Monday, October 24, 2005

Humanitarian Intervention is Overhyped

The Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, The Democratic Republic of Congo, and now Darfur....Where are the blue helmets? What happened to legally binding international covenents like the Genocide convention? What happened to the importance of human rights, irrespective of where a human being lives? The UN has become useless because of politics within the security council (as if it ever was useful) and humanitarian intervention-- at least from the UN has been less than useful. We won't even get into the sexual abuse scandal of the blue helmets in the DRC. So what do we do with humanitarian intervention? Do we just let non-governmental organizations (NGOs) step in and pick up the pieces after a conflict, genocide, ethnic cleansing? Robyn Z., and Laura S., this week's guest bloggers have some ideas below.
(The above comic is from the Guardian ONline, Steve Bell, 2005)

Humanitarian Intervention, a purely laughing matter (By Robyn Z.)
Genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, another genocide in Darfur, these are all terms and places that we are familiar with. There have been countless stories in our nightly news or our daily newspapers, but even if the world has been aware of these atrocities, what has been done to stop them? The answer to this question brings up another term that we are familiar with, humanitarian intervention. There’s a problem, so let’s deal with it through humanitarian intervention, right? Wrong. Humanitarian intervention is over-hyped and in many ways a complete joke. The true is. If humanitarian intervention worked so effectively, then why would stories of genocides or ethnic cleansing, or any other kind of mass slaughter continue to grace our headlines on a regular basis?
Before we can call humanitarian intervention a laughing matter, it’s best that we define it, and yet defining such a thing is often quite problematic. After the NATO intervention in Kosovo, humanitarian intervention has become a new justification for military action. Nations have agreed to obligations to protect human rights, which is stated so eloquently in many covenants written and signed by members of the United Nations. So a broad definition of humanitarian intervention is an armed intervention in another state, without the agreement of that state, to address a humanitarian disaster, or the threat thereof, in particular caused by grave and large scale violations of fundamental human rights.1 In this definition there are two main components. Number one, the sovereignty of the state that is being intervened in must be breached. And number two. the desire to address human rights violations must be the driving force in the intervention.
Ok, so we’ve defined humanitarian intervention. Now let’s look at some cases where humanitarian intervention was supposedly used. First up is Rwanda. Many of us know that between 500,000 and one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were hacked to death by machetes during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The international community was shocked by what happened in Rwanda, but what did they do about it? Since the nation gained its independence, tension in Rwanda has always run high between the Hutus and the Tutsis. So in 1994 when tension in the government continued to build, after peace agreements were signed, it was excused due to ethnic disagreements. Government officials of opposition parties were being assassinated on almost a routinely basis, but, “The UNAMIR force in Rwanda did nothing, it became clear to those in the Habyarimana regime planning the liquidation of opponents that they could act with impunity.”2 But according to our definition of humanitarian intervention there was no need to intervene, there was no large-scale violations of human rights. “But even after the slaughter began the actions of the west seemed to almost acquiesce in-and perhaps even further- the killings: western governments sent in troops only to save whites, then they withdrew.”3 So, in the case of Rwanda there was humanitarian intervention. Nations intervened long enough to get their people out, and then withdrew before anything bad could happen. Because let’s not forget, Rwanda portrayed Africa, and Africa was Somalia, and no one wanted to repeat the events of Somalia.
So, humanitarian intervention didn’t go so smoothly in the case of Rwanda, but we all swore never again. “Not on my watch, wrote President Bush in early September 2001, in the margin of a report on President Clinton’s limp response to the 1994 genocide…”4 And still irony strikes, because unfolding on Bush’s watch is another genocide that the west has turned their back on. Ok, maybe that isn’t entirely fair to say. President Bush has actually done more than any other world leader. The Bush administration has been instrumental in bringing about the December 31st permanent cease-fire. So there has been some helpful humanitarian intervention going on in Africa. However, if the humanitarian intervention is so effective, why does the body count in Darfur continue to rise every month?
The International Criminal Court has not completely stood idly by either. They created, with permission of the omnipotent Security Council, a commission to investigate war crimes in Darfur. The commission, however, “…stopped short of finding, ‘genocide’, an especially uncomfortable word for European leaders who-for all their human-rights rhetoric- have not lifted a finger to stop the atrocities.”5 The truth is that China and France are more interested in protecting their Sudan oil investments, and Russia rather protect its Sudan arms sales, than the Sudanese people. Even neighboring African states have refused to intervention. But that’s ok; it’s better to have self-interests in mind than to save the lives of thousands of innocent people.
So looking at these two cases, it doesn’t seem that this lofty idea of humanitarian intervention really works. But maybe it does, when we look at a country outside of Africa. In 1995, there was a humanitarian intervention in Bosnia. Although the intervention saved thousands of lives, it still begs the question of if it was the right thing to do. According to journalist Richard Holbrooke the answer is yes, “But even in Srebrenica, there has been progress since my last visit five years ago. Then only 10 brave-one might say recklessly brave- Muslim families had returned to their homes…Today 4,000 Muslims have returned...”6 So things have improved thanks to humanitarian intervention. There is peace in Bosnia, not just a cease-fire, so perhaps sending troops was the right thing to do. But sending the troops, even as part of NATO, took a great deal of political courage since there was a widespread feeling that the mission would fail. The mission worked though and proved everyone wrong, and without that intervention Bosnia might not have been able to survive.
So let’s give a big cheer because humanitarian intervention worked! Why then are two wanted war criminals still free to live their lives in public? Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic live their lives and remain free of any sort of punishment for their crimes in Bosnia. Yet, if these men are not brought to justice the international security force that is stationed in Bosnia may never be able to leave, and Bosnia’s goal of returning to a multi-ethnic society may be delayed or permanently prevented. Perhaps it’s a better idea to hold back that cheer for now.
So, humanitarian intervention, it’s a great thought, but obviously not a practical idea. It may have worked in Bosnia, but wanted war criminals still roam free. And it was a complete joke in Rwanda, where humanitarian intervention meant save the white people and then get out. The lives of thousands could have been saved if the UN had provided sufficient forces during the Rwandan genocide. So, we said never again, but what about Darfur? Doesn’t that fall into the category of never again? Everyone recognizes that there is thousands of innocent people being killed and in some cases have gone so far to label it genocide, but no one has actually done something to stop it. True, there is a cease-fire agreement, but people are still being slaughtered and raped in Darfur, so really nothing has changed. So, in summary humanitarian intervention is completely overrated and over-hyped. Perhaps it’s a better idea to call it what it actually is: humanitarian NON-intervention.

