present their interventions and relief efforts as purely altruistic, the historical context, such as motives for imperialism, strategic selection of the deployment of their resources, and hypocrisy within their foreign policy reveals their desire to expand their interests behind the convenient mask of humanitarianism, which I will define as the genuine dedication to guaranteeing liberties and protections despite social or geographic boundaries.
Although all of us have spent quite some time researching these ideas based on our political affiliation, due to their abstract nature, I will define intervention as the dispatch of a military force to an unenthusiastic foreign state, and imperialism as a state’s desire and consequential actions in order to expand its influence through various means.
In contrast to the consequences of capitalism on a microscopic level where the bourgeoisie exploits the working class, nations seek to strengthen their political and economic power on an international level though imperialism, resulting in prosperous western countries having histories plagued by interventions. In order to achieve this, superpowers conduct their thirst for power with various tools, including “good cops,” such as missionaries, and “bad cops,” such as the military (Matthews-Trigg). From the onset of globalization in the 17th century, European countries initially exploited humanitarian ideas by sending missionaries in order to demonstrate that they exuded empathy from their pores towards the “inferior” inhabitants of their conquered lands, while paradoxically committing horrors against those who they perceived as in desperate need of their lovely blessings. Although many westerners are vaguely familiar with these historical events on a The White Man’s Burden level, many individuals cease to acknowledge that the West, motivated by capitalistic competition, continues to exploit humanitarianism as an astonishingly
corrupt weapon; however, I assume that this ceases to surprise any of us.