by William K Nelson
(Originally published here on nolanchart.com)
What are the consequences, both good and bad, of intervening in the affairs of foreign nations in order to defend human rights abroad? The answer to this question is important to every country and many global organizations around the world for many different reasons. The primary reason for asking this question is to gain insight into the global trend of nations and coalitions intervening in the inner workings of, or conflicts between, other nations while citing 'human rights' as justification for their actions. Insight gleamed from answering this question is vital in determining if, how, and why humanitarian intervention works to uphold human rights, and whether there are unforeseen consequences that make it more or less beneficial for those involved. Making these determinations is instrumental in learning what works and what doesn't in regard to defending human rights abroad, and can be beneficial for future cases where humanitarian intervention is considered. To begin answering this question, one must first know a little about the history of humanitarian intervention.
Although the term 'humanitarian intervention' was not popularized until later, the concept of defending the citizens of foreign nations from their tyrannical leaders gained immense popularity during early modern Europe. Simms and Trim explain this in, "Humanitarian Intervention: A History," where they write, "The period c. 1500-1700 was a vitally important one in the formulation of international law, concepts of sovereignty, and the emergence of the modern international system; and governments took what today would be termed humanitarian considerations into account in making foreign policy" (Simms). No doubt this era set the stage for the major humanitarian interventions undertaken during the next two centuries.
During the early 19th century, Britain's navy was tasked with ending the African slave trade. Their quest to end slavery was met with international resentment vocalized at a conference in Vienna. In addition to opposition in Vienna, the colonial powers also spoke out against Britain's apparent overstepping of authority. Those who protested British actions cited the maritime law of 'right of search,' claiming that, "the principles of territorial sovereignty, individual property rights and the freedom of the high seas were too fundamental to international relations to be relinquished even in a small way, and even under agreed narrow restrictions" (Simms). Yet it was only thirty years later, in 1839, when, "Britain successfully conducted unilateral naval interventions against the slave trading powers" (Simms).
The result of British enforced international abolition was that many of the colonial slave traders were brought to justice. It also inspired the abolition of U.S. slavery, (Simms) an unquestionably positive outcome. However, the question remains; do the ends justify the means? While the direct result of humanitarian intervention in this case was a great blow to the slave trade, it was not done without establishing Britain as an imperial naval power with little regard for the sovereignty of foreign nations. In fact, Simms and Trim paraphrase what they consider to be, "the most detailed study of Britain's anti-slavery diplomacy," (Simms) focusing on the argument that, "anti-slavery and slave trade policy was largely determined by political interests. It was used as a means to justify imperial expansion" (Simms). Whether Britain's intention was to justify imperial expansion or to end slavery for genuine humanitarian reasons is still unclear. It is more than likely that the British held a variety of reasons for appointing their navy to abolish the international slave trade.
Of course there are many more examples of humanitarian intervention in the more recent past, from Korea and Vietnam to Libya and Uganda, and the UN has played a vital role in these operations for over half a century. There may be no clear answer as to whether or not humanitarian intervention is necessary, but one thing is for sure: the global powers that justify military action in the name of human rights, are often guilty of undermining sovereignty.
United Nations Involvement in Humanitarian Intervention
In 1945, after World War II, 51 countries committed to peace and security on the international level thus creating the United Nations (UN). Today, the UN has 193 member states and has helped end 170 regional conflicts (un.org). The UN is responsible for military interventions in Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Central America, Uganda, Somalia and many other nations across the world. While it is true that the UN has brought peace to many unstable regions of the world, many claim that this peace is not lasting, and the UN's efforts only compound the problems within and between warring nations.
"Cease-fires and armistices have frequently been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting... But a cease-fire tends to arrest war-induced exhaustion and lets belligerents reconstitute and rearm their forces. It intensifies and prolongs the struggle once the cease-fire ends – and it does usually end" (Luttwak, foreignaffairs.com).
