Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Devoken, Sep 23, 2006.

  1. Devoken

    Devoken On the Path-Off the Rails

    Hello fellow MAPers. I'm writing a paper at the moment addressing the claim: "Humanitarian Intervention undermines the sovereign state system." And I would love to hear people's general feelings and opinions on the subject. I pretty much have my paper sussed now but this is more of a 'warm down' exercise. I'll put my thoughts up here later, I'll probably be allowed to post my paper here (it's pretty short :D ) after I submit it if there is any interest. Otherwise I won't bore ya, I know not too many people have a pallet for the political around here.

    Anyway, in the meantime, maybe you could ponder these:

    What are the limits of state sovereignty?
    Does humanitarian responsibility transcend borders?
    Must sovereingty be absolute? Or can it be jurisdictional?
    Does international law undermine sovereignty?
    Do human rights provissions affect the nature of international law (in terms of attempting to regulate 'domestic' affairs rather then just governing inter-state conflict)?
    Is sovereignty a valid concept in the age of globalisation?

    Any other general thoughts would be appreciated also, but bear in mind I am a humble undergraduate. :eek:
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2006
  2. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP

    Some sovereign states deserve to be undermined.
     
  3. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Burma/Myanmar springs to mind.
     
  4. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    ....as do Sudan and North Korea.
     
  5. Thelistmaker

    Thelistmaker bats!

    Unfortunately the Sudanese ‘government’ has made a deal with the Chinese government concerning Sudanese oil. China a lot of oil from Sudan and thus will defend the Sudanese government and try to prevent the UN from making any anti Sudanese government UN resolutions.
     
  6. Devoken

    Devoken On the Path-Off the Rails

    That's right. China prefers a pragmatic, non-normative 'business-only' approach to foreign policy (except in the case of Taiwan).

    The main problem in Sudan at the moment is that the UN will not intervene without permission from Khartoum, but Khartoum has stated quite clearly that they will not allow a Western 'colonial' army in the country. And besides, the Janjawid millitias who the UN will try and disarm have done an excellent job of quelling dissent in Darfur, by simply butchering everybody who live there, men, women, and children.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2006
  7. Devoken

    Devoken On the Path-Off the Rails

    Oh yeah, here's another question to ponder:

    Humanitarian intervention in a failed state (as in Somalia); does a failed state retain sovereignty?
     
  8. adouglasmhor

    adouglasmhor Not an Objectivist

    What about recognition of splinter states like Republic of Somaliland that actualy have an element of stability about them should intervention consider them as part of the main state, or remain neutral as to their independance (which in not generaly recognised).
     
  9. Devoken

    Devoken On the Path-Off the Rails

    Yeah, drawing the line on Somaliland is difficult. It's definately a potential flashpoint between the ICC and Addis Ababa, but time will tell.
     
  10. Kwajman

    Kwajman Penguin in paradise....

    Well the humanitarianism issue could be addressed by the likes of "Doctors w/o Borders". But they've taken some serious personell hits lately with employees getting caught in the crossfire.
     
  11. Devoken

    Devoken On the Path-Off the Rails

    Exactly, they are not peacekeepers. This can be most clearly seen in the Sudan at the monent; Darfur is the UN's largest project in terms of humanitarian aid, but as Khartoum is blocking the deployment of UN peacekeepers the aid operation is extremely vulnerable to attack and the attrition rate of resources and personel is frighteningly high. In many civil conflicts, aid operations are recognised and left alone by all sides, but in Darfur they are actually targeted by the Janjawid. As the African Union is now planning to withdraw it's 8000 or so peacekeepers, these attacks are only going to become more frequent and the UN may be forced to scale back its operation. In any case, all the aid in the world could not stop the rapes and the killings, only peacekeepers have any hope of doing that.
     
  12. Pitfighter

    Pitfighter Valued Member

    I'm recently graduated with a Bachelor's in Political Science. American foriegn policy has been one of my favorite subjects. I'd have to say with all the research I've done on foriegn policy I ultimately think that one states should not intervene militarily in other state's affairs. Even in extreme humanitarian affairs. I think that states should only use their military in self-defence.

    Even in places like N. Korea and Sudan. N. Korea like Iraq is a violent dicatorship but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if hypothetically the U.S. overthrew Kim Jong Il the people would then turn on us. And this is not necessarily just with the U.S. (but usually and especially us). Whenever a foriegn country invades without the citizens consent they are viewed as occupiers and often times they are intentionally or not. Even if the invaders are good intentioned they will be scapegoated, the citizens of an invaded problem will project their problems onto the invaders even if the invaders invaded on humanitarian grounds. Freedom can't be given by another country it must be taken by a country's own citizens.

    In a place like Sudan I think there really isn't necessarily a good side or bad side. Unfortunately in ethnic conflicts and civil wars in general the wars get so dirty that atrocities are committed on both sides and conflicts tend to go on beyond their original reason. We might feel one side is victimized more than another and it may be true but often it is because one side is winning while the other is not. Sudan actually is pretty similar to Afghanistan or Somalia. There are various sides, constant conflict, and each at some point has been dominanted by one of the sides which happened to be anti-U.S. However there hasn't really been any clear indication that the sides we've supported have really treated the other sides with anymore humanity once they had our military aid. These people need to learn to live and let live from within not from without.