CSS Strategic Briefing Papers. Volume 5, Part 1, June 2000. ISSN 11757432.
www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/briefing_papers/humani.html
Newbury, Catherine. Background to Genocide: Rwanda. A Journal of Opinion. Vol. 23 No.2, Rwanda, 1995. P. 16
Ibid., p.16
Taylor Jr., Stuart. Genocide in Darfur: A Crime Without Punishment. The Atlantic Online. February 22, 2005. P.1
Ibid., p. 1-2
Holbrooke, Richard. Forum: Was Bosnia Worth It? Post-gazette.com: A service of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. July 24, 2005. P. 1


"Humanitarian intervention is over-hyped" (By Laura S.)

Darfur. Rwanda. Somalia. The call for humanitarian intervention is thrown out often in discussion of world crises. However, what people consider humanitarian intervention varies widely. For example, some considered the war in Iraq a humanitarian intervention, a statement I think many in our class would disagree with. The official definition, adopted by NATO in 1999, is "an armed intervention in another state, without the agreement of that state, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights" (CSS). But the components of this definition, in my opinion, are what make humanitarian interventions so problematic (I think over-hyped is too strong an adjective). Too often, people talk of the need to "do something" without fully thinking about what needs to be done or the difficulty in doing so. I do not believe all humanitarian intervention is a waste of time, nor do I think that the United States should become isolationist and ignore the world's problems. But people forget the difficulties of humanitarian intervention, many of which the official definition hints at, in their calls for our government to take action.The first part of the definition says "armed intervention." This implies that any intervention needs some sort of power behind it. After all, compromise between two sides in a war, for example, happens "when both sides believe that they have more to lose than to gain from fighting.if compromise was not tolerable enough to avert war in the first place, it becomes even less attractive once large amounts of blood and treasure have been invested in a cause" (Betts 2). This is why some sort of force is usually necessary to achieve a desired goal. If one side or both sides felt the need to resort to arms in the first place, they are probably not going to be quick to lay them down. But even then, force behind an intervention is no guarantee of success. In Somalia, after the deaths of U.S. soldiers, Washington pulled out and left U.N. troops from other countries to finish the job (Betts 4). Even the might of the United States military does not guarantee success in another country's conflict or disaster.The next part of the definition says "without the agreement of that state." This brings up the question of sovereignty, always a touchy subject among nations. Most states recognize that "Without sovereignty as a fundamental principle, only international norms, balances-of-power, or domestic constraints would limit intervention in other states.preservation of sovereignty has been held up as an important component of a rules-based framework for international relations" (CSS). Because of the importance that is placed on sovereignty in world relations, states become much more hesitant to intervene in other state's affairs. This was one of the excuses given for lack of action in Rwanda (Lobel and Ratner).The third part of the definition is, "to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster." The threat of? This implies action should be taken before human rights violations have started or a disaster has occurred. Nations are reluctant to act even when violations have started, continued, and become genocide, such as in Rwanda. So nations are extremely unlikely to commit time, money, and manpower to the prevention of such a disaster. This unwillingness to practice disaster prevention is not just on the world level, as the failure of the levies in New Orleans in the face of Katrina illustrates. If we do not practice prevention in our own country, it is certainly unlikely we will be willing to practice it in other countries.Finally, the last part of the definition: "caused by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights." What about China, North Korea, Iran, even Russia? All of these countries have participated in some degree of human rights violations. The State Department recognizes that Turkey has committed "flagrant" human rights violations against its Kurdish minority, yet the United States considers Turkey an ally in the Middle East (Lobel and Ratner). Yes, some violations of human rights are more grievous than others, such as genocide or torture. But arguments could be made for large-scale violations of human rights in these countries as well-are we willing to intervene?As I said above, I do not believe that the United States should become isolationist and ignore the world's problems. But a lot of careful thought needs to go into any action taken. According to Betts, the United States does not have a good track record in intervention because Washington has responded to the calls for intervention "by remaining mired in indecision and hamstrung by half-measures (Bosnia), facing failure and bailing out (Somalia), acting only after a long period of limited and misdirected pressure (Haiti), or holding back from action where more awesome disaster than anywhere else called for it (Rwanda)" (Betts 5-6). This is a rather harsh characterization of United States intervention, but it does illustrate the problems that can come about during prolonged involvement in other countries and the necessity of careful planning.