Luttwak's article was published in 1999, shortly after failed UN interventions in Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia and Angola--just to name a few (macqueen, norrie, humanitarian intervention and the UN). Perhaps the best example of the UN's failure to bring stability to a failing nation is it's involvement in Somalia. Sarah Oster writes, "In the early 1990s the Somali state collapsed, and the international community’s response was then seen as an unprecedented kind of humanitarian intervention... 14 years later, Somalia is still a deeply troubled nation and a source of international instability" (Oster). It has now been closer to twenty years, and Somalia is still dealing with warring factions and instability throughout most of the nation. This failure of the UN's raises many questions about the concept of humanitarian intervention. Why does the UN sometimes fail to stabilize areas where they are intervening? What can the UN do better to stabilize these areas? And would these regions have naturally stabilized if the UN had not intervened? These are all important questions to ask in order to understand whether or not humanitarian intervention is a legitimate method of defending human rights.
First, why does the UN sometimes fail in their peacekeeping, humanitarian missions? Sarah Oster says that, "in the case of Somalia, one might argue that the international community was willing to 'treat the symptoms but not the cause'" (Oster). Her article also says that, "humanitarian intervention may entail a commitment to the revision, restructure, and rebuilding... associated with 'nation-building...' would-be interveners are understandably nervous about over-committing themselves." The problem of instability apparently comes from a lack of interest in rebuilding failed institutions within the failing nations. Like any illness, merely treating the symptoms without diagnosing and curing the disease can lead to systems failure. It is understandable that the international community would not want to spread their own resources too thin in order to rebuild a foreign nation. Another reason foreign nations may shy away from nation building is because the question of national sovereignty and independence comes into play in a big way at this point.
Like the British Navy in the 1800s, nations, and especially their leaders, as we have recently seen in Libya, are weary of foreign intervention and nation building because it suggests that they are not capable of running their own nation. In fact, the very act of assuming the ability to manage a nation does undermine the sovereignty of that nation. Why aren't nations willing to give up their sovereignty so readily? John Stuart Mill claims that even the victims of human rights violations are not so willing to give up their nation's sovereignty because, "the liberty which is bestowed on them by other hands than their own, will have nothing real, nothing permanent. No people ever was and remained free because it was determined to be so; but because neither its rulers nor any other party in the nation could compel it to be otherwise" (Mill).
Mill makes a good argument here: lasting freedom and human rights are gained and maintained by the struggle of the citizens of the nation in question. Even if a liberating army were to destroy the oppressors and free the wrongfully imprisoned of a despotic nation, it would then be the responsibility of the liberated to maintain their freedom, or suffer the rise of a new oppressor. It would seem that the only practical alternative to the options of oppression or freedom through self-defense is reliance on the liberating army, in this case the UN. However, allowing the UN to control the nation building and peace negotiations of a country effectively removes the authority of the nation to truly govern itself, and thus its sovereignty and independence are lost to multilateral dependency.
Therefore, in order to ensure lasting human rights, peace and stability in a region, the intervening powers may need to engage in nation building and military intervention that undermines the sovereignty of the that nation. Is this a viable method of defending human rights? By violating the sovereignty of once independent nations? Many believe that lasting change only comes through natural conflict resolution, that is, by allowing the conflict to play out as it would without foreign intervention. Robert McNamara, former US Secretary of Defense and former President of the World Bank, made this statement concerning war, "There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What 'the fog of war' means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily" (The Fog of War, McNamara). Taking this wisdom into consideration it becomes clear that there are too many variables in wars and conflicts that nobody, especially an external force such as the UN, could have complete knowledge of. This could lead to misunderstandings, miscalculations and misjudgments leading to flawed methods of intervening in foreign conflicts. For example, is it proper to pick and choose sides during a conflict as was done in Libya? Gaddafi was apparently responsible for crimes against humanity, but without fully understanding the nature of the opposition forces, does the UN have the justification to approve a no-fly zone for their protection? ([link edited for length])
The UN claims they restrict their actions to those that are 'necessary and proportionate,' but what exactly does this mean? "The exact requirements of the contemporary 'necessary and proportionate' standard are far from clear. Presumably one must assess the justifiable ends of the use of force and then assess whether the actions taken further those ends without impinging excessively on other values" (Murphy, Sean 'Humanitarian Intervention: The UN in an evolving world order'). Since it is impossible to understand all of the possible ramifications and nuances of a particular conflict, there really is no way of measuring what actions are 'necessary and proportionate' measures for defending human rights.
