Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention is the act of protecting people from degradation, deprivation and destruction physically, materially, socially and legally. The intervention is motivated by both altruistic humanitarian intentions and a philosophical paradigm that view individuals, communities and nation states as responsible to greater global ideals and humanity. Although the motivation to intervene and protect the rights of others is conceived or perceived as just, often the intention is obscured, at least in part for the benefit of the intervening party. Compounding the issue is the unforseen outcomes and consequences of actions that change one facet of a given situation yet create other problems more complex and insidious. Further to the issue
…show more content…
of intervention is the potential for abuse of power by the intervening force; this is not considered humanitarian or consistent with the motives for the intervention. The concept of humanitarian intervention cannot be divorced or viewed apart from the idea of human rights. Human rights underpin the motivation for humanitarian intervention.
Without exploring the historicity of the development of human rights, the specific codification of human rights is a modern concept that stems from a jurisprudence idea of justice for all and the concept is most evident in modern, liberal Western societies where the ideals of justice and dignity are deemed pillars of democratic life. Culturally individual human rights had limited importance; one never viewed oneself as an individual outside of the tribal sphere. Historically a human being is described as one who ascribes to the codes, laws and morals that society decrees, therefore there is no real individual but one part of a group; the individual absorbs the beliefs and the culture of the society in which they live. The tension for "modern man" is the disparity between those nation states that recognise and promote the rights of the individual and those states that do not.
Over time, societies have changed from communities that worked as one to individuals working for themselves. The wide-ranging effects of industrialisation, education and democratisation have lead to the sociological phenomenon of the autonomous, modern man. Modern man can choose privacy and therefore develop a sense of the individual. Human rights reflect a society that is autonomous, liberal and ideological. While not condemning society and the needs of the collective, the right of the individual to claim inalienable rights is important to all human beings and, regardless of a person's station in life, all are entitled to human rights and modern society is by its nature defined by its rights and freedoms. The tension between developed and underdeveloped nations is the view of developed liberal societies is that they have a moral duty to enlighten and intervene on behalf of the underdeveloped and oppressed. There is a sense of moral right that justifies intervention regardless of the broader political, religious and cultural considerations.
Australia is at the forefront of human rights advocacy with particular emphasis on the rights and protection of children throughout the world. Despite Australia's international child advocacy, there have been accusations of rights violations relating to Australia's indigenous peoples, refugees and the homeless. There have been national judicial enquiries and Royal Commissions into each of these issues, demonstrating the Federal Government's acknowledgement of the seriousness of these violations and a desire to tackle the underlying systematic causes of rights violations and it is considered that the standards of living, life expectancy, education, health and employment are significantly less for these groups than the Australia population as a whole (Healy (ed.), 2000). Humanitarian intervention can be tainted and influenced by national interest. National interest is described as the power of independence over the land it holds rather than the people it serves or the rights of the individual within that nation. Often it is difficult to separate the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective. The rights of certain individuals within a group or nation need to be considered against the rights of the nation to exhibit independence and a right to do what it likes within that sovereignty. In essence the thought of national interest is much broader and must include the rights of the people within the nation.
Mick Dodson, former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, suggests that human rights and social justice go hand in hand and in Australia this social justice is an expectation for all irrespective of their cultural inheritance (2000, p.
15). Many of the injustices against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are specific to them, for example land rights and the stolen generations issues. In response to these issues, the Federal Government has discussed the adoption of a Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 to protect the rights of children and protect them from abuse. The House of Representatives Official Hansard states that 'Australia wide, 29.4 out of 1,000 Indigenous children have been the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect compared to 6.5 out of 1,000 non-Indigenous children' (2007, p. 4) and the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in 'out-of-home care' is significantly higher than those of other children (2007). The Government understands that this abuse can have long-term effects on children and the introduction of the bill will ensure the protection of these children. The bill itself is an example of humanitarian intervention; the rights of the children are recognised and the Government is intervenening to see that these children are …show more content…
protected.
The Government has decided that the rights of children must be protected and as such justifies their position to remove children from abusive homes (House of Representatives Official Hansard, 2007). The fact that these children are Aboriginal is contentious. The motivation to protect children is just; no one would dispute this, the problem is, however, the history, culture and the contentious relationship between each group. The powerful dominant culture enforces its viewpoint on the less powerful, disenfranchised group. Coady describes intervention as the act of ‘one state or group of states’ to exercise its power to protect the rights of another without consent; intervention with consent is not intervention. Coady goes on to explain that some theorists believe that intervention is not contingent upon consent as this can often be coerced or false. To understand the fundamental motivation and philosophical underpinnings of humanitarian intervention, one must discuss ethical and moral nature in relation to intervening in another’s problems. Ethics are the list of ways to live by and morals are the reasons for living so. Often the thought of right and wrong is religiously based but the responses are often based on feelings and experiences. Ethics are often disassociated with religious beliefs and attributed to a natural law.
