HUMANITARIAN IMPERIALISM VERSUS INTERVENTION
Introduction
Any reasonable argument concerning humanitarian intervention roots ideas from the assertion that foreign military invasion is crucial where a state either allows or causes mortal danger to the citizens’ liberty and life to the degree that sovereignty got suspended. However, what remains clear are the controversial arguments on this topic; one side supports untrammelled state sovereignty, and the other side clings to the concept of individual security. The controversial nature of these debates led to the emergence of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP)and Doctrine in 2005(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).was an elaborate norm of the definition of a sovereign State and international community’s responsibility to intervene should a state fail in its responsibility (Klose, 2016). Immediately, critics attacked R2P, terming it an extension of Imperialism, because it was an alternative definition of the familiar concept of humanitarian intervention. Therefore, the discussed context fathoms the notion of humanitarian intervention as humanitarian Imperialism and argues it is not a valid assertion because if properly applied, it could serve to counter imperial forces.
Context
- Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect
In the early 90s, a series of humanitarian interventions led to the lack of debates regarding the legal and moral basis for Intervention (Ayoob, 2002) to the extent that famous scholars had to shift their attention and focus on this topic. Gareth Evans, for example, explored the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Doctrine in his interview with The World Today. Gareth emphasized that the ‘Responsibility Protect’ Doctrine, endorsed in the year 2005(Evans, 2006).The primary purpose of this Doctrine was to halt impunity for those perpetrating atrocities against humanity, such as those committed in Syria.
However, according to Robertson, the year2011 saw an increase in rebellion in the Arab World, which overthrew dictatorial regimes in Yemen, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. They shared a common purpose that was a demand for justice and democracy. As new atrocities against humanity rose worldwide, the R2P Doctrine increasingly became a reference, and Gareth addresses this point by citing the case of Kenya,( where is the reference of this case?) where humanitarian(Roland Paris 2014) intervention was justified and served as the basis for ending political violence. In 2008, Kofi Annan applied political mediation to defuse the ethnic outbursts and post-election violence in Kenya successfully, and no military force applied.However, R2P enforcement during Libya’s resolutions was from 1970 to 1973. Here, at first, Gaddafi’s emphasized that sanctions and attacks on citizens got condemned, however, when the first Resolution failed to halt the violence, Benghazi’s civilians were at immediate risk of a large-scale massacre. The risk necessitated the application of the second Resolution, which authorized the use of necessary measures to protect lives.What followed from this was a NATO-airborne military operation, which rescued thousands of civilian lives and is an appropriate example of the application of R2P via military force as a measure of last resort (Robertson, 2006, Chapter 11). If the same had occurred regarding Iraq in the 2000s and the Security Council acted decisively, the lives of thousands of civilians would get saved.
Humanitarian Intervention appliance was in 2003, during the presence of imminent large-scale killings and man-slaughter in Iraq. These activities caused sufficient ground for the foreign invasion as a humanitarian intervention, especially in light of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless past conduct. An invasion in Iraq was the last resort to stop the mass killings and was the last reasonable option to stop the ongoing Iraqi abuses.
Since the 19th century, there were already various forms of foreign invasion in the name of intervention, with some perceived as dubious and others rather benevolent. However, the debate had not intensified until the 90s (Robertson, 2006, Chapter 11). The Cold War might get considered as the starting point for this concept in modern times, where it got seen that the collapse of dozens of States and a surge in inter-state brought about the spike in need for international intervention.
Gareth observes from the example of the Cold War that the split emerged between the camp that believed the international community had the right to launch military intervention to strop atrocities and the group focusing on the traditional sacredness of state sovereignty. This mood and difference of opinion led to a new emphasis on humanitarian intervention, with arguments that were much clear on the need to safeguard civilians. During this time, Kofi Annan was the UN Secretary-General, and he belonged to the camp favouring individual security over state security. A good example was during his address to the General Assembly in 1999, where he said, “No legal principle, including state sovereignty, can ever shield crimes committed against humanity” (McMahon & Bajoria, 2013).
In 2000, decisive measures to evaluate and redefine the connection between human rights and state sovereignty had taken, as Canada’s government volunteered to host an International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). This commission constituted politicians, academics, and diplomats from across the world to discuss the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens from atrocities like ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mass killings (Robertson, 2006). Eventually, the members stated firmly in the ICISS report, titled “Responsibility to Protect,” rather than to intervene, and the Secretary-General appropriately endorsed this report. The report elaborated on the context of transferring the responsibility of a failed State/failure of a State to deliver on its responsibility to the international community. The report also emphasized that the international community was responsible for improving early warnings, reacting promptly to possible crises, and extending intervention past military victory until suitable remedies are implemented.
- Humanitarian intervention is not Humanitarian Imperialism
There are numerous reasons for invalidating the argument made by various scholars that humanitarian intervention is humanitarian Imperialism. The primary argument in this essay is that this is not a new form of humanitarian Imperialism. Of this particular type of investigation, there are two major facets involved. The ideological dimension focuses on the allegation that the R2P principle, under humanitarian intervention, is a new way of ensuring that the Western thoughts of human rights are processed into robust norms of international relations under which weaker States are controlled (Moseley & Norman, 2018). The physical dimension is concerned with the claim that the norm is a new way for Western nations to disguise their pursuit of geostrategic interests. The issue of state sovereignty permeates the concerns around both the ideological and physical facts. Thus, it will be discussed to make a case for why humanitarian intervention does not fall under the definition of Imperialism.