According to Murphy, actions taken or approved by the UN in Liberia, Iraq and Somalia included the killing of civilians, defending insurgents that are sometimes considered 'terrorists' by the international community, and creating dependence on foreign aid (Murphy). These examples make it clear to see how these short-sighted solutions to complex problems can easily compound these same problems. Insurgent forces of today can easily become the oppressive regimes of tomorrow; supplying and protecting them gives them the ability to grow strong enough to create an even more violent conflict after intervening forces are gone. Also, killing civilians that apparently 'pose a threat' to the intervening forces is a violation of human rights in and of itself. A human should have the right to defend himself and his land from foreign occupation. If a citizen does not agree with 'humanitarian intervention,' what makes the intervening force any different from an occupying force? The answer is intent, but are the citizens of a country not allowed to question the intent of the UN and intervening forces? It seems clear that in these cases the UN is practicing what they believe to be unquestionable violent force, because the ends justify the means, and what makes that any different from a tyrannical ruler? The concept of making peace and defending human rights through the use of violent force is not only illogical, it is a violation of human rights in and of itself.
"Both UNITAF and UNOSOM forces likewise were criticized for firing upon Somali civilians. The nature of humanitarian intervention is such that unintended harm both to the intervening forces and the civilians they seek to protect is to be expected" (Murphy). If harm to civilians is to be expected, the UN is knowingly harming innocent people, and that is all the proof one needs to understand that they are in fact human rights violators themselves. The idea that, 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,' may be applicable here, but is that a legitimate way to see the world? With this type of thinking, minorities' rights are completely ignored. Because a Libyan citizens happened to support Col. Muammar Gaddafi's political ideals to the point of defending the system his leader created, does that give the UN the right to kill that citizen? Though there is evidence of Gaddafi's human rights violations, it is more than likely that the opposition forces are guilty of human rights violations of their own.
The United States' Role in Humanitarian Intervention
It is unquestionable that in a world where militarism and violence is seen as a legitimate method of spreading peace and stability, the global power that has the strongest military and produces the most weapons will be the most powerful. This can be seen in the history books concerning the Roman Republic and Empire. The Roman Republic promised wealth and security through trade and military protection to conquered lands as it expanded, eventually becoming an Empire. Of course, these annexed nations benefited immensely from their partnership with the Empire. Did the promise of increased stability and security justify Rome's violently aggressive actions in conquering neighboring territories?
Much like Rome was the greatest military power of the known world in its time, the United States has become the greatest military power of the entire world in our time.In his book "Liberty Defined," United States congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul states that, "The extent of our modern-day worldwide empire strongly suggests a similar pattern of the military independence enjoyed by Julius Caesar" (Paul). If we are to learn anything from the patterns of Imperial growth found in history--Rome, Britain, and now America--we must understand that initiating unprovoked military force--whether it be to improve stability, security, or human rights-- is an act of aggression. Paul, who at this time has served in congress for thirty years, also notes that many Americans, "believe we are only spreading our 'goodness' and democracy out of a spirit of benevolence." He continues, asking, "Even if this were true why would we spread such a message with armed military?" (Paul)
The congressman raises a good question. If America, with the help of NATO forces and the UN security council are bringing peace and stability around the world, why is there a need for militarism? Is it because there are no other solutions? Did Jimmy Carter not forge a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel without the use of violent force? What has happened to diplomacy and negotiation? The answer, as President Eisenhower would suggest, is that America has a Military Industrial Complex. "Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight" (Eisenhower).
