The delicate nature of Humanitarian Intervention
The Rwandan genocide is considered by many as the time when the international community failed Africa. Ethnic tensions between tribes in Rwanda had been festering for years before violence erupted in 1994. The fighting led to the genocide of Tutsi’s for 100 days, resulting in the death of around 1 million Tutsi’s and forever scaring the face of Rwanda. No intervention on behalf of the international community was taken and as a result there stands the burning question of what if? Had the international community intervened would the Rwandan genocide occurred? Fast forward a few years to the peak of the Arab Spring, Gaddafi, the then prime minister of Libya promised in a speech to “inch by inch” weed out all those who opposed him (Hall, 2011). The international community haunted by their lack of action in Rwanda took swift action in Libya. Gadaffi was removed and yet Libya still suffers. Thus, this begs the question of the need of Humanitarian Intervention. In this essay, I will be analyzing the extent of duty countries have in intervening in other countries when they believe a violation of human rights has occurred. In addition, I will be assessing how countries can determine when and how to intervene. I will be using Rwanda and Libya as the bases of my analysis in accordance to theories such as “Just Theory”, “Responsibly to Protect” and “First do no harm” in order to discuss the many layers of Human Intervention.
Humanitarian Intervention is “the threat or use of force by a state or group of states intended to stop or prevent the violation of human rights in another state” (Beitz). The perplexity in regard to humanitarian intervention is taking a stance on to what extent a country is obligated to intervene and in addition whether an outside state even has the authority and right to do so. Foreign states have to tread lightly as the mishandling of information, military and resources can lead to an escalation of the situation after the intervention. At the same time lack of action taken by foreign states can lead to disastrous events such as a genocide occurring.
Humanitarian Intervention treads the line between upholding basic human rights of individuals while also respecting the sovereignty of countries. As such international laws set on humanitarian intervention has been on a constant shift in terms of setting boundaries on what is accepted. “In 1981, the united nations general assembly passed a resolution that highlights “no state has the right to intervene, directly, or indirectly for any reason what so ever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state” (Gibbs). Yet, there have been multiple interventions since this resolution was first passed. Hence, this brings us to question what the rights and duties of the international community are.
Henry Shue has outlined that states should have a limited notion of state sovereignty. While each country has the right to dictate how their own economies, government and internal affairs are run they also have “state duties”. The state duties stipulates that aside from their own rights, states have duties that constrain states behavior by setting their sovereignty to be conditional on a minimum level of respect for the human rights of their own citizens (Badescu). “As such sovereignty is not a natural state of political societies but a status conferring membership of the international system” (Badescu). If we agree with the fact that sovereignty is not absolute and accept that each state is responsible for maintaining the basic human rights set by the international community a violation of such norms can be the basis for intervention.
An argument that outlines the rights that countries have to intervene is “natural law”. This states that human rights have certain moral duties by virtue of their common humanity, its basic precepts are discovered by virtue of their reasons and is valuable to anyone capable of rational thought” (Gibbs). In addition, “the utilitarianism perspective is that an action is just if its consequences are more favorable than unfavorable to all concerned”( Gibbs). Hence, the basis for intervention by other countries is that they have the right to because they understand that basic human rights such as the rights to life and to liberty are being violated.
In the case of Rwanda, violence erupted after a plane carrying Habyarima, the Hutu prime minister and Burundi’s president Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down as it was flying over Kigali, the capital city of Rwanda. Ethnic division between the Hutu ethnic minority and Tutsi ethnic majority had been boiling underneath the surface for months and the plane being shot down was the last straw. Within hours of the plane being shot down Hutu militants, presidential guard and members of the Rwandan armed forces launched an offensive on Tutsi’s. Barricades were set up and anyone carrying a Tutsi identification card was slaughtered onsite. By the end of the 100 days of the genocide around 1 million Tutsi had been killed (History.com, n.d.). Amongst all the violence one must ask where was the international community amongst all this?
With such blatant display of human rights violation, it can be argued that the international community failed in their duty if one was to follow the “natural law”. In fact, “A U.N. Security Council vote in April 1994 led to the withdrawal of most of a U.N. peacekeeping operation (UNAMIR)”(History.com, n.d.). This can be argued to be a gross misconduct on behalf of the international community as not only did no outside states physically interfere but they had analyzed the situation, understood that people were being slaughtered in the thousands every day simply because of their ethnicity and still decided to leave.
The actions of the UN in Rwanda spurred them to re-evaluate the way foreign states and the UN itself must conduct themselves in situations where mass violations of human rights occur. The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), was a commission report released in 2001 that argued “that states have the responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, mass killing and ethnic killing and when they proved either unwilling or unable to fulfil this duty, residual responsibility was transferred to the international community” (Bellamy). The R2P commission report also outlined the three pillars that it was built on.
The first pillar states that the primary responsibility of the state is to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The second pillar states that not only is it the international communities to aid other states in times of need, but they need to help them in terms of figuring out what the underlying causes of the violence are, and be able to find ways to make sure that these issues are addressed. The third pillar outlines that the international community has a responsibly to help out another country in terms of being able to make timely and effective measures to protect populations through diplomatic, humanitarian, and peaceful measures. If peaceful measures seem not to be working then under what is allowed by the UN more forceful methods can be taken (Bellamy). The question that lays now is when does the international community decide when to step in? Military intervention if not organized and thought properly can in fact escalate a situation after intervening hence is there a guideline to use when assessing a situation.
