CC BY
4Applied Economic Researches, SA LLC, 2014
"Humanitarian intervention": delusion or reality?
Zharkimbekova Zarina.
Karaganda Economic University of Kazpotrebsoyuz,graduate, str. Akademicheskaya 9, Karaganda city 100009,
Kazakhstan
Abstract
This article examines the nature of humanitarian intervention. The paper compares the two systems of international relations: Westphalian and post-Westphalian and how the concept of "humanitarian intervention" came to the front. Both cases "for" and "against" humanitarian interventions are discussed, and there is an analysis of each particular case where a humanitarian intervention was undertaken or should have been: Rwanda, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Darfur. As a result, the concept of "Responsibility to protect" is contemplated and the findings of this research are summed up.
Keywords: intervention; human rights; Rwanda; Kosovo; Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, United Nations; Responsibility to protect
Прикладные экономические исследования, ООО «Научный консультант», 2014
«Гуманитарная интервенция»: заблуждение или реальность?
Жаркимбекова Зарина Алматовна.
Карагандинский экономический университет Казпотребсоюза. выпускник, ул. Академическая 9, Караганда
100009, Казахстан
The collapse of the bipolar system of international relations produced an aggravation of wntcxcs and tntem&ioaal issues, which were nicac) ctTTf ¿rid ignored during the "Cold « ir* Lrrs-trsrjc conflicts constituted one of the main threats to international security in the 1990s.
The problem of "humanitarian intervention" is multifaceted; it includes ethics, international legal and military aspects. Instability in different parts of the world, failure in setting a durable peaceful and secure environment in the zones of conflict, failure in addressing large-scale humanitarian catastrophes as well as preventing large-scale civilian casualties during these crises, numerous abuses of a right for "humanitarian intervention" and many other deficiencies predetermined relevance of this topic. Practical application of this research lies in the fact that identification of real causes of failures in maintaining peace and security in all parts of the world would allow to take bring about radical changes that have to be made in order to establish a secure and peaceful settings throughout the world.
In the course of writing of this article different sources were used: principally scientific works of Bellamy A.J. & Williams P. "Peace Operations in Global Politics", Bellamy A.J. & Nicholas J. "Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics"; scientific articles; UN documents; reports, interview,
etc.
The goal of this article is to explore the nature of humanitarian intervention and answer the main question posed in the title of this article. In order to achieve this goal the following objectives were set: compare the two systems of international relations; examine both cases "for" and "against" humanitarian intervention; analyze each case where a humanitarian intervention took place or should have been taken: Rwanda. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Darfur; consider the concept of" Responsibility to protect" and conclude the results of this research.
It was the United Nations organization that was set up with the main purpose of protecting and preserving international peace and security. The UN Security Council is the primary body that can legitimize a military intervention.
Normally, a humanitarian intervention is defined as a use of military forces against another state or forces on its territory to prevent a humanitarian disaster or genocide of the local population. Sometimes it is also defined in terms of non-armed intervention having the aim of delivery humanitarian aid to the victims. However, in contemporary international relations the former definition is more of use. It seems to be a paradox since a "humanitarian intervention" in modern interpretation openly assumes use of armed force for humanitarian reasons.
Прикладные экономические исследования. №1, 2014.
The mere delivery of humanitarian aid while there is an explicit mass transgression of human rights to the point of genocide by today's standards seems as inadequate response. The nature of conflicts has changed after the Cold war, confrontation of the two superpowers. The "old" principles of absolute sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs of the states, non-use of force were set up by the Westphalian system of international relations. These principles were widely accepted until a set of developments occurred during and after the Second World War. During World War II more than 6 million Jews were slaughtered that made the world society
reconsider the principles of International Relations.
The traditional Westphalian principles were afterwards replaced by the Post-Westphalian system, which at present undermines the supremacy of sovereignty of the states and leaves room for intervention into the so-called «failed states» and countries at war where human rights are infringed. Such a shift, basically, has given rise to the practice of a "humanitarian intervention". Table 1 compares such characteristics as: non-interference, inter-state peace operations, intra-state peace operations and key advocates of the Westphalian and post-Westphalian systems [1].