Tradition and the prevailing culture affect the way we live and behave and the ethics of the collective culture often transcend the way we should or should not live. This narrow-minded view precludes the intervention of another because of the rights of the community to behave the way they believe, which may not be they way other states believe it should be. Often cultures can be ‘intolerant rather than [have] mutual respect’ (Coady, 2002, p. 16). Our ideal tolerance precludes the thought of human rights and humanitarian intervention. But these views and values may only have a religious or specific cultural aspect and standing. Others may be universal in nature but controversial; there is a need to take on this diversity in considering the formation of ethics. Coady explains that morals should be viewed objectively and should not be subjective in the reasoning of the prevailing culture and the subsequent framing of foreign affairs (2002). This is viewed as ‘a narrow idea of national interest’ and can be distorted when intervening. One needs to be both rational and dispassionate in the analysis of a given dilemma.
There is an overpowering desire to correct atrocities of human rights violations but these can be surpassed by our culturally shaped view of morality rather than the ‘history and context in which they occur’ (Coady, 2002, p. 16). Sometimes our views of morality differ from others, their rights; values and morality are viewed through parochial rose-coloured glasses. Intervention on behalf of another’s needs to be done with care and careful consideration. In this case is the intervention in case of war justified? Coady cites Bryan Hehir as stating that there should be a distinction between war and intervention and that intervention is ‘more difficult to justify than war’ (2002, p. 16), even though the two are often similar in nature and can be played out the same. Many feel that intervention is smoothing the waters rather than a full-on attack to change a situation. Intervention and war are paradoxical and therefore careful consideration must be taken to assuage political violence when intervening.
Singer suggests that prevention is better than intervention (2003), but consideration needs to be made regarding the circumstances in which intervention should take place. He quotes Kant as saying that intervention by force should not be entertained in relation to the governing of another state; the importance was peace (2003). The argument against this is when the circumstances of any given situation ensure there is no option but to intervene. What criterion is there for intervention? Lassa Oppenheim believes that when the laws of state contravene the rights of the people that is the time that intervention is required; when cruelty against and persecution of ones subjects is prevalent (Oppenheim in Owen (ed.), 2003). Once the actions of a state shock the reasonable men and women of other states that is the time to act. Michael Walzer believes that despite the "shock" the flagrant disregard of human rights is not a reason to intervene. He believes in the sovereignty of the state to determine how its subjects can live and they should ‘struggle for freedom in their own way, within their own communal structures’ and states (Walzer in Singer, 2003, p. 106). Walzer challenges the paradigm that intervention, even in its most benign form, has been a means of gaining political power over another state; he asserts that it has not always been at the interests or benefit of the people of that state.
The United Nations on the other hand believe that mass destruction, torture, death and such atrocities are a time to act and intervene on behalf of the oppressed.
The premise is that although interventions will most likely cause a measured degree of destruction and death it is carried out on the view of minimising harm and to stop genocide which is the act of or 'intent to destroy a national, ethical, racial or religious group’ as outlined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Although humanitarian intervention can be justified it must be carefully considered when the act of intervention can result in war and casualties of the people they are trying to protect. Despite the moral and ethical reasons for intervening, other questions must be asked; such as how large is the group being persecuted? How serious does the threat to the people have to be before intervening? Do the rights of the individual outweigh the right of the collective? Is one more important than 100? Often these are moral questions in themselves and to some may not support human
rights.
Halperin outlines the contemporary political trouble in Kosovo that stemmed from World War I through to World War II. Halperin explores the political and military volatility of the former Yugoslavia and its strategic significance in the context of the "new Europe" and the causes of American leadership in the vacuum of European ambivalence and UN impotence towards Serbian fascism and genocide in the disintegrating Yugoslavia. He emphasises America’s reasoning for action against Serbia in the context that military intervention protects the USA itself through a vision of unity throughout Europe (2000). With the USA working together with their Allies, their highest ideal was the ‘protection of democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms’ (Halperin, 2000, p. 224). Both self-interest and the protection of human rights are advanced.
Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic, was the mastermind behind the wars in the Balkan States. Despite being warned by the West not to attack Kosovo, he did so nonetheless. He waged war on Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, the last straw for the USA was Milosevic’s oppression of the Kosovo people. The USA’s intervention was successful, after only 78 days of sustained precision bombing the Serbs capitulated. The next and more challenging undertaking was to rebuild the state, including establishing lasting peace throughout the area. Halperin’s view was that this rebuilding and reintegration of fractured state should be tackled not only by the USA but also by Europe as well (2000). Despite the USA's intervention, independence was not certain. In helping Kosovo rebuild and stabilise the area, the USA was protecting itself by helping Europe be secure. Working together with the European Union, Governments and organisations, the intention was to work with the leaders of the Balkan States to ‘attract capital, raise living standards, reconcile ethnic and religious tensions and promote the rule of law’ (Halperin, 2000, p. 229). Halperin believes that the USA’s intervention ‘by supporting democracy and promoting human rights, we contribute to a future of stability and peace throughout Europe’ (2000, p. 230), which in turn will go along way to preventing war and defending freedom. The other side of the coin is that many Serbs did not know about what Milosevic was doing and therefore couldn't understand why they were getting bombed. Their rights weren't being considered and the war has had a long lasting effect on them.
The advancement of human dignity, freedom and individual rights has and is being advanced by both the sword and the pen. The contradiction is that human rights are being advanced through war and violence often not for the benefit of people in the short term but in the long term. Intervention is by its very definition the 'strong' intervening in the culture, history and politic of a less powerful people. There are a plethora of dimensions to the motivations and outcomes for interventions by one group of people in the affairs of another group. The motivations range from righteous indignation and compassion to a broader geopolitical agenda.
REFERENCE LIST
Coady, CAJ (ed.) 2002, 'Peaceworks: ethics of armed humanitarian intervention', Definitions and Cautions, no. 45, pp 10-17.
Dodson, M 2000, 'What is Australia's human rights record?', Issues In Society: Human Rights and Civil Rights, vol. 139, pp. 12-17.
Halperin, MH 2000, 'Winning the peace: America's goals in Kosovo', in WJ, Buckley (ed.), Kosovo: contending voices on Balkan interventions, Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Healy, J (ed.) 2000, 'What is Australia's human rights record?', Issues In Society: Human Rights and Civil Rights, vol. 139, pp. 12-17.
House of Representatives Official Hansard 2007. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from
Owen, N (ed.) 2003, Human rights, human wrongs, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Singer, P 2003, 'How can we prevent crimes against humanity?', in N, Owen (ed.), Human rights, human wrongs, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Williams, G 2000, A bill of rights for Australia, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
of intervention is the potential for abuse of power by the intervening force; this is not considered humanitarian or consistent with the motives for the intervention. The concept of humanitarian intervention cannot be divorced or viewed apart from the idea of human rights. Human rights underpin the motivation for humanitarian intervention.
Without exploring the historicity of the development of human rights, the specific codification of human rights is a modern concept that stems from a jurisprudence idea of justice for all and the concept is most evident in modern, liberal Western societies where the ideals of justice and dignity are deemed pillars of democratic life. Culturally individual human rights had limited importance; one never viewed oneself as an individual outside of the tribal sphere. Historically a human being is described as one who ascribes to the codes, laws and morals that society decrees, therefore there is no real individual but one part of a group; the individual absorbs the beliefs and the culture of the society in which they live. The tension for "modern man" is the disparity between those nation states that recognise and promote the rights of the individual and those states that do not.
Over time, societies have changed from communities that worked as one to individuals working for themselves. The wide-ranging effects of industrialisation, education and democratisation have lead to the sociological phenomenon of the autonomous, modern man. Modern man can choose privacy and therefore develop a sense of the individual. Human rights reflect a society that is autonomous, liberal and ideological. While not condemning society and the needs of the collective, the right of the individual to claim inalienable rights is important to all human beings and, regardless of a person's station in life, all are entitled to human rights and modern society is by its nature defined by its rights and freedoms. The tension between developed and underdeveloped nations is the view of developed liberal societies is that they have a moral duty to enlighten and intervene on behalf of the underdeveloped and oppressed. There is a sense of moral right that justifies intervention regardless of the broader political, religious and cultural considerations.
