Ethics in International Affairs and Double Standards Essay

Today, ethics plays an important part in international affairs but often ethics is the tool of manipulation with the public opinion used by different countries and the UN. In this regard, it is possible to refer to the military conflict in Iraq and the case of genocide in Darfur. On the one hand, the US violated existing legal norms and launched the military operation in Iraq in 2003 to prevent the presumable threat of the use of the weapon of mass destruction by Iraq, regardless of the lack of support and legitimate mandate being granted by the UN and Security Council. On the other hand, the US and the UN had taken highly controversial decisions concerning Darfur recognizing the situation in Darfur as genocide but undertaking no military intervention or other effective international intervention to stop genocide. In this regard, the policy conducted by the US is highly controversial because the US violated legal norms but they started the conflict in Iraq on the ground of moral concerns and above all concerns with their national interests. In this regard, the dilemma arises since, on the one hand, the international intervention can be morally legitimate, whereas, on the other hand, the international intervention can be legally illegitimate. In such a situation, the international community needs to elaborate adequate assessment and policies that could guide actions being undertaken by the UN and international community in case of violation of human rights, war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity that put civilians under a threat, while the local government is unable to protect civilians at risk. In such cases, international community should interfere and stop conflicts to secure the position of civilians at risk and to help local government to maintain order and human rights.

In actuality, the international community should provide military and humanitarian assistance, even if such assistance is illegal because the indifference and non-interference of international community may provoke severe crimes being committed by undemocratic regimes. In fact, the policy of non-interference and the lack of control from the part of the international community leads to the risk of the violation of basic human rights and humanitarian catastrophes that may occur in different parts of the world as was the case of Darfur. On the other hand, the international interference cannot be uncontrollable because the international interference can occur only when the situation in certain region leads to war crimes and other crimes against humanity and the interference should be motivated by interests of civilians but not national or other interests of certain countries.

In this respect, it is possible to refer to the interference of the US in Iraq in 2003. In fact, the norm of humanitarian intervention has been affected negatively as the consequence of the intervention of the US in Iraq in 2003. The US justified its military intervention by concerns with its national interests and safety of its citizens because of the possible presence of the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. However, the existing Iraqi regime maintained by Saddam Hussein did not expose the US or other countries to actual threats. At any rate, Iraq has undertaken no action that would manifest its open aggression against other states. In addition, the situation in Iraq was relatively stable and the civilian population of the country did not suffer from mass murders or genocide, although there were political repressions and oppression of opponents of the regime along with the violation of basic human rights. However, the violation of human rights alone is not enough for the international interference because such violation may occur in any country that does not mean that the international community should start the military action against this country. As for the threat of using the weapon of mass destruction, this threat was rather hypothetical. In addition, the fact of the possession of the weapon of mass destruction is not the reason for the international military intervention as was the case of the military intervention of the US in Iraq in 2003. For instance, today, many countries posses the weapon of mass destruction, including the US, some EU countries, Russia, and others but the international community does not even attempt to initiate any form of international intervention, even when human rights are violated.

The intervention can be morally legitimate, even if the intervention is illegal in terms of current international legislation and norms, when the local government cannot stop military crimes, crimes against humanity and other severe crimes that threaten to many civilians and provoke mass murders or humanitarian catastrophes.
The conflict in Darfur has broken out between representatives of two different ethnic groups, Arab and non-Arab. The former were represented by military and militia and the Sudanese government provided Arab ethnic group with ample financial and technical support, while the rebellious opponents represented black population of Sudan and were severely oppressed by the forces supported by the Sudanese officials.

Moreover, the operations of the militia and military against the rebels were accompanied by numerous murders of the civilian population of Sudan and the victims were non-Arab people, even though they had no relation to clandestine activity or opposition. In this respect, it is possible to refer to the UN data, according to which in the result of conflict 450.000 people died from violence and disease, while Sudan government claims that there had been just 9.000 deaths since the beginning of the conflict (Prunier, 211). Obviously, the official Sudanese data are underestimated, while the data of UN and non-governmental organizations are not very precise because the Sudanese government actively opposes to the investigation of the situation in Darfur by the UN specialists and other non-governmental organizations. In fact, the unwillingness of the Sudanese government to admit foreign observers to the region of the conflict may be viewed as an indirect evidence of the genocide of non-Arab population of Darfur.
On the other hand, even those scarce data that had been collected within the period of the conflict proved the fact that the conflict in Darfur may be characterized as the policy of genocide and the US repeatedly raised this problem on the international level appealing to the world community and the UN, in particular, to undertake active steps to prevent the further genocide of non-Arab population of Darfur. However, the UN tended to take a neutral position in regard to the genocide and, instead, this international organization stood on the ground that the conflict is a purely military conflict which had nothing to do with genocide. Such a position of the UN was absolutely contrasting to the position of non-governmental organizations and mass media which described the conflict as both “ethnic cleanings” and “genocide” (Prunier, 296).

In stark contrast, the UN reports defined the conflict in Darfur as non-genocidal. To put it more precisely, in 2005 the UN report stated that while there were mass murders and rapes, they could not label it as genocide because “genocidal intent appears to be missing” (Report, 67). Or even later, when the genocide grew stronger in Darfur, the UN Commission found that “technically there was not genocide in the legal sense of the term but that massive violations of human rights and humanitarian law were continuing” (Ki-moon, 113). These reports prove the fact that the perception and interpretation of the conflict by the UN was inadequate since, in addition to numerous murders of non-Arab population, there were 1.6 million people internally removed, while mass executions became a norm.
In the result of the unwillingness of the UN to define the conflict as genocide the measures undertaken by the UN were also insufficient to stop the conflict because it was obvious that ill-equipped 7.000 troop African Union Mission in Sudan peacekeeping force was unable to stop the conflict and ongoing genocide, while the efforts of the UN to strengthen its military contingent in the area by a new 17.300 troop UN peacekeeping force faced a strong opposition from the part of Sudan.

The UN should have the right to international intervention, as the government of Sudan failed to protect civilians from genocide. In fact, the situation in Darfur was the genocide that went out of control of the local government. Moreover, the local government even supported the policy of genocide. However, the UN failed to undertake any actions to stop the genocide in Darfur. In such a situation, the criticism alone is not enough but the international intervention is needed to stop the genocide.

At the same time, the moral justification for intervention is important but needs the support in terms of legal evidence, such as the abuse of human rights, genocide and other acts conducted by certain groups or local governments that need the international intervention, as was the case of Darfur. War crimes, humanitarian crimes and other actions that provoke humanitarian catastrophes are a sufficient moral justification for the international intervention. Therefore, the intervention of international forces in the conflict in Darfur would be morally legitimate, even if it was legally not legitimate.

Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the international intervention is important measure that should be undertake in response to war crimes, crimes against humanity and other crimes that provoke humanitarian catastrophes and such intervention should be implemented, when the local government is unable to cope with the situation, as was the case of Darfur. Therefore, the international intervention, being morally justified, can occur to save civilians and to prevent humanitarian catastrophes, when the situation goes out of control of the local government.