IR 701

Concept Paper 1: Humanitarian Intervention

Jocelyn Nicolas

A heated topic of debate in International Relations today is that of humanitarian intervention. Alistair McMillan defines this act as, “entry into a country of the armed forces of another country or international organization with the aim of protecting citizens from persecution or the violation of their human rights. (McMillan)”

While the premise of this concept is understandable, holding the best interest of others in mind, the implementation of humanitarian intervention has international communities up in arms.

First, there is ambiguity in what defines a humanitarian crisis in need of such intervention. Humanitarian attempts have been heavily criticized all over the world for either unnecessary intervention, or lack of needed intervention, resulting in a hesitancy and heavy consideration process when determining whether to intervene in a given situation or not.

Co-chair of the ICISS, Gareth Evans, attempts to outline the criteria that justify military intervention in humanitarian crises: “There must be serious and irreparable harm to the human beings in progress or imminent: either large-scale loss of life due to deliberate state action, in action or inability to act, or large-scale ‘ethnic cleansing’ carried out not only by killing, but forced acts of terror or rape. (Kiplagat)”

Second, as the international community continues to see and react to humanitarian crises, the act of intervention, whether necessary or not, is deliberately challenging our international sovereign state system. One of the major principles that the concept of state sovereignty is based upon is that of non-intervention. But could there ever be a situation when it would be appropriate to break these rules? Countless interventions have spoken for themselves in that states around the world think there are necessary times to intervene in other states, but when is this appropriate? And does this international trend of interference mark the demise of state sovereignty? Some are even asking if sovereignty even exists at all, seeing as the rules are continually being broken.

Michael Itnatieff explores this dilemma with the concept of “lesser evils,” which in this case would be ignoring national and international law in order to prevent a greater evil. (Kiplagat)

The United States has received heavy criticism on the topic of humanitarian intervention, along with giant international actors that they are involved with, such as the UN. The United States, and increasingly so in recent decades, heavily emphasizes human rights. Efforts to protect the rights of humanity are reflected both in major US organizations and in the personal lives of US citizens. For example, the Human Rights Watch, which took root in the US 25 years ago, has now spread worldwide.

This very organization, however, has criticized the United States for unnecessary intervention in Iraq on the basis of humanitarian grounds. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of the Human Rights Organization said that, “such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn’t be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past.” (MacAskill) The Human Rights Watch regards war as a last resort and that in most cases conflict should have the approval of the United Nations Security Council, although they realize that this is not possible in all cases, such as Rwanda. A second criterion for intervention is whether war will improve life for the population being invaded. According to these principles, they do not condone the war in Iraq for humanitarian purposes.

On the other hand, the United States received heavy criticism for not taking a leading role in intervening in the Rwandan Genocide. Rather than arranging an intervention, US officials resorted to public statements, organizing a ceasefire and contacting the RPF and interim government behind the killing. The US did use its influence in the UN, although discouraging a “robust UN response,” but even the majority of that action came too late. France finally intervened, with the support of the UN Security Council, and is credited with saving tens of thousands of Tutsi lives. (Ferroggiaro)

Currently, similar humanitarian dilemmas are ensuing across the globe, challenging national and international leaders to make difficult decisions concerning intervention and challenging the very foundations that our international sovereign state system is founded upon. The conflict in Darfur is a perfect example of this struggle. But even more voices than past incidents have joined in the debate of how to appropriately respond to, now commonly referred to as, Darfur’s genocide. Survivors from recent humanitarian crises, such as The Holocaust and Rwanda, have spoken out to pressure governments to intervene in ways that they did not in previous, justified situations. Rwanda survivor Freddy Umutanguha spoke out during a “Day for Darfur,” saying, “In 1994, the world left Rwandans to their fate and a million people were murdered. Today, the world must stop genocide in Darfur. We survivors stand with the victims in Darfur. We know what it is like to lose our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. We know what it is like to lose everything and see all who are dearest to us destroyed.” (Majendie) In the United States specifically, youth and young adults have also raised their voices to highlight such issues and to pressure our government to intervene in such crises, such as “The Invisible Children” organization.

Humanitarian Intervention, while attempting to offer life-saving and beneficent aid, remains a topic of heated controversy internationally. It will be interesting to see in the coming years whether the act of “unlawful” intervention will be harnessed by the international system, or if the international system will be forced to respond to a permanently justified form of humanitarian intervention. But for now, the debate continues.

Works Cited

Ferroggiaro, William. "The US and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994: Evidence of Inaction." National Security Archive 20 Aug. 2001: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .

Kiplagat, Nirina. "Darfur and the case for intervention." Ploughshares Monitor 26.1 (2005): n. pag. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .

MacAskill, Ewen. "Iraq war unjustified says human rights group." guardian.co.uk 27 Jan. 2004: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .

Majendie, Paul. "Global Protests Call for U.N. Intervention in Darfur ." Washington Post 18 Sep. 2006: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .

McMillan, Alistair. "Humanitarian Intervention." Answers.com. Answers Corporation, n.d. Web. 7 Oct 2010. .