    Peace and freedom can't be given in my opinion. Many people feel that people in these country can't usurp dicatorships or create stability. I think that is baloney. Many people have gained independence and achieved peace virtually insurmountable odds. Usually that is the only way they get it.
    Examples for independence: India from the British Empire, U.S. from the British Empire, Haiti from the French Empire.
    Examples of conflict resolution: South Africa, Serbia (albeit after Milosivech was overthrown), Czechoslavakia.

    Although I don't think it ever a good idea to get entangled in other state's affairs I do recognize that some people need help. However I personally believe that intervening in state affairs is not the answer. If we truly wanted to open up our hearts we'd offer people asylum. But if you support that, and I personally do, "liberal humane countries" would really have to be prepared to be inundated with people. If these coutries were sincere they would be willing to take on all the fleeing refugees from all the countries with humanitarian crisis. But I doubt that is the case.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2006
  13. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    In a nutshell.

    The N. Koreans or for that matter the Iraqi's... don't want nutbar Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't mean they neccessarily want the US traipsing in and running the country either.
     
  14. Devoken

    Devoken On the Path-Off the Rails

    Pitfighter> The kind of humanitarian intervention you described and criticised is of the rarest kind: the kind that challenges established structures of power within a nation-state. You talked about instances where the U.S has intervened, picked a side and become entangled in intra-state conflict; these don't really qualify as humanitarian intervention (at least not according to conventional wisdom). There is a big leap from peacekeeping to active military operations that seek to actually engage an enemy. Peacekeeping generally does not pick a side; its purpose is to prevent all sides from fighting one another. The conflicts you referred to, I'm guessing, were proxy conflicts of the late cold war and not genuine cases of humanitarian intervention. Whilst I can think of a few cases of intervention that were genuinely humanitarian that have been met with little or limited success, I can think of a whole lot more successful ones. It is also important to remember that humanitarian intervention (like refugee programs) is not a solution to conflict, nor is it intended or widely held to be, it merely treats the symptoms and stalls conflict for (hopefully) long enough for a solution to be found. There is no greater tragedy in the world today than the one that is currently unfolding in the Sudan, with almost 300,000 killed and 3,000,000 displaced, and everyday there are more attacks. And the violence transcends borders; Janjawid militia have crossed the border into Chad and are continuing the masacre there. Deployment of a UN force is the only way to stop this long enough for Khartoum to try and regain control of the Janjawid. Otherwise, there will be another decade of blood, and then another...
     
  15. Devoken

    Devoken On the Path-Off the Rails

    Oh yeah, and I've also finished writing the paper. It's fairly short, only about 2500 words. If anyone is genuinely interested or wouldn't mind offering their critique, PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you.
     
  16. Pitfighter

    Pitfighter Valued Member

    Well, I picked U.S. engagements to highlight my underlying point that true long lasting stability can't really be achieved by outside forces. It needs to come from within the state.

    I understand that the UN has succeeded in some cases, perhaps E. Timor? (although that still is ongoing and has recently experienced civil strife)

    However I believe in most of the cases it was because the people within the state were sick and tired of either civil strife or had unseated their dictator. In those cases they needed not intervention but assistance which was clear if only from overwhelming public demonstration.

    The best example I can think of where genuine humanitarian intervention seemed to work was the US led UN mission in Somalia. Now this may seem like a tired example but I don't think most ppl understand what the mission initially was for. It was originally only supposed to be a UN convoy protecting aid from charities to Somalian refugees. It worked for the most part. Refugees embraced the mission and were aided. The problem seemed to come when there was "mission creep" in other words the US got overambitious and decided that it would be better to attack warlords instead of just defending aid convoys. (Sound Familiar?) This was going to far and stoked nationalist pride in support of warlords that average Somalis probably hated the day before.

    Ultimately I don't think that there can be any successful intervention without mission creep unless it isn't an intervention at all but rather is merely assistance towards people willing to overcome their humanitarian crisis.
     
  17. Devoken

    Devoken On the Path-Off the Rails

    I like your theory for the most part, but I would like you to contradistinguish 'assistance' from 'intervention'. I don't think we can continue until the difference is established.
     
  18. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Cool, I love a pop quiz!



    Theoretically there are none bar the ones set by said state. In reality everything goes pop sooner or later if limits are stretched too far.


    If those borders are my garden fence then yes. However most neighbours will tell you to mind your own business.

    I am absolutely sure you spelt it wrong, slip you are slipping!
    Yes to the first no to the second. I would assume it's absolute in unto itself by definition.

    International law - hahaha nice joke!
    The only time anyone bothers with it, is when it is their interest to do so. Turkey has 'illegaly' occupied Cyprus for years and no one gives a crap. Because it is not in their interest to do so. Now that it is (Europe) things are moving in the right direction. At last!

    Pass. This question is too hard. Also something doesn't look quite right with it, slip?

    What makes globalisation a valid concept ?
    Same answer.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2006
  19. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    err... hunh?
    Wasn't even my post. :p
     
  20. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Can you speak english please huh? :p
     

Share This Page