In the original responsibility to protect commission report released the international community has a basis to intervene if there is a set of large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing, either “actual or apprehended”. It was outlined that four crimes such as war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing warranted international military intervention. In addition, the responsibility to protect act states that action from the international community is warranted when large scale violations of human rights is made but it stresses that it is only when states fail to prevent or put an end to the gross human rights violations taking place within their borders that the responsibility to protect falls on the international community, as a second tier responsibly.
The international community has to consider their reasons and justification for intervention. Humanitarian intervention that is not accordingly thought of in terms of considering how it will affect the natives during and after the intervention is essential. A set of principles that can be analyzed are the six principles called just war doctrine.
The six principles ask that countries evaluate if the cause is just. The aim of the intervention must be to help the population in need. Intervention must also be given authorization in terms of a go ahead from the UN, or any other intergovernmental body. It is also important to assess whether all other methods of intervention aside from military force has been considered. If military intervention is the best method then the intervening country has to ensure that the military action is in proportion to the violence happening. If the violence is in pockets in a certain region of the country, sending a very large army meant to fight thousands of people would be considered inappropriate. The last of the principles asks that the likability of the intervention being successful should be taken into consideration. There are some cases where intervention should be done because of violation of human rights but the intervention might result in a worse outcome. This is also where utilitarianism can play a part in decision making as the countries have to consider whether the good that can come from their actions outweighs the possible casualties that they can incur. Countries must also consider how they plan on aiding the country if the intervention is successful. Soldiers are trained to fight, shoot and patrol and do not have the necessary skills needed to run a country. It takes years for a country to rebuild itself from a war stricken period and as such if counter methods for after the war are not determined then it puts into question the feasibility of the intervention.
Taylor Seybolt outlines how humanitarian intervention have five principle problems. The first principle states that humanitarian intervention can prolong a war in three ways-by inadvertently supplying food and medicine to local fighting forces, by allowing others to use humanitarian aid as an excuse not to take a political stance, and helping the weaker party of the war enough to not lose the war but not enough to win the war. The second principle outlines that humanitarian intervention can make the war more violent and escalate a violent situation in three ways-by bringing in valuable commodes over which rivals fight; by creating refugee camps that act as recruiting grounds and rear bases for rebels thus expanding the war, or when foreign troops use their firepower to try and deter local actors. The third principle outlines how humanitarian intervention politicizes aid by forcing humanitarian organizations to interact with soldiers in the field and by treating aid as one of the methods that can be manipulated to bring peace and stability (Seybolt).
The last two principles outline that humanitarian aid distorts economies and creates economic dependence directed at the aid community and is not much related to military intervention. The last principle argues how humanitarian intervention inhibits strong state development (Seybolt)
Libya is a perplexing case of humanitarian intervention. During the 2011 Arab spring, there were massive protests in Libya demanding the resignation of the prime minister Colonel Gaddafi. Colonel Gaddafi amidst the country wide protests came out on national television and swore that he would initiate a house by house sweep in order to weed out anyone who opposed him. The united states led the international community’s response by initiating air strikes in addition to implementing a no-fly zone over Libya. While the intervention did get rid of Gaddafi there were no methods set in place to ensure stability after the intervention and as a result it created a political vacuum. Libya is currently thought of as a failed state. Libya has two governments fighting for dominance, the south has become a breeding ground for ISIS recruitment, and the North has seen a resurgent of migrant trafficking (chengu). When reviewing the state of the country one wonders if the intervention actually escalated the situation.
Hence, one must consider the conditions to justify intervention. Charles R. Beitz outlines five conditions to be jointly sufficient to justify intervention. The first condition states that “intervention should have a just, humanitarian purpose. The purpose or goal can range from being to stop or prevent genocide and large scale enslavement or expulsion of populations, to alleviate acute material distress, to restore a constitutional democratic government that was removed by force, to support an insurgent movement committed to human rights in an attempt to remove an authoritarian regime, to support a constitutional government fighting a revolution, to help an oppressed or subjugated group to achieve political self-determination.
The second condition outlines that the intervention should be supported, or at least not opposed by competent international authority. The third condition outlines that the intervention should be a last resort. The fourth condition stipulates that there should be a reasonable chance of success. Lastly, the conventional limitations of the jus in bello apply (Beitz).
Having evaluated all the theories presented I do believe that the international community has the right to intervene in another country if they see that violations against basic human rights are being committed. In addition, I believe they have “the right” to do so if the purpose for entering is primarily for the good of the people. I think it is essential that the countries have the same aim as the people in need because if their aims do not align, the intervening country will take measures needed in order to benefit their own need. In addition, I agree with the conditions Beitz’s set, as well as the just war doctrine theory. I do believe that countries have to consider facts such as whether the intervention will escalate or diffuse the situation, and the type of humanitarian aid that is used as well. I partly agree with the condition that says the intervention has to be authorized by the UN or an international body. The reason i say so is because the UN or an international body can be more rational, yet at the same time UN has failed to assist before when it was obvious an intervention was needed. Furthermore, the conditions set do not stipulate time in regards to how long the international community has to wait before intervening. Getting a go ahead from the UN can take a long time within which time the situation in a country could have changed drastically. In the case of Rwanda it was obvious that the violence was going to escalate and as such it called for immediate help.
In addition, i think intervention is justified if the intervening country has a plan for afterwards. It does not mean that they themselves have put someone new into power as this can lead to trouble in the future. However, if the country is willing to stay in the country and facilitate a peaceful transition it is justified. Hence, I believe humanitarian intervention is justifiable in cases where the purpose of the intervention is primarily to help the people in need, if there are no other options as such that by not intervening they are essentially condemning people to death, and finally in cases where they believe that the intervention will benefit the people and will be successful not only in stopping or preventing violence but ensuring stability after the intervention.