UNIT 6: Intervention
I chose Intervention because it’s the most current issue that is relevant to me personally. With globalization and the constant feed of information, we are more aware of human suffering and the lack of intervention by the UN and the so called world powers. This unit was the most upsetting for me, so naturally, I wanted to explore it on my own and see if my pre-conceived biases were true.
The case for Intervention by the UN and world powers has always drawn heated debates. How do we balance respecting state sovereignty while protecting evolving human rights?
This paper will look at past issues with humanitarian intervention and the evolving nature of intervention post 9/11. According to this year’s global peace index, the world is becoming less peaceful, with violence and civil wars more likely to happen, and terrorism at an all-time high. The question of UN intervention is on everyone’s mind. Why can’t the UN the intervene when it’s primary goal was to maintain peace and security?
To the global south, UN intervention happens when the interest of the west is threatened. Take for example the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the U.S went after terrorist where ever they were, and the more threatening terrorism became to the west the more funding the war on terror got in Afghanistan. There are humanitarian emergencies that do not or have not received equal attention or willingness to do something as the war on terror. For instance, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 was one of the most horrific mass murders in our era, and an estimated 800,000-1,000,000 Rwandans lost their lives. Despite the clear signals that a genocide was going to happen in Rwanda and the huge threat that this posed to Rwandans, the US, France, and Belgium decided to leave and let an estimated 1,000,000 Rwandans lose their lives. The difference between the war on terror and the Rwandan genocide is that terrorism isn’t limited to just the Middle East. But Rwandan genocide was, and that thinking is what is holding back the UN on intervention.
Let’s go back to the UN’s history of intervention in the past, in 1999 the secretary general Kofi Annan voiced the UN’s failure in Serbia and the horrible massacre of Srebrenica, when the UN let Bosnian Serbs overrun a safe zone where ethnic Serbs were kept by the UN to protect from the mass killing. The failures of UN intervention was mainly due outdated philosophy of UN intervention as Secretary points out ”These failings were in part rooted in a philosophy of neutrality and nonviolence wholly unsuited to the conflict in Bosnia.”. The core principle of neutrality in the face of conflict failed the UN back then and continues to have dire consequences to this day. The crucial lesson of Srebrenica was that any systematic attempt to terrorize, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means. But where are we with decisive means of intervention in South Sudan, Syria, even Ethiopia? Just recently South Sudanese army raped and killed South Sudanese citizens while the UN peacekeepers watched. The trend seems to be the UN must always stay neutral but looking back, the failures of past UN missions were mainly due to the UN’s willingness to not react fast enough to evolving conflicts.
Unlike the failures of UN missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a success story that embodies the true capability of the UN security council. The Côte d’Ivoire model of Intervention, where the UN prevented civil war and resolved the conflict quickly and with reasonable justification. The UN only responded when a violent civil war was evident, learning from the mistakes of Rwanda and Srebrenica. The Security council responded by getting rid of big ammunition depots and army tanks so it won’t be used to target civilians and helped the new government restore power without major changes. The result was a case study for future UN interventions. A case of assessing the balance between state sovereignty and adapting to changing paradigms of conflict. The UN reacted within its legal framework, responded quickly and extended a helping hand rather than invading a country with the probability of having WMD.
Looking at the above example, you can see what is wrong with the war on terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq The US’s main goal was to go after al-Qaida as Obama administrations said the main objective was “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”. But not to build an inclusive government that all Afghanis could recognize. The international community wanted to bring an inclusive group of participants to participate in the new government but they couldn’t include all parties because of U.S counter-terrorism policy that excluded the Taliban which was the biggest stakeholder. According to Barnett Rubin a reporter for the New Yorker, the Taliban leadership even agreed to a truce with president Karzai in return for amnesty and security but the US overruled it and then everything was about fighting the Taliban rather than state-building. How can you have a state if it’s biggest stakeholders are excluded? Per World Bank Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations on earth with roughly 70% of the population dependent on foreign aid to survive. Today the US have less than 10,000 troops and the Taliban have more territory than when we left, corruption is at an all-time high, suicides are more common and the afghan army the US trained to protect the nation are seen in Germany seeking asylum. The US went to war in Afghanistan for revenge rather than building a nation and promoting stability in the region, the US administration’s counter-terrorism policy counteracted against the UN’s goal of nation building and as a result, the nation of Afghanistan paid the heavy price of false hope and divided people.
As the former secretary of the UN Kofi Annan said “When the international community makes a solemn promise to safeguard and protect innocent civilians from massacre, then it must be willing to back its promise with the necessary means.’’. So far we have discussed the success and the failures of UN intervention and the overwhelming lesson is peace and stability cannot be forced but can only come from mutual understanding and dialogue. We must include all stakeholders to have an inclusive outcome. And finally, with the ever-changing paradigm of conflict, the one philosophy fits all trend should be avoided if we want lasting peace and stability.
Reflection
When I was registering for classes to take over the summer, I was too psyched to learn more about the great things the UN does for all us.
But as we dived more into policies and bureaucracy behind the UN I was heartbroken. Just watching some of the atrocities the UN watched happen made me give up hope in the United Nations ability to promote peace and security. I then came to learn about the Universalism and relativism idea and I was even more hopeless for what the future holds. I expected a high level of good track record from the Un but the failures are more common and don’t get me wrong the UN is doing a good job, fighting famines in Somalia and protecting civilians in South Sudan but that’s the extent the success go these days. The WHO is doing a good job but on the other hand where is the intervention for ISIS, prosecution for Assad regime. I have seen more and more human suffering in the last 5 years, and the only collective solutions have been to Ebola and the Iran deal. In a way it seems like the west and the world powers only care about things that might threaten their best interest.
The UN is a great step up from the league of nations but the degree of failures is far too much for me, to function in the 21st century with changing paradigms, the UN needs to keep up with the times. Especially on the Intervention part, although war and violence are never the best options, evil individuals will come and test the extent of UN tolerance to human rights abuse and intervention. It saddens me to say this but I lost faith in the abilities of the UN in general after taking this class. I was super excited to learn about the great things the UN did but my high hopes faded over time as we discussed the incompetence of the UN. The UN and International relations is my career goal, and I intend to bring valuable changes that better connect all of us to better advance human rights and more inclusive world. But learning about human rights and the UN I feel like the massive red tape and bureaucracy of the UN would end up undoing any changes I would ever make.
Thank you for the lively lectures, I loved all the debates we had over human rights and the anthropological side of HR
Bibliography
MARCO CHOWN OVED. “In Côte D’Ivoire, a Model of Successful Intervention.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 09 June 2011. Web. 23 Aug. 2016.
Rubin, Barnett. “What I Saw in Afghanistan.” The New Yorker, 01 July 2015. Web. 23 Aug. 2016.
Crossette, Barbara. “U.N. Details Its Failure to Stop ’95 Bosnia Massacre.” The New York Times, 15 Nov. 1999. Web. 23 Aug. 2016.
Carroll, Rory. “US Chose to Ignore Rwandan Genocide.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 31 Mar. 2004. Web. 23 Aug. 2016.
Walsh, Nick. “Afghanistan War: Just What Was the Point?” CNN. Cable News Network, 25 Feb. 2016. Web. 23 Aug. 2016.