- R2P is not a Western Thought
Imperialism refers to an ideology or policy of extending a country’s influence and power over foreign nations, often through military force or gaining economic and political control of major areas. Given this definition, peripherals tend to be exposed to the influence and control perpetrated by these, centers culture being one of the most important relations. Usually, knowledge is transmitted between the center and the periphery. This implies that because the center is the sole source of teachers and the periphery the source of learners, then, automatically, this pattern leans towards Imperialism. The nature of the centre permits the periphery to deploy a humble strategy to gain more in return. As the periphery accepts cultural transmission, it implicitly validates the culture belonging to the center. In essence, this relationship reinforces the center as the most superior.
Humanitarian intervention is being framed as humanitarian Imperialism makes assumptions that are uncalled for. To begin with, the notion that States must protect their citizens is not distinctively Western, and contrary to what many governments in the developing world claim, it is firmly ingrained in their indigenous traditions and values than in abstract ideas of sovereignty derived from Western thoughts. The ICISS itself was composed of globally diverse members, and debates in capitals across the globe preceded the report. While the AU failed to practice this “right” (Humanitarian Intervention and AU-ECOWAS intervention treaties under international law), the adoption of the AU language offers enough evidence that the basis of R2P is a mutual agreement among states, which freely entered.
The R2P Doctrine under humanitarian intervention offers a strict prescription for Military Intervention, determining a “just cause” threshold, among other things (Chinkin& Kaldor, 2018). This threshold has set high because an intervention is only justified if it intends to avert or halt the massive loss of lives resulting from either a State’s failure to address it or intentional State policy. As clearly stated in the ICISS Report, the international community must intervene only when a State has failed its responsibility “to protect its citizens from ethnic cleansing, genocide, war crimes and other atrocities against humanity (Robertson, 2006). Therefore, the R2P norm does not legitimize military intervention to modify society’s structures that do not meet a set standard. Moreover, it does not lay down coercive measures of imposing individual rights concerning human security. In simple terms, the norm prioritizes individual rights over a State’s right to do what it desires within its sovereign boundaries only when the latter right seen as obstructing saving of large scale numbers of citizens from imminent death.
- Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty
Scholars are defining humanitarian intervention as humanitarian Imperialism base their claims of it being a shield for powerful states seeking to achieve their national desires globally. However, the primary element of the R2P Doctrine is attaching the condition of responsibility to the principle of state sovereignty (Harig & Kenkel, 2017). During the 90s, Sudan’s Francis Deng convinced the world that freedom contains a responsibility on the government’s side to ensure that its citizens are protected. From Deng’s perspective, civilians are such a vulnerable group, and they confront challenges that mostly originate from domestic issues. Therefore, the biggest obstacle to engage the international community is nothing but State sovereignty. The introductory part of this essay mentions that, in the 90s, a new climate of global security emerged, making it apparent that crises do not necessarily respect territorial borders, and international disputes had a spillover impact (Esslemont, 2015). With such humanitarian concerns, the need for international security and peace helped make untrimmed state sovereignty a priority on the global agenda. Such a new form of thinking that entailed a convergence of realistic and idealistic perspective is what developed into the R2P Doctrine.
Nevertheless, some states might be reluctant to ratify an international human rights convention. For many States, the problem is this convergence, not perceived as unfavourable but as idealism that covers up Western nations’ ways of pursuing their national interests. As a result, many countries in the developing world have developed cold feet, signing off their “non-intervention right” in return for the freedom of individuals. Moreover, as discussed by Robertson (2006), if humanitarian intervention is applied wrongfully, it could look at a weapon for Imperialism. It leads to one crucial question, what mainly makes the diplomats and politicians of various states, especially in the developing world, highly dubious about the R2P Doctrine? Indeed, shifting from humanitarian Intervention towards R2P makes the idea of international intervention in sovereign countries less provocative. The R2P is an elaborate replacement of the previous doctrines that legitimized military intervention, incorporating the just cause threshold and the right intention (Tesón, 2018). Weaker states believe that this elaborate framework is the most advanced guise for powerful states’ use of military force to pursue their interests.
Most developing nations are already fragile and thus highly alert when matters traditionally sacredly inherent in their domestic jurisdiction are opened for the international community to access. These states fear that the R2P is a tool for a biased denunciation of sovereignty and selective suspension of State sovereignty. This fear is neither empty nor uncalled. Powerful economies have been attempting to implement the R2P to legitimize their endeavours. A good example occurred following the Sri Lanka Civil War. A significant percentage of the international world criticized the Sri Lanka government, based on the R2P, because of how it handled the Threat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). According to the government of Sri Lanka, this was purely a matter of state sovereignty, and it rejected the referral to R2P. But, in 2009, The Rajapaksa government and Chilean diplomat, Jorge Heine, joined forces in responding to the issue. They argued that LTTE was equally guilty as the government is putting the lives of the citizens at risk, and the only way Sri Lanka could move forward was by destroying this terrorist organization. Therefore, the Sri Lanka case provides enough proof that the international community torn between what entails State misconduct, leading to the justification of humanitarian intervention.
Conclusion
Humanitarian intervention should not get termed as humanitarian Imperialism. It was created on a vast global basis and with adequate representation in Africa with Sudan’s Francis Deng contributing towards the concept of “responsibility sovereignty.” The Doctrine also focuses on atrocities like ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mass killings, requiring both intention and right authority. Therefore, it is hence not a weapon to legitimize arbitrary denunciation of third world nations’ sovereignty by more influential states as they pursue their national interests.