Table 1. Westphalian and post-Westphalian approaches
Westphalian Post-Westphalian
Non-interference Unconditional (absolute) right of Conditional right (depends on meeting
sovereign states human rights)
Peace operations Most frequent (with the consent of the Less frequent
(inter-state) states)
Peace operations Less frequent (at the instance of host state) Most frequent (do not require consent of (intra-state) host state)
Key advocates China, India, Cuba, Non-aligned Western European countries, UN
movement Secretary-General
The principle of respect for rights of individuals is frequently in contradiction with the traditional principles of sovereignty, non-interference and territorial integrity. Therefore, in the system of international relations arises a deadlock condition. If look back at the history there have been numerous abuses of unconditional sovereignty: human rights were directly breached by their governments to the extent of mass cleansing. Should there be a norm of humanitarian intervention so that any state violating human rights of its citizens has to be punished by outside forces? Are there actually any cases when humanitarian intervention on truly humanitarian grounds can take place?
The advocates of humanitarian intervention believe that there is no case for prohibiting this right since the International law and UN Charter define human rights as one of the core values of the world society. They also refer to the fact that there is a legal basis for ban for intervention only in case of its intention to break the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity but not in case of stopping mass killings of civilians. There were many examples of intervention before the establishment of the United Nations organization, which were largely justified by necessity to protect religious minorities (usually Christians) in the territories controlled by the Ottoman Empire (table 2).
Table 2. Early humanitarian interventions
Intervening states State intervened Duration Target group
Great Britain, France, Greece 1827 - 1830 Greek population
Russia
France under the Lebanon (ruled by the 1860- 1861 Maronite Christians
supervision of the Ottoman Empire)
European powers
Austria, France, Italy, Crete 1866- 1868 Christians
Prussia, Russia
European powers, Russia Balkans (Bosnia, 1875 - 1878 Christians
Herzegovina, and Bulgaria)
European powers Turkey 1903-1908 Macedonians
The main argument in support of humanitarian intervention is a moral duty to protect civilian population suffering from oppressive regimes. There is the so-called "unwritten law" as well as religious dogmas that prescribe to protect innocent people regardless of their nationality, race, sex and other distinctive features. It is also about raising the authority of the intervening state in the eyes of world community in case of successful implementation of humanitarian intervention. Moreover, if centuries ago this idea would not have success, nowadays a humanitarian catastrophe in one state can have an immediate impact (e.g. economic, political) on others. However, apparently there will always be abuses of this moral right so that allegedly "sincere" intentions will be far from sincere [2].
At the same time opponents mainly allude to the Article 2 of the UN Charter: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means.... All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...." [3]. Another weighty argument against the right for humanitarian intervention is the fact that national interest is always of paramount importance even when it comes to mass casualties among civilian population in other countries. It implies that, initially, humanitarian grounds would never dominate over "selfish" national interests of states. One more not less forcible reason to oppose the idea of humanitarian intervention is high costs of national human resources in the form of lives of its soldiers and other military staff. The question of sacrificing national forces in the name of citizens of foreign country is hotly contested up to now.
However, if have a look at this case from the perspective of innocent civilians who die just due to the fact that the world society fear to confront the oppressive regimes, there will be a totally different truth. During the crisis in Somalia 1993 the USA got involved by sending its troops, whereupon 18 American
soldiers died and the forces were recalled. It suggests nothing but the idea that humanitarian aid can be delivered as long as national interests are not infringed. Otherwise a humanitarian intervention is to be stopped even at the expense of civilian deaths of the country at conflict. The case of Somalia discouraged the American administration from rendering humanitarian aid to the victims of Rwandan genocide, where only in a couple of months more than 800,000 people were murdered. Neither the UN itself nor the NATO nor the USA nor any other Western country gave an appropriate respond to this mass slaughter and did not save lives to those 800,000 people massacred in Rwanda. Only Tutsi insurgents could, ultimately, stop these atrocities. At the same time there were incursions in Yugoslavia and Serbia under the guise of «humanitarian intervention»
[4].