Australia is at the forefront of human rights advocacy with particular emphasis on the rights and protection of children throughout the world. Despite Australia's international child advocacy, there have been accusations of rights violations relating to Australia's indigenous peoples, refugees and the homeless. There have been national judicial enquiries and Royal Commissions into each of these issues, demonstrating the Federal Government's acknowledgement of the seriousness of these violations and a desire to tackle the underlying systematic causes of rights violations and it is considered that the standards of living, life expectancy, education, health and employment are significantly less for these groups than the Australia population as a whole (Healy (ed.), 2000). Humanitarian intervention can be tainted and influenced by national interest. National interest is described as the power of independence over the land it holds rather than the people it serves or the rights of the individual within that nation. Often it is difficult to separate the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective. The rights of certain individuals within a group or nation need to be considered against the rights of the nation to exhibit independence and a right to do what it likes within that sovereignty. In essence the thought of national interest is much broader and must include the rights of the people within the nation.
Mick Dodson, former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, suggests that human rights and social justice go hand in hand and in Australia this social justice is an expectation for all irrespective of their cultural inheritance (2000, p.
15). Many of the injustices against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are specific to them, for example land rights and the stolen generations issues. In response to these issues, the Federal Government has discussed the adoption of a Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 to protect the rights of children and protect them from abuse. The House of Representatives Official Hansard states that 'Australia wide, 29.4 out of 1,000 Indigenous children have been the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect compared to 6.5 out of 1,000 non-Indigenous children' (2007, p. 4) and the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in 'out-of-home care' is significantly higher than those of other children (2007). The Government understands that this abuse can have long-term effects on children and the introduction of the bill will ensure the protection of these children. The bill itself is an example of humanitarian intervention; the rights of the children are recognised and the Government is intervenening to see that these children are …show more content…
protected.
The Government has decided that the rights of children must be protected and as such justifies their position to remove children from abusive homes (House of Representatives Official Hansard, 2007). The fact that these children are Aboriginal is contentious. The motivation to protect children is just; no one would dispute this, the problem is, however, the history, culture and the contentious relationship between each group. The powerful dominant culture enforces its viewpoint on the less powerful, disenfranchised group. Coady describes intervention as the act of ‘one state or group of states’ to exercise its power to protect the rights of another without consent; intervention with consent is not intervention. Coady goes on to explain that some theorists believe that intervention is not contingent upon consent as this can often be coerced or false. To understand the fundamental motivation and philosophical underpinnings of humanitarian intervention, one must discuss ethical and moral nature in relation to intervening in another’s problems. Ethics are the list of ways to live by and morals are the reasons for living so. Often the thought of right and wrong is religiously based but the responses are often based on feelings and experiences. Ethics are often disassociated with religious beliefs and attributed to a natural law.
Tradition and the prevailing culture affect the way we live and behave and the ethics of the collective culture often transcend the way we should or should not live. This narrow-minded view precludes the intervention of another because of the rights of the community to behave the way they believe, which may not be they way other states believe it should be. Often cultures can be ‘intolerant rather than [have] mutual respect’ (Coady, 2002, p. 16). Our ideal tolerance precludes the thought of human rights and humanitarian intervention. But these views and values may only have a religious or specific cultural aspect and standing. Others may be universal in nature but controversial; there is a need to take on this diversity in considering the formation of ethics. Coady explains that morals should be viewed objectively and should not be subjective in the reasoning of the prevailing culture and the subsequent framing of foreign affairs (2002). This is viewed as ‘a narrow idea of national interest’ and can be distorted when intervening. One needs to be both rational and dispassionate in the analysis of a given dilemma.
There is an overpowering desire to correct atrocities of human rights violations but these can be surpassed by our culturally shaped view of morality rather than the ‘history and context in which they occur’ (Coady, 2002, p. 16). Sometimes our views of morality differ from others, their rights; values and morality are viewed through parochial rose-coloured glasses. Intervention on behalf of another’s needs to be done with care and careful consideration. In this case is the intervention in case of war justified? Coady cites Bryan Hehir as stating that there should be a distinction between war and intervention and that intervention is ‘more difficult to justify than war’ (2002, p. 16), even though the two are often similar in nature and can be played out the same. Many feel that intervention is smoothing the waters rather than a full-on attack to change a situation. Intervention and war are paradoxical and therefore careful consideration must be taken to assuage political violence when intervening.
Singer suggests that prevention is better than intervention (2003), but consideration needs to be made regarding the circumstances in which intervention should take place. He quotes Kant as saying that intervention by force should not be entertained in relation to the governing of another state; the importance was peace (2003). The argument against this is when the circumstances of any given situation ensure there is no option but to intervene. What criterion is there for intervention? Lassa Oppenheim believes that when the laws of state contravene the rights of the people that is the time that intervention is required; when cruelty against and persecution of ones subjects is prevalent (Oppenheim in Owen (ed.), 2003). Once the actions of a state shock the reasonable men and women of other states that is the time to act. Michael Walzer believes that despite the "shock" the flagrant disregard of human rights is not a reason to intervene. He believes in the sovereignty of the state to determine how its subjects can live and they should ‘struggle for freedom in their own way, within their own communal structures’ and states (Walzer in Singer, 2003, p. 106). Walzer challenges the paradigm that intervention, even in its most benign form, has been a means of gaining political power over another state; he asserts that it has not always been at the interests or benefit of the people of that state.