Is lasting peace in sight for America so long as she involve herself in the conflicts of foreign nations? It would be one thing if all of the inhabitants of the areas that are supposedly stabilized by US bombs were grateful for the military actions, but the simple truth is that there are civilian casualties and those casualties are innocent people: family and friends of those who remain living in the places US troops have bombed. It is not logical to go into a nation, kill innocent people, and expect to not gain enemies no matter what justification one tries to give. It is not easy to convince someone that the attack responsible for killing her family was in her best interest and made her safer.
Noam Chomsky recounts the reaction to bombings in Afghanistan, "In late October 2001,after three weeks of intense bombing, 1,000 Afghan leaders gathered in Peshawar, some exiles, some coming from within Afghanistan, all committed to overthrowing the Taliban regime. It was 'a rare display of unity among tribal elders, Islamic scholars, fractious politicians, and former guerrilla commanders,' the press reported. They had many disagreements but unanimously 'urged the US to stop the air raids' and appealed to the international media to call for an end to the 'bombing of innocent people.' They urged that other means be adopted to overthrow the hated Taliban regime, a goal they believed could be achieved without further death and destruction" (Chomsky).
Though George Bush declared the War on Terror as a reactionary measure in retaliation to the World Trade Center attack on September 11th, 2001, supposedly committed by members of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden, it would seem that the War on Terror was nothing more than the launch of unbridled American militarism, citing the need to rid the world of terrorism--a concept that has no clear legal definition. Terrorism is widely considered to be the use of terror as a coercive tactic to gain military or political advantages. Since the World Trade Center attack is a case of terrorism, it can be used as an example of terrorism. This result of the World Trade Center attack was the death of non-combatant civilians and mass destruction of property; the exact tactics used by the United States in retaliation, but like the British and Romans before them, America justifies it's actions by taking the moral high ground. "States like (Iraq, Iran, & Afghanistan), and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world" (Bush). George W. Bush said in his 2002, State of the Union address. The need to fight terrorists is just the latest trend in convenient targets for America's military industrial complex. Before the terrorist threat, it was the Cold War. It seems that for the nation that has the most weaponry there is no end to the human rights violations and threats to peace in the resource rich nations of the Middle East region.
In his article On War with Afghanistan, Noam Chomsky writes, "The UN... pleaded with the U.S. to end the bombing that was putting 'the lives of millions of civilians at risk,' renewing the appeal of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who warned of a Rwanda-style catastrophe. Both appeals were rejected, as were those of the major aid and relief agencies. And virtually unreported..." He continues, "UN Food And Agricultural Organization warned that over a million people were facing a crisis that could lead to widespread starvation if military actions were initiated, with a likely 'humanitarian catastrophe' unless aid were immediately resumed and the threat of military action terminated. After bombing began, the FAO advised that it had disrupted planting that provides 80% of the country's grain supplies, so that the effects next year are expected to be even more severe. All ignored" (Chomsky).
The UN warned America three times of the humanitarian catastrophe that would occur if they continued bombing Afghanistan, but they did no listen. The US did not even acknowledge that 80% of Afghan grain supply was disrupted, which undoubtedly lead to food shortages. This tactic of destroying property, killing innocents and starving the entire population of a country because of the actions of a single rogue organization is terrorism on an Imperial scale. How is it that a nation responsible for committing war crimes of this kind is seen as being a force for good that has the capability to bring peace and stability to the troubled nations of the world?
It is arguable that the United States' foreign policy has actually been causing increased instability in parts of the Middle East during the decades prior to the War on Terror. In 1991, "President George H.W. Bush called on Iraqis to 'take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.' Although previous revolts had been brutally suppressed by Saddam... Iraqis rose to Bush’s challenge by launching uprisings in several Iraqi provinces... Saddam’s military forces, however, quickly squashed the rebellion, prompting a widespread exodus of Kurds and Shiites from the country" (Lyon). George Bush Sr. clearly called for the citizens of a foreign nation to rebel against their dictator, ignoring the possibility of failure and human catastrophe.
