Humanitarian Intervention: A Tool for Western Imperialism?

Western Domination in the International System: Analysing Humanitarian Intervention as a Tool for Western Imperialism; Problems Surrounding Humanitarian Intervention and Potential Solutions (A Fictitious Report)

AIMS

This report has been commissioned by the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Humanitarian International, who are concerned with human rights in the global south.

Humanitarian International has requested a report that analyses the merits and weaknesses of critiques of Western intervention, so that it can frame its position on contemporary UN principles governing humanitarian intervention.

· It is often argued that humanitarian intervention is a form of continuing Western imperialism.

The report seeks to address these claims by presenting arguments for and against humanitarian intervention.

The scope of the report will not expand to discussions surrounding when and how humanitarian intervention should be deployed or whether intervention reduces the number of overall casualties in a conflict.

The report will analyse frameworks and existing evidence to enable Humanitarian International to frame its position on the contemporary UN policy of conditional sovereignty based on a state’s responsibility to protect its population.

INTRODUCTION

Humanitarian intervention is a contentious issue. Some argue that it is morally a necessary tool to protect the human rights of individuals. Others contest that intervention is merely a guise for the continuation of global Western domination.

The report will address the issues of whether the doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (explained below) is a necessary instrument to protect individual human rights or whether it is ineffective and exploitative.

It will discuss the theory that the prospect of humanitarian intervention can actually entice certain groups to provoke genocide against the people they purport to fight for, and provide a possible solution to this.

The report will also suggest ways in which post-conflict reconstruction can be carried out more effectively.

Examples such as the 1999 Rwandan genocide, and conflicts in East Timor, Bosnia and Libya will be used to support arguments.

METHOD

The report draws on a wide range of materials to construct its analysis and make recommendations. It uses university module texts to draw out the fundamental issues and ascertain starting points for the debates.

It will then make a broad analysis of the articles presented in the Open University, ‘humanitarian intervention bibliography’, before narrowing these down to the most relevant sources.

Audio visual presentations by relevant academic contributors have been used to obtain primary evidence.

Some non-academic sources have been used to provide information outside the scope of developed theories, such as NGO websites and online news articles. The report will also use a range of academic journals, some of which have been peer-reviewed, that have been narrowed down from a comprehensive database.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

BACKGROUND OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

Modern humanitarian intervention is justified on the grounds of a moral responsibility to protect a population’s human rights. There is a vast array of laws and state practices that govern its functioning.

Article 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations states that a fundamental purpose of the United Nations (UN) is, ‘to maintain international peace and security’ (United Nations, 2017a). Article 2(7) enshrines state sovereignty (United Nations, 2017a). However, Article 42 goes on to state that it may take actions such as ‘operations by air, sea, or land’ (United Nations, 2017b) ‘to maintain or restore international peace and security’ (Article 39) (United Nations, 2017b).

These doctrines that enshrine state sovereignty but also allow the prescribed operations to protect human rights, make the case for military humanitarian intervention somewhat ambiguous and conflicting.

In 2001, a report was ordered by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, out of which the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was born. R2P declares that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens from ‘genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing’ (United Nations, 2016). It also states that if a state fails to protect its population, ‘the international community must…take collective action to protect populations, (United Nations, 2016).

This addition to the global body of laws and norms has therefore made state sovereignty conditional on a state’s ability to protect the welfare and human rights of its people (United Nations, 2016).

In addition to the UN Charter, the African Union, which comprises of 54 African states (African Union, 2017a) amended its Constitutive Act in 2003 so that Article 4(h) ensured ‘the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State…in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity’, (African Union, 2017b). This is an interesting addition to the Act, as nations and organisations in the global south have often been averse to the notion of intervention (G77, 2000, paragraph 54).

DEBATES SURROUNDING HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENTION:

A strong argument for the existence of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is the emphasis on the importance of human rights (Damboeck, 2012). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that ‘everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person’ (United Nations, 2017c, Article 3).