The United Nations on the other hand believe that mass destruction, torture, death and such atrocities are a time to act and intervene on behalf of the oppressed.
The premise is that although interventions will most likely cause a measured degree of destruction and death it is carried out on the view of minimising harm and to stop genocide which is the act of or 'intent to destroy a national, ethical, racial or religious group’ as outlined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Although humanitarian intervention can be justified it must be carefully considered when the act of intervention can result in war and casualties of the people they are trying to protect. Despite the moral and ethical reasons for intervening, other questions must be asked; such as how large is the group being persecuted? How serious does the threat to the people have to be before intervening? Do the rights of the individual outweigh the right of the collective? Is one more important than 100? Often these are moral questions in themselves and to some may not support human
rights.
Halperin outlines the contemporary political trouble in Kosovo that stemmed from World War I through to World War II. Halperin explores the political and military volatility of the former Yugoslavia and its strategic significance in the context of the "new Europe" and the causes of American leadership in the vacuum of European ambivalence and UN impotence towards Serbian fascism and genocide in the disintegrating Yugoslavia. He emphasises America’s reasoning for action against Serbia in the context that military intervention protects the USA itself through a vision of unity throughout Europe (2000). With the USA working together with their Allies, their highest ideal was the ‘protection of democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms’ (Halperin, 2000, p. 224). Both self-interest and the protection of human rights are advanced.
Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic, was the mastermind behind the wars in the Balkan States. Despite being warned by the West not to attack Kosovo, he did so nonetheless. He waged war on Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, the last straw for the USA was Milosevic’s oppression of the Kosovo people. The USA’s intervention was successful, after only 78 days of sustained precision bombing the Serbs capitulated. The next and more challenging undertaking was to rebuild the state, including establishing lasting peace throughout the area. Halperin’s view was that this rebuilding and reintegration of fractured state should be tackled not only by the USA but also by Europe as well (2000). Despite the USA's intervention, independence was not certain. In helping Kosovo rebuild and stabilise the area, the USA was protecting itself by helping Europe be secure. Working together with the European Union, Governments and organisations, the intention was to work with the leaders of the Balkan States to ‘attract capital, raise living standards, reconcile ethnic and religious tensions and promote the rule of law’ (Halperin, 2000, p. 229). Halperin believes that the USA’s intervention ‘by supporting democracy and promoting human rights, we contribute to a future of stability and peace throughout Europe’ (2000, p. 230), which in turn will go along way to preventing war and defending freedom. The other side of the coin is that many Serbs did not know about what Milosevic was doing and therefore couldn't understand why they were getting bombed. Their rights weren't being considered and the war has had a long lasting effect on them.
The advancement of human dignity, freedom and individual rights has and is being advanced by both the sword and the pen. The contradiction is that human rights are being advanced through war and violence often not for the benefit of people in the short term but in the long term. Intervention is by its very definition the 'strong' intervening in the culture, history and politic of a less powerful people. There are a plethora of dimensions to the motivations and outcomes for interventions by one group of people in the affairs of another group. The motivations range from righteous indignation and compassion to a broader geopolitical agenda.
REFERENCE LIST
Coady, CAJ (ed.) 2002, 'Peaceworks: ethics of armed humanitarian intervention', Definitions and Cautions, no. 45, pp 10-17.
Dodson, M 2000, 'What is Australia's human rights record?', Issues In Society: Human Rights and Civil Rights, vol. 139, pp. 12-17.
Halperin, MH 2000, 'Winning the peace: America's goals in Kosovo', in WJ, Buckley (ed.), Kosovo: contending voices on Balkan interventions, Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Healy, J (ed.) 2000, 'What is Australia's human rights record?', Issues In Society: Human Rights and Civil Rights, vol. 139, pp. 12-17.
House of Representatives Official Hansard 2007. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from
Owen, N (ed.) 2003, Human rights, human wrongs, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Singer, P 2003, 'How can we prevent crimes against humanity?', in N, Owen (ed.), Human rights, human wrongs, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Williams, G 2000, A bill of rights for Australia, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney, Australia.