This practice also demonstrates another dilemma - selectivity in choosing the state to be intervened. Obviously, the choice will be dictated by national interests. Thus, Rwanda (1994) and Darfur (2003-2004), large scale humanitarian catastrophes, were left out of appropriate response from the world community, while Kosovo was immediately invaded by the US-led NATO forces. Some assert that a right to intervention gave way for powerful states to implement their foreign policy by intruding in states at conflict, concealing the real intentions. Thereby, the right for humanitarian intervention is advantageous for powerful and destructive for weak states.
There is also a fear about the principles that should govern a humanitarian intervention. There are divergent opinions on what represents large-scale transgression of human rights, the point at which outsiders have to take action. In view of this each state will interpret the same situation differently, in a manner that most favors the intervening state. And the last critique is based on the idea that human rights cannot be artificially promoted by foreign forces. The attempts on promoting human rights must be homegrown; otherwise they will not prove durable (table 3).
Table 3. Arguments "for" and "against" humanitarian intervention Arguments "for" humanitarian intervention Arguments "against" humanitarian intervention
Moral duty (protection of civilian population without Interference in the internal affairs of a state discrimination)
No legal ban for humanitarian intervention (with the aim Supremacy of national interests over global (pursuit of of stopping mass killings) self-interest, unreadiness to sacrifice the lives of own
soldiers)
Growing interconnectedness of states (each large-scale Abuses of a right for humanitarian intervention crisis has to be dealt with)
Selectivity in response to humanitarian crises Failure to set up durable peace and security
UpuKJiadHbie skohomuhcckuc uccnedoeaHiix. №1, 2014.
Humanitarian intervention is not only about . . mg human sufferings by stopping the bloodshed, • enng food, safe shelter, medical care and other . in a short space of time, but also identifying and .c:r;ssing the true causes of a conflict. Thus, a —-.unitarian intervention goes far beyond the delivery humanitarian aid to civilian population. As _ oerience shows short-term goal was attainable - what ,_nnot be said about long-term. It can be explained by persistent hostility and discontent among the
• erring parties, complexity of the very problems ..¿dressed (ethnic tensions, oppression of national -priorities), insufficient political will and aspiration of \-.e intervening states to set up a permanent peaceful environment, etc. As a rule, after withdrawal of forces
f intervening states the situation in the zone of conflict nly deteriorates: persistent disorders, ethnic tensions, igh unemployment rate, etc. Interveners fail to address and deal with internal problems so as to provide the civilian population with safe and sustainable settings [21.
The history knows a number of humanitarian crises but the United Nations approved only some few of humanitarian interventions. A NATO-led intervention in Kosovo was not authorized by the UN Security Council. What is interesting is that such lniversal organization as the United Nations neither sanctioned this military operation nor convicted it. xosovo conflict is one of the most keenly debated
• ipics up to now. Divergent resources interpret this conflict differently.
The figure of Slobodan Milosevic, who was the -resident of Serbia from 1989 to 1997 and later on the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from °97 to 2000, remains to be quite contradictory. Some Relieve Milosevic to be one of the main perpetrators of -•se dramatic events and an international criminal, there do not view his actions as criminal and consider
- m as well as his country, whose interests he defended
hard, the victims of despotism on the part of the US --d NATO. According to the second point of view, rriculated by a Russian diplomat Julius Kvitsinskiy [5], ; mic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, more nnicularly in Kosovo, were deliberately provoked and related by the US in the pursuit of the following : - ectives: preparation of international public opinion; :.rlovment of military intervention by NATO forces; . - .::-.ge of leadership as well as political and economic
- icy of Yugoslavia; final dissolution of Yugoslavia ird taking control over it through the European : - : rutions; rupture of strong friendly relations between : _->ia and Yugoslavia and, lastly, establishment of
Peace and security cannot be brought from outside, it must be homegrown subsequent military presence on the territory of former Yugoslavia.
The military operation in Kosovo set a dangerous precedent for international military interventions without getting UN Security Council authorization.