From a liberal cosmopolitan perspective, all humans have an equal moral worth, (Bell, 2014). Liberal cosmopolitans tend to place human rights above the notion of sovereignty and, whilst they may not support a humanitarian intervention if the desired outcome is not achievable, they support the notion that humanitarian intervention is necessary if a state is failing to protect its population’s human rights. Many cosmopolitans also advocate the setup of post-intervention measures to enable a state to rebuild its social, economic and/or political spheres, (Walzer (2004) cited in Bell (2014) p.321).

East Timor and Bosnia are examples of where it can be argued that humanitarian intervention was successful in protecting basic human rights. During political unrest in East Timor, a winning vote for East Timor’s independence sent the country into chaos. It is estimated that within days of the vote, 7000 people had been killed and 300,000 to 400,000 had been displaced (Mydans, 1999). On September 20th 1999, the first intervention troops landed and quickly restored order. By October 31st 1999, the last of the Indonesian troops, that had occupied the land for 24 years, left East Timor, (Lachica, 2011). It is claimed that haste, superior organisational skills and military strength can be attributed to the mission’s success (Lachica, 2011). Radin (2014) interprets the purported successes of humanitarian intervention in Bosnia to be due to diplomacy backed by force that is dependent on the ‘military and political balance on the ground’. Also, in keeping with a liberal cosmopolitan perspective, Radin (2014) claims there is a ‘moral obligation to engage in a post-war mission to build peace’.

During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, approximately 800,000-1,000,000 people were murdered over a period of 100 days (Bell, 2014). This event became a ‘source of anger and shame’ throughout the international community (Bell, 2014 p. 313). Many believe that if the U.S and the UN had acted sooner with regards to humanitarian intervention, many lives could have been saved. The then commander of the UN Assistance Mission claimed that more troops at an earlier stage could have halted the genocide (Bell, 2014). Rwanda is an example of how a lack of humanitarian intervention can potentially result in many more lost lives than if humanitarian intervention had been deployed.

TREPIDATION FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION:

While humanitarian intervention and R2P may seem like an obvious solution to preventing death and the loss of human rights, many examples display that intervention lacks effectiveness. It is also argued that humanitarian intervention is a tool to engineer a modern form of Western liberal imperialism, (Bell, 2014).

Postcolonial theory seeks to challenge the practices of the West exploiting the resources of the developing world, and contest the legacies of colonialism, that it argues still exist in the current international system, (Czajka, 2014).

Chomsky (2009) cited in Gilligan (2013 p. 33), argues that R2P is a ‘civilizing mission’ and a ‘weapon for imperial intervention’, with Damboeck (2012) concurring this is so that the west can gain/maintain advantage in the political and economic spheres. For example, the conflict in Bosnia had been occurring for years before it affected Western interests. At the point where US interests were at stake, the US intervened and the conflict was resolved within 5 months (Radin, 2014). It is argued that the intervention in Libya was as much to do with securing oil resources as protecting human rights (Peek, 2011). So here we have an intervention in Libya that some claim was intended, in part, for US self-preservation, who’s legacy is that of continuing violence (Keranen, 2016). Libya demonstrates that humanitarian intervention as a foreign policy tool can potentially cause more harm than good.

Nzelibe (2009) argues that, where humanitarian intervention often increases the chance of rebel leaders achieving their political objectives, this can prove detrimental. This is because the rebel leaders may deliberately invoke atrocities against the population they are purporting to support, in an attempt to receive intervention. For example, before the 1999 Rwandan genocide, Tutsi rebels persisted with violent attacks knowing that aggressive retaliatory action was likely (Kuperman, 2004). Eventually, after 800,000 to 1,000,000 Tutsi civilians had lost their lives, the Tutsi rebels gained control of most of Rwanda and thousands of Hutus fled into neighbouring countries, (United to end Genocide, 2016). The genocide was accompanied by a delayed and very moderate intervention (Bell, 2014). After these events, the Tutsi’s were able to establish a Tutsi/Hutu coalition government (United to end Genocide, 2016), after decades of rule by the Hutus. According to Nzelibe (2009), Rwanda is an example of rebel troops provoking genocide on their own people to receive humanitarian intervention and gain political favour.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO CONSIDER:

