Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention

We can save state sovereignty or we can save strangers. The problem with humanitarian military intervention is that it has proven to be only sometimes effective – not always effective but only sometimes. It is undeniable that humanitarian intervention has catapulted a huge moral dilemma into the international realm. Humanitarian intervention has turned into a constant tug of war between the preservation of state sovereignty or enforcing global peace and security. United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan stated, “Surely no legal principal – not even sovereignty – can ever shield crimes against humanity.” When combined with the dilemma of whether to utilize military forces, humanitarian intervention becomes even more perplexing. I will show
Intervention in East Timor is an example of successful use of military force to assist and protect aid operations. Foreign military forces were able to secure airports in East Timor for the safe transport of food and medicine supplies. As a result of these operations, an estimated 5000 to 10,000 lives were saved. However, on deciding humanitarian intervention, the lesson learned from past examples is that if there is a lack of moral resolve and political will then sustaining popular support at home will prove difficult. At the end of the day, military forces may be used as the last resort and there may even be a likely probability of success from these operations, but, when a state does not have a long term plan for their military operations, the humanitarian mission will fail or may even worsen the conditions of the country in need. For example, in Somalia, the humanitarian goal was to relieve human suffering by feeding the starving Somalians and by setting up conditions that would allow relief to flow. Political will collapsed as soon as the United States was dealt with combat casualties and Americans quickly withdrew public support for humanitarian efforts. The United States quickly launched military operations to facilitate the humanitarian effort, but the country soon discovered the limitations of U.S. power in a country where the support was unwanted . This is the consideration that must be taken into account when military force proves unsuccessful and local participation was minimal. A state should not intervene unless the state is prepared to persevere when the situation gets rough or if local support is absent. A state must also consider long term consequences, not just a short term fix. Military force may halt violence at the time, but it must also address the cause of the violence as