The intervention in Afghanistan (after declaration of the "War on Terror") was backed by the USA primarily with humanitarian considerations in order to justify this campaign in the eyes of the whole world community. However, in fact the Afghan civilians were not of great importance simply because the allied soldiers' lives were valued more during the military campaigns. Even the strategic interest in stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan, after it being incriminated of harboring the terrorist movement, could not provide this region with secure post-conflict environment.
Kosovo is not the only case when the Security-Council did not explicitly sanction the military action. Another occasion when the Western countries were conducting military operation without obtaining sheer mandate from the United Nations was the Iraq War in 2003. But the grounds for intervention in this case were different from the previous one: Iraq was allegedly accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Despite strong unjustified accusations, no weaponry of this kind was found in Iraq. The old justifications for incursion were replaced with new ones: the overthrow of the tyrant and protection of human rights.
Western countries, to be more precise Great Britain and US, justified their actions by referring to UN Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991, which called for elimination of WMD of Iraq under the guidance of the United Nations; as well as Resolution 1441 of 2002. which made threats of imposing severe penalties if the President of Iraq did not agree to uncover allegedly hidden weapons. There were subsequent unlucky attempts in 2003 to legitimize interventionist actions in Iraq but the two powers France and Russia were ready to veto any resolution sanctioning the use of violent measures.
Thereby, Iraqi case became another precedent where some powers bypassed the United Nations organization once more. The credibility of the United Nations organization, which is so hard to obtain and retain, was even more impaired. This case justified expectations of opponents of interventions on humanitarian grounds and one more time discredited the right for humanitarian intervention. The problem here is that there is high possibility that next time, when Rwanda-like catastrophes take place and there is
urgency of deploying military forces in the name of suffering civilian population, no one would give credence to the Western troops and, very likely, Western allies itself would not take initiative in rendering assistance without being fully trusted and motivated. That is what happened in Darfur case, during which more than 250 thousand people were killed. Just for the record, an armed intervention of great powers in Darfur would not serve their interests in Sudan [2].
All the cases discussed above, i.e. Rwanda, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Darfur, support the argument about selectivity of responses to different kinds of crises. Abuses of a norm of humanitarian intervention, pursuit of self-interest and prevalence of strategic and political interests over humanitarian rationale have brought about a backlash among "conservatives" towards the old conceptions of sovereignty.
Such a behavioral pattern of the Western countries in times of crises (Kosovo, Iraq) induced numerous phobias based on the fears that the United Nations organization would no longer have voice in international politics. These fears were confirmed by the following statement in National Security Strategy (2002) of the USA: "In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require" [6]. Here basically the US asserts supremacy of American interests over interests of others.
In general, there is a mixed tendency of United Nations, on the one hand, intervening in the states where mass transgression of human rights takes place and, on the other, being inactive in times of large-scale humanitarian catastrophes. However, one thing is obvious: no sovereignty can be an excuse and ignoring mass killings even if it is carried out by the legitimate government cannot be justified. In the National Security Strategy of the USA (2010) this thought is warranted by the concept of "Responsibility to Protect". The Carlsson Report "The Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda" (1999) has an indeed accurate statement: "Faced in Rwanda with the risk of genocide, and later the systematic implementation of a genocide, the United Nations had an obligation to act which transcended traditional principles of peacekeeping. In effect, there can be no neutrality in the face of genocide, no impartiality in the face of a campaign to exterminate part of the population" [7].
The conception "Responsibility to Protect" was adopted in 2005 at the World Summit and, as a result, the whole world took this commitment. There were
created criteria according to which it would be possible to determine whether military intervention is justifiable: mass casualties from civil population, "right intention", appropriate response (use force as a last resort), authorization from legitimate organization (primarily the UN), etc. [8]. In other words, a legal basis for application of the newly emerged norm was established.