Not long after the failed coup, Bush Sr. launched Operation Provide Comfort, a no-fly zone over Northern Iraq, saying, ‘‘Some might argue that this is an intervention into the internal affairs of Iraq. But I think the humanitarian concern, the refugee concern, is so overwhelming that there will be a lot of understanding about this" (Lyon). President Bush's Operation Provide Comfort and the complimentary UN Resolution 688, which actually allowed Bush to order the operation, set a precedent in global politics that would allow the international community to ignore the sovereignty of a foreign nation in order to interfere with the inner-workings of that nation.
It is interesting, if not revealing, to note that President Bush Sr. is perceived to be the original cause of the conflict leading up to this new type of humanitarian intervention. It is relevant to point out that the people of Iraq have suffered over a decade of American military occupation since then. It would seem that there are quite a few unforeseen consequences regarding foreign intervention that should deter any responsible world power from inspiring rebellions within and interfering with the inner-workings of sovereign nations.
The Future of Humanitarian Interventions
Understanding the history and current issues concerning humanitarian intervention gives one a good foundation to begin to answer questions related to future negative and positive consequences. Questions like, what actions do intervening powers take that intentionally or unintentionally contribute to negative outcomes, and how can we avoid them in the future? How will globalization continue to change the way we handle human rights violations on the international level? What new threats to humanity will the international community face?
First, how can we avoid negative outcomes, like we have seen in Somalia and Iraq? In the case of Iraq there are a few clear solutions. To begin with, George H. W. Bush probably could have avoided the whole Kurdish exodus, and thus avoided the need for Operation Provide Comfort if he had not incited an uprising among the Iraqi people. This relates to the comparison of Rome and America; when the executive branch becomes too powerful, the words of a single elected official can carry tremendous weight, especially when that official is widely considered to be the 'leader of the free world.'
Another, more commonly discussed factor that lead to unnecessary militarism in Iraq was the role of the media in post 9/11 America. The widespread rhetoric concerning weapons of mass destruction was enough to convince the American people that Saddam's regime was a threat to the peace and stability, not only of the Middle East, but also of our own nation. "The propaganda approach to the coverage of events and issues by the mainstream mass media... points to a systematic and highly political dichotomisation style of reporting, aimed at serving important domestic political and corporate interests" (Shaw). Many critics claim that America's interest in Iraq and the region of the Middle East is primarily about controlling the world's energy supply, by controlling the major oil producing nations and not so much about human rights infringements, terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. An educated public, as opposed to one that is subject to highly politicized media coverage would go a long way in preventing unnecessary military action.
Seeing that international organizations like NATO and the UN are playing increasingly larger roles in the humanitarian effort to protect human rights causes one to wonder what further changes might affect our world as globalization advances. Alison Brysk writes in, "Globalization and Human Rights," "The emergence of an 'international regime' for human rights, growing transnational social movement networks, increasing consciousness, and information politics have the potential to address both traditional and emerging forms of human rights violations" (Brysk). Social media, increased awareness, and the politics of information have already proven valuable during to the global community, aiding movements like the Arab Spring, and Occupy Wall Street. It is likely that there will be an increase in these types of social movements, giving the inhabitants of nations that struggle with human rights violations resources for resistance, such as the ability to organize and inform themselves.
The future looks promising for the defense against human rights violations with technology like phones that allow one to catch footage and upload it instantly to the internet, social media networking and increased access to information. However, these technologies and others also help those who violate human rights. The threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may have been a false flag, but what if one of these types of weapons is actually used on a civilian population. It has been done before in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. The allied forces had fought a long hard war against the Germans and wanted a quick end to the bloodshed. It is easy to see the Ally's justification, but what if a weapon of that magnitude was used to initiate aggression instead?
