit strategies. But having made a commitment we cannot simply walk away once the fight is over; better to stay with moderate numbers of troops than return for repeat performances with large numbers. And finally, do we have national interests involved?”
Blair’s considerations are quite useful and in case it is necessary to make a decision whether to intervene into the state affairs or not, these 5 testing questions can clear the situation.
Many international comities, organizations and officials cannot resolve the problem and cope with the dilemma. And every time people suffer.
Still, to our mind, it is impossible to work out some universal strategy for such cases. Every situation is unique and special. None of the act or other documents can regulate it unconditionally. And every time the international community should make a decision. We suppose that mistakes or wrong strategies can not be avoided but they can be minimized in case declaring the human rights and people’s lives to be the priority.
Conclusion
The observation of the main points of our essay, we should note that humanitarian intervention as any political action has its positive and negative outcomes. We have considered the situation with war in Iraq and its negative outcomes for the USA and the UK, as the main supporter of the military campaign. We have come to the conclusion that the low credibility of the international community towards both states can have a temporary character and is possible to be eliminated by wise international policy of the present administrations of both countries.
Having observed the humanitarian crisis in Darfur (Sudan) and international community reaction to it, we have concluded that the prior responsibility to protect civilians in a humanitarian crisis is the responsibility of the state but in the cases of war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity other states have no right to stay aside. They should consider the situation; assess all the possibilities to solve the conflict with peace or to develop a strategy of military forces involving to protect the civilians. Crimes again humanity and human rights abuses should always be a collective body.