If humanitarian intervention has been deployed by an international organisation, there is the consideration of how post-conflict reconstruction should occur. Kosek and Gizelis (2005) argue that the success of post-intervention peace building is highly dependent on local participation in the affected area. This is because even if local people support a peace keeping mission, feelings of exclusion may hamper reconstruction efforts. They use the examples of humanitarian interventions in Bosnia 1992-95, Bosnia August 1995 and Somalia 1992 (Kosek and Gizelis (2005) p. 370). The study found that in these examples, higher levels of post-intervention local participation and cooperation were ‘associated with lower levels of conflict’ (Kosek and Gizelis (2005) Abstract).

CONCLUSION - POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS/ACTION

Where cosmopolitanism supports the notion that every individual holds equal importance, the report recognises that some forms of cosmopolitanism can be considered to perpetuate Western liberal imperialism and its norms and values upon peoples that may not wish it. However, the report upholds the cosmopolitan notion that all individuals have an equal right to the human rights set out in the UDHR and it is not morally acceptable to allow/ignore genocide if there are measures that can be taken to prevent/stop it. Therefore, the report agrees that sovereignty should be conditional based on a state’s ability to protect its population. The report proposes an alternative to liberal cosmopolitanism known as a ‘cosmopolitanism of solidarity’ (The Open University, 2016), which, rather than a cosmopolitanism that perpetuates Western imperialism, is ‘one that works with (and in support of) progressive indigenous voices’ (Czajka, 2014, p. 412).

Bricmont (2009) argues that ‘the 21st century…does not need [a UN] that legitimizes…interventions by novel arguments, but one that gives at least moral support to those who try to construct a world less dominated by the United States and its allies.’ The report supports this notion. We recommend that Humanitarian International campaigns for truly altruistic humanitarian intervention and not intervention as a tool for foreign policy.

Whilst campaigning for an altruistic approach to humanitarian intervention, the report recognises that R2P is a current UN policy and Humanitarian International must, at present, work alongside the current laws and practices. The report therefore advises that Humanitarian International pioneers Kosek and Gizelis’ notion of a strong emphasis on post-intervention peace building that centres on local participation.

With regard to deterring genocide, the report agrees with Nzelibe’s theory that humanitarian intervention has the potential to provoke genocide, and recommends that Humanitarian International highlights Nzelibe’s theory of reducing benefits that rebel leaders obtain from humanitarian interventions, as well as potential lustration policies imposed if they are found to have deliberately provoked genocidal activities (Nzebile, 2009).

SUMMARY OF RECCOMMENDATIONS

· Promotion of ‘Cosmopolitanism of Solidarity’ values

· Support of R2P with a strong emphasis on the campaign for altruistic humanitarian intervention as the only acceptable form of intervention

· Engaging in post-conflict reconstruction with emphasis on local participation

· Campaigning for consequences for those who provoke genocide

Word count: 2075

REFERENCES

· African Union (2017a) African Union [Online]. Available at: https://www.au.int/ (Accessed 20th January 2017).

· African Union (2017b) ‘Protocol on Amendments to the Constitutive Act of the African Union’, African Union [Online]. Available at: http://www.au.int/en/sites/default/files/treaties/7785-file protocol_amendments_constitutive_act_of_the_african_union.pdf (Accessed 20th January 2017).

· Bell, D. (2014) ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, in Brown, W; Corry, O and Czajka, A. (eds) International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. p. 312, 313, 326.

· Bricmont, J. (2009) ‘Responsibility to Protect?’, Monthly Review, 3rd August 2009 [Online]. Available at: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/bricmont030809.html (Accessed 22nd January 2017).