"Treaties were negotiated to ban some categories of these weapons, but the threat of their use with horrifying consequences to humankind remains. Political initiatives, though relatively successful in some areas, have nevertheless been unable to address the evolving threats to international peace and security in the area of WMD and materials and technology used for their production. Existing multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation treaties in the area of WMD have yet to become universal or enter into force... recent trends, fueled in particular by fears of terrorism after the horrific attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, point towards a new dark age for disarmament as WMD and the means to deliver them spread not just to more states but to terrorist groups and other so-called non-state actors" (Thakur).
It is nearly unavoidable that a WMD will eventually be used again. How can this be prevented from happening? Western powers convinced Col. Gaddafi to disarm and end ongoing plans for new WMDs, which he did in hopes of repairing his ailing relationship with the western world. Years later NATO forces cleared by the UN protected and supplied the Libyan opposition who took Gaddafi into custody and murdered him instead of giving him a trial. If this is the way a foreign leader is treated after nuclear disarmament, it is no wonder Korea and Iran do not want to give up their right to arm themselves. It would likely be much better for the security of humanity if those who willingly disarm were treated with respect instead of being betrayed. Americans understand the Second Amendment of their Constitution well enough, there is a reason the right to bear arms was considered important enough to put in writing (Crail).
Conclusion
The concept of humanitarian intervention is dates back to the British Empire, but traces of it's origin can be seen as far back as the Roman Empire. Some say that it is necessary in order to defend the rights of humans abroad while others claim it is merely an excuse for undermining sovereignty and spreading empire. Globalization has brought humanitarian intervention to the forefront of foreign policy through organizations like the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It seems as though humanitarian intervention benefits the major military powers and manufacturers because it depends on the use of no-fly zones and other strong arm tactics where military dominance is necessary.
The United Nations has been involved in many humanitarian interventions over the past century. While there have undoubtedly been successful campaigns, these missions often decrease the stability and peace of a region or nation instead of defending human rights. The UN understands they must kill innocent people at times but many justify it claiming that the amount of people killed and rights violated would have been far worse had they not acted.
The United States of America, being the dominant military force of the world, tends to play a role when humanitarian intervention is needed, especially in oil-rich nations like Iraq. Like the British Empire, the American lead NATO forces are often criticized for their imperial tactics of military expansion under the guise of 'humanitarianism.'
The world faces many possibilities concerning the future of human rights and the act of intervening in foreign affairs to defend those rights. The international community continues to face the threat of WMDs, but there is no clear solution on how to handle that problem. With new technologies people can take the power of resistance into their own hands, relying less on foreign intervention and more on social change from within.
References
"International Comissions and the Power of Ideas" Thakur, Chandra, Cooper, Fenton, English, John
"Globalization and Human Rights" Alison Brysk
"Human Rights Journalism" Dr. Ibrahim Seags Shaw
"American Humanitarian Intervention: Toward a Theory of Coevolution" Lyon & Dolan
"Liberty Defined," Ron Paul
"Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" Noam Chomsky
"Humanitarian Intervention: The UN in an evolving world order" Sean Murphy
"Humanitarian Intervention: A History" Simms and Trim
"Humanitarian Intervention and the UN" Norrie Macqueen
"On War with Afghanistan" Noam Chomsky
Bush, "State of the Union, 2002"
Eisenhower, "farewell address to the nation"
"foreignaffairs.com" Luttwak
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
Sarah Oster (online article)
John Stuart Mill (university of beaucharest)
"The Fog of War", McNamara
"http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology" Peter Crail
Libertarianism is on the rise as can be observed by anyone who was paying attention to the last election cycle. For example, Ron Paul has struck a chord and has energized young voters from both the left and the right. Liberty minded folks should be very pleased with the recent progress of the liberty movement and should be very careful to not be complacent and miss out on opportunities to win over allies to the cause of liberty.