All these criteria sound promising; however it is fixed only on paper, which always looks perfect at the first glance. It is not always about adhering to norms, but how the events are interpreted and enlightened to the public. Time has passed but the power remains the decisive factor in arguments. The most powerful the state is, the more control it has over defining the interpretation of the events and presenting it to the world community the way that most favors this state. To put it simply, the legal basis ceases to be the main impediment for the powerful state in the implementation of its foreign policy. Finding the loop-holes in the international law, UN Charter, resolutions and any other document is not a big deal for the prominent jurists. A powerful state has at its disposal political weight, control over mass media, strong economy, reliable and loyal allies, military superiority and superiority in many other spheres. Alas, all these attempts to impose commitments in times of crises cannot ensure in practice they are carried out.
If analyze the endless deficiencies and failures of states, organizations and international system in general to maintain international order, peace and security ubiquitously, there is a good reason to believe that inherently the international system consisted of numerous independent states is doomed to end up in crisis. There is no a universal powerful, authoritative, independent, impartial and, more importantly, supranational organization that could have standing force, facilities and resources at its own disposal and without fear or favor decide on the most important matters of international significance. Given that, there would not be abuses of right to humanitarian intervention, pursuit of self-interest, ignorance on humanitarian catastrophes. The world now is comparable to a rudderless ship having no defined track.
There is no doubt that the United Nations was created to maintain international order (although some would probably have), another question is whether this organization has proved to be effective in such matters. Does it seem possible to reach the "global governance" of the United Nations organization? Global governance means, above all, having control over all the subjects of the global system. The United Nations, unfortunately, does not. The dilemma lies in the fact that none sovereign state would hand over its so-much-protected
Прикладные экономические исследования. №1, 2014.
.lty. The United Nations as an impartial .-¿tion should be given greater weight on _ >nal politics and cease to depend on the will of -fee ireat powers. However, it cannot be achieved « the consent of the sovereign states. Since the '«_-_- nature is far from ideal this vision may seem to * i> Utopian. The possibility for change, in fact, lies a v. numan nature.
In conclusion, if look at the table 3 and analyze iC ■cases considered above there are good reasons to V: r.e that in reality a humanitarian intervention is i . an instrument of pursuing strategic interests, and T. " -manitarian rationale is the most effective and . - ncing justification for an armed intervention. Yet, t.-. is definitely a need in legitimate and genuine - unitarian intervention that, firstly, would prioritize -. protection of endangered population over self-r .-est, and, secondly, create stable, secure and >_ enable settings by detecting and addressing the root
causes of conflict. Kosovo case, Iraq war, Rwandan genocide, Darfiir catastrophe and many other cases clearly evidence the fact that hitherto the United Nations has not been able to deal with internal crises.
If analyze the geographical factor of deployment of humanitarian interventions it can be seen that overwhelming part of them are held at a sufficient distance from the great powers (the regions of Asia and Africa). It can imply that the question of effectiveness of humanitarian interventions relates to the strategic but not vital sphere of interests of these states. That is the reason of all the failures in giving an appropriate response to humanitarian crises. Based on the past experience it becomes clear that for the UN Security Council permanent member states the maintenance of international peace and security is more about "image" and preservation of the status of great powers rather than genuine intentions to "lend a helping hand" to the victims of human aggression.
References:
[1] Bellamy A.J., Williams P. Peace Operations in Global Politics. In: Understanding Peacekeeping. -t!bridge: Polity Press. 2010. pp. 13-47.
[2] Bellamy A.J., Nicholas J. Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics. In: Baylis J., Smith S„ Owens P. ~.ilization of the World Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. 2011. pp. 512-525.
[3] Charter of the United Nations. Chapter I: Purposes and Principles. //
- 7 www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapterl .shtml
[4] Posner E.A. The humanitarian war myth. The Washington Post. 2006. // http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-_ - content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901435.html
[5] Resheniya yest', nuzhna reshimost'. 2006. //http://www.cprf.info/news/articles/we/46112.html
[6] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. September 2002. //
- ::?:'7www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf
[7] Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. UN document S/1999/1257. 16 December 1999. p.50.
[8] Responsibility to protect: basic principles and core elements. // http://r2pcoalition.org/content/view/73/93