· Chomsky, N. (2009) ‘Responsibility to Protect Panel’ cited in Gilligan (2013) ‘Redefining Humanitarian Intervention: The Historical Challenge of R2P’, Journal of Human Rights, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 33 [Online], Available at: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=bc99bd3a-0e5b-46be-8867-ba16bd59abe1%40sessionmgr4006&hid=4114 (Accessed 22nd January 2017).

· Czajka, A. (2014) ‘Theoretical Reflections: cosmopolitanism and postcolonial theory’, in Brown, W; Corry, O and Czajka, A. (eds) International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 398-412

· Damboeck, J. (2012) ‘Humanitarian interventions: western imperialism or a responsibility to protect? An analysis of the humanitarian interventions in Darfur’, Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, Vol. 6, no. 4, p. 291 [Online], Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17504971211279536 (Accessed 21st January 2017).

· G77 (2000) The Group of 77 at the United Nations, paragraph 54 [Online]. Available at: http://www.g77.org/doc/docs/summitfinaldocs_english.pdf (Accessed 19th January 2017).

· The Open University (2016) ‘Theory bites video 6: Vivienne Jabri’ [Video]. DD313 International Relations: continuity and change in global politics. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=846064&section=3.2.1 (Accessed 19th January 2017).

· Keranen, O. (2016) ‘What Happened to the Responsibility to Rebuild?’ Global Governance, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 331–348 [Online]. Available at: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8c0c7772-97c3-41c4-85fc-08b70a2262bd%40sessionmgr4010&vid=1&hid=4114 (Accessed 22nd January 2017).

· Gizelis, T and Kosek, K.E. (2005) ‘Why Humanitarian Interventions Succeed or Fail: The Role of Local Participation’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 363-383 [Online]. Available at: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/861/1/363.pdf (Accessed 21st January 2017).

· Kuperman, A. (2004) ‘Provoking Genocide: a revised history’, Journal of Genocide Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 61-84 [Online]. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1462352042000194719?scroll=top&needAccess=true (Accessed 22nd January 2017).

· Lachica, A. (2011) ‘Humanitarian intervention in East Timor: An analysis of Australia’s leadership role’, University for Peace, The Peace and Conflict Review [Online]. Available at: http://www.review.upeace.org/index.cfm?opcion=0&ejemplar=22&entrada=113 (Accessed 21st January 2017).

· Mydans, S. (1999) ‘Australian Forces Reach East Timor To Aid in Recovery’, The New York Times [Online]. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/20/world/australian-forces-reach-east-timor-to-aid-in-recovery.html (Accessed 20th January 2017).

· Nzelibe, J. (2009) ‘Courting Genocide: The Unintended Effects of Humanitarian Intervention’, California Law Review, Vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 1171-1218. [Online] Available at: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1b46b888-2fae-4e8d-8218-acbfdea4bf03%40sessionmgr104&vid=4&hid=129 (Accessed 20th January 2017).

· Radin, A. (2014) ‘The Misunderstood Lessons of Bosnia for Syria’, Washington Quarterly, Vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 55-69 [Online] Available at: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=51fc67f8-4911-455c-ac88-dedda952f764%40sessionmgr101&vid=5&hid=129 (Accessed 21st January 2017).

· Peek, L. (2011) ‘Libya: What’s Really Behind the U.S. Action’, The Fiscal Times [Online]. Available at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/03/30/Libya-Whats-Really-behind-the-US-Action (Accessed 23rd January 2017).

· United Nations. (2016) ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml (Accessed 22nd January 2017).

· United Nations. (2017a) Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html (Accessed 23rd January 2017).

· United Nations. (2017b) ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/index.html (Accessed 23rd January 2017).

· United Nations. (2017c) ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Article 3 [Online]. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (Accessed 22nd January 2017).

· United to end Genocide (2016). ‘The Rwandan Genocide’, [Online]. Available at: http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/the-rwandan-genocide/ (Accessed 20th January 2017).

· Walzer, M. (2004) ‘Arguing About War’, in Brown, W; Corry, O and Czajka, A (eds) International Relations: Continuity and Change in Global Politics, Milton Keynes, The Open University, p. 321.