Sources
Betts, Richard. "The Delusion of Impartial Intervention." Foreign Affairs. Nov. 1994.

Heindenrich, John R. How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars,and the Concerned Citizen. Praegar: Connecticut. 131-146.

"Humanitarian Intervention: Definitions and Criteria." CSS Strategic Briefing Papers.Volume 3; Part 1; June 2000.http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/briefing_papers/Humani.html

Lobel, Jules and Michael Ratner. "Humanitarian Military Intervention."http://www.humanrightsnow.org/humanitarian_military_interventi.htm

Smith, Tony. "In Defense of Intervention." Foreign Affairs. Dec. 1994.


5 comments:

Dr. D said...

There is an excellent Christian Science Monitor article on Darfur by Jeremy Barnicle that I've pasted below. The url is:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1025/p09s01-coop.html?s=hns

Help Africans help themselves in Sudan
By Jeremy Barnicle
WEST DARFUR, SUDAN - As a white foreigner visiting a displacement camp here, I was greeted with the chant, "khawaja no kwa." "The foreigners say no," they sang, meaning international intervention helped curb the violence and ease the suffering in Darfur. The song was a gesture of thanks and respect.

The wealthy world fulfilled the first part of its obligation to the people here when it finally started sending emergency aid over a year ago. The second part of that obligation - helping African Union (AU) soldiers provide security for the 2 million people driven from home by the conflict - would consolidate humanitarian gains in Darfur and, as important, serve as a long-term investment in the stability of the entire continent.

In Darfur, the international community - specifically NATO and the United States - has a unique opportunity to help Africans provide security for their own conflict zones. The village raids have largely subsided, and access for aid workers has improved dramatically in Darfur over the past year, but the countryside is now racked with lawlessness and warlordism. Neither the government of Sudan nor the rebel parties seem able to control the violence.

Within this challenging context, it is critical that Darfurians living in refugee camps start to go home and recover their lives. Peace talks between the government of Sudan and various rebel groups continue in Nigeria, but there is little hope of a durable political agreement in the near future. Meanwhile, the people of Darfur are stuck suffering between no war and no peace.

Their most basic needs are met in displacement camps, but the situation is unsustainable: The longer they are displaced the more expensive it becomes for the international community and the less likely it is that they'll ever get home to rebuild their own communities. Ask a Darfur refugee what she wants and inevitably the answer is "to go home, but only if there is security."

People will return to Darfur only when they have security assurances they see as credible, and that's where the AU force comes in.

So far, the AU mission in Sudan has surpassed expectations. Displaced women used to be terrified of leaving camps to collect firewood, as armed men would stalk the outskirts of town and prey on them. Now, women can time their trips outside to coincide with AU patrols, which deter assaults. This is a development of which the AU and its backers should be proud.

The problem is that there are currently only about 6,000 AU troops in Darfur, an area the size of Texas. The AU says it plans to ramp that number up to about 12,000 by 2006. That would be too little, too late.

In order to help get Darfurians back home and back on track in safety, the AU would need to hit that 12,000 as soon as possible and be prepared to send at least a few thousand more if necessary. The US and NATO are already providing important logistical and technical support for the AU mission, but standing up this larger force would require a speedy and substantial increase in their financial commitments. The US specifically needs to apply diplomatic pressure to ensure that our allies meet the pledges they have made to the AU.

That commitment is the least the world can do. Consider this comparison. Following the war in Bosnia, the international community secured the country - especially high refugee return areas - by providing more than 18 peacekeepers per thousand Bosnians. In Kosovo, the world came up with 20 peacekeepers per thousand people. In Darfur right now, there is one AU soldier per thousand people, spread over a much larger geographic area. That is disgraceful.

An increased investment in the AU's peacekeeping capability now would also advance a huge shared goal for Africa and the West: to help Africans protect Africans. Several of the continent's conflicts need sustained, legitimate, outside military intervention and history proves that the West is unwilling to commit its own troops in any meaningful way.

Some respected analysts have called for NATO to deploy its own peacekeepers to Darfur. That is an appealing idea, but the fact of the matter is that the government of Sudan will never accept NATO troops on its soil, and their presence could actually further destabilize the region.

An indigenous peacekeeping force legitimized by international support and conforming to international standards is critical to mitigating conflict, enabling humanitarian access, and easing human suffering in Africa.

• Jeremy Barnicle works for Mercy Corps, an international humanitarian agency working in Sudan and more than 35 other countries.

don said...

You know...all this Humanitarian Intervention and such is giving me such a headache. Countries too scared to committ and all the human suffering makes me want to just do...bleh! That said, I do care that there are people in the world are less fortunate than I am. In fact, statistically speaking, we (as in most western nations) are in the minority in terms of living well. For example, more than half the world still lives in poverty. But what I really dislike is the fact that people seem to throw around so many comments about "countries" doing this or doing that. That it's up to a particular leader of western nations, or any country for that matter, to lead the charge. Well...B.S. that! If anything, the burden should be placed on the shoulders of the citizens of the country. It's the citizens, the constituents that, in their vehement editorials, public protests, interpretation of the events via TV and Internet, don't give a darn about other people in other countries. The question, of course, is this founded? I don't know, since their events and such that happen within a country that have to be addressed themselves. Keeping that aside...why not send troops over to help somebody else? Scared? Don't want your son, your daughter, your mother, your father, your brother, your sister, your aunt, your uncle, your nephew, your niece to go over??? Well...again...B.S.!!! Holy smokes man...why not let the people in the uniforms decide for themselves? After all, one goes into the army because they want to help. Right? Oh wait...my bad...just to help their country...not others. Well...B.S. that as well! You want to help...then go out and do something. You want to not die? Well, I'm more afraid of dying by not having done anything than by dying while helping others in need. So, to answer the question if NGO's are needed. Darn tootin! Of course they're needed. Because their are still huge segments of the population that, pardon the language, don't give a rat's ass about anybody else. Self-interest? Darn right! But what about the self-interest of yourself in helping others? What about that? If anything, it's the NGO's that make the impact because they're made up of people that are willing to place themselves in positions and opportunities to help others. Not governments. Governments are too large, too buearucratic and self-interested in preserving their own ass. Oh well...that seems to be the world these days. So, NGO's are needed. Governments aren't. So wake and pay attention. Taa Taa

Kelly L. said...

I think that Dr. D's article from Jeremy Barnicle brings up an important point... he states that we need an "indigenous peacekeeping force legitimized by international support and conforming to international standards" in order to solve the problems of Africa. While that may be a wonderful, idealistic solution to the problem, the chances of this all-mighty and CREDIBLE international force is incredibly unlikely. There will never be an organization big enough to actually do some good and supported enough that they would have any type of power. Nations are out to protect their national interest. That said, isn't humanitarian intervention by individual nations the only chance we, as humans, have to help one another? Face it, there is no big-bad group of UN workers coming to the rescue of victims in Darfur and other African nations that will have enough support to stop the genocide... so shouldn't we stop whining that humanitarian intervention is overhyped? As I see it, a better solution hasn't been found yet, and its better to do something then to do nothing. If nothing else... at least we're trying.

MadMax said...

It's good to see that the stars are aligning in the proper formation. I'm talking about the defrocking of the Reverend Beth Stroud. It's unbelievable that a lesbian would consider preaching the word of God!

Kelly L. said...

Madmax,

I think I speak for quite a few people who comment on this blog when I say, your comments would have much more worth if you tried to thoughtfully post ideas that encourage educational growth rather than simply blurting out homophobic comments that have nothing to do with the topics being discussed... As I see it, random unrelated comments only serve one purpose, to get a rise out of people. Is that what you need, Madmax, some sort of attention? I think it would be worth it for you to read some of the other topics we are discussing on this blog and comment on them rather than turning every issue into a sexual orientation debate. You're beating a dead horse.