Validity of Humanitarian intervention? - Page 2

Posted: 9 years ago
Independent UN: The UN exists because countries want it to. The day powerful nations decide it shouldn't, it would cease to exist like the League of Nations. Economy is the substructure of any institution. Wealthier nations will always have an upper hand and influence decisions for their benefit. No two can be equally competent at a given time. Besides, any country can reject membership or get kicked out. The UN regulations apply to signatory members (a lot of them don't follow these regulations). Like all other institutions, it has become a toy. In my opinion, removal of Veto power system will place all member countries on an equal footing (of course not in absolute terms). 

Countries would have to foresake greed and desire for hegemony for the UN to function 'neutrally', which I don't see happening in the near future. The Holy Roman Empire disintegrated with the rise of nation-states. Similarly, an independent UN strips away sovereignty and no country wants that. 

- Economic sanctions don't always prevent war (Russia-Ukraine and Syria) and can, contrarily, lead to one (Germany after WWI).
- Nuclear strength doesn't prevent war, India-Pakistan. It can end a war with a nuclear-less country but can also make things worse.
- Ceasefire can mean the involved countries would bicker for the next 100 years and devote resources (at the tax payers' cost) to win the race for armament. People in disputed territories would live in misery while remaining citizens sing to nationalist sentiments as any mention of separation is equivalent to treason. It also breeds terrorism and insurgency.
- Taking an issue to the UN isn't always helpful either. The countries involved need not agree to everything and can walk out (Japan-League). Sometimes, disputes escalate as other countries try to secure their interests. Example: Kashmir issue, probably would have been resolved years ago, had it not been brought to the UN. 
- Some say Democracy is a solution as the government is accountable to the people. Again, not always true. Today, most democratic countries are oligarchies and if a lobby wants oil, they attack oil-rich countries. 
- What about non-governmental agencies? They don't have to answer to the UN or worry about economic sanctions. In most parts of the world, conflict is with NGAs. 
- Policy of appeasement is sometimes followed, hoping the aggressor would quit soon, once it's conquered a few territories. Unfortunately, Hitler never stopped.
- Cultural imperialism? Teach people about Gandhi so that they adopt non-violent methods to get what they want? It has been successful (South America) but has also failed.
- Some say there is conflict because of anarchy at the international level. Perhaps, it would help to get an international government (federal structure) but the concept is very utopian. Even then, a peaceful world isn't guaranteed.
- For territories fighting for independence, make them a UN mandate for 10-15 years and see if they can function as an independent state. If yes, you get a new country. Plebiscite is another solution for these people. In reality, such measures lead to increased secessionist demands and fragmentation and loss of sovereignty and integrity (and resourceful areas). Therefore, countries are reluctant and put up a fight.
- Public shaming of the aggressor by international bodies. Again, not always successful.
- Arms race can go both ways. People originally thought it would prevent but hasn't so far.

There are no hard and fast rules to avoid/end conflict. What applies to one story need not apply to another. A combination of potential solutions needs to be tried out. Each story has to be understood in its historical, cultural, political...context. Wars don't begin overnight. They are the result of a long drawn out process, that could have been nipped in the bud but wasn't. One group doesn't understand a different group's story that well. Even if they do, their interests and problems are superior.

Solutions don't guarantee stability. Stability depends on what people make of solutions. Egypt was given democracy but it made a different use of it. South slavs were given Yugoslavia and they did what they wanted to do with it. 
Edited by lalalee - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
What calls for humanitarian intervention??
how do we know its devoid of any personal agenda??

who should one intervene for??

we have UN which is nothing but a sitting puppet in the hands of US.

right now there is israel bombing in ghaza and russia attacking in ukraine. then we have the malayasian airline gunned down, a very unfortunate and distastrous collateral damage.

But we see appeals and no intervention.
Posted: 9 years ago
@Lalalee
For now we are only aware of one successful case of humanitarian intervention which was during Kenyan unrest. It was also more about diplomatic  and political aid than a military action. 

R2P (Responsibility to protect) by it's definition is very ambiguous , which states- If a state fails to protect it's citizens ,it then becomes the responsibility of the international community to protect that state's population in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It includes use of military force by the international community if peaceful measures prove inadequate. The UN outcome document was unanimously adopted by all member states but is not legally binding.

Now the application of R2P has significantly been misused in most cases especially since Libyan intervention. R2P is not solely about military intervention and should be the last resort , if at all. 
R2P also includes "responsibility to prevent" and the "responsibility to rebuild" . 

Independent UN- The configuration of power will always be dependent on economics. It would always favor the "rich" nations because of their contributing power, which is similar to how things usually operate in the world, otherwise. The key would be like you mentioned , in dismantling the power block i.e. permanent chairs of security council by removing the veto power and letting the whole structure be democratic. But I very  much doubt if it could be achieved considering the big 5 won't want to let go of this power as it gives them a leverage . UN has it's hands tied  down when it comes to  political situations. 

 An independent UN strips away sovereignty and no country wants that. - Interesting point, but won't an independent UN rather be more suited to decide upon the status of a  state than say a one which would be influenced by few handful of powerful nations . Why would non-influential countries , oppose it . Or you refer to situations like Kashmir or Gaza. 

Economic sanctions- are more of a joke these days .The reason why certain Western European countries keeping mum on Ukraine situation is because of their economic ties with Russia . Should the UN not be more strict with economic restrictions and prohibition . It can also ban export of weapons to the state under conflict. 

Nuclear strength - It would just let to other forms of war like terrorism , insurgency etc
Ceasefire- is not a solution to a problem . it just is a way of biding time and now is used as a way of making political statements.
UN- A biased UN will always be short-changed in handling matters of conflict. But then democratically , it would encourage lobbying , power-blocks . Perhaps the process and conditions of a conflict to be heard and addressed in UN can be tightened. 
Democratically led countries- It would depend also on how democracy is implemented.  Democracy in a state might not assure no outside attack but it can remove a greater probability on internal unrest. 
You reckon a Hitler like situation can happen or ignored , in current times. 
Cultural Imperialism - I don't know non-violence could be used as a practical way of dealing with border unrest like say in case of Gaza strip. It at bests works well while building a state , internally . Then too a non-violent protest against a dictator might just attract international community for military interventions. 

How different would an International govt be from UN?  Won't it also be constructed on imbalance of power.

Agree stability is more about how the people respond to it. But I feel if ever there is a need for international council to play the police then what should be the ways to go about it. Can they cripple a conflict economically? How would you describe the appeasement between conflicting nations?

@lalalee - Absolutely loved reading your well thought-out comments. Much to ponder and learn. 
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by lalalee



Legal is what you make of it. It is a human construct.


To add to that who defines legal?

The war on Iraq was not sanctioned by UN, but did USA did so and claimed humanitarian intervention?

If Indo/Pak, Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine have disputes and tensions who decides if they can wage war? The two parties involved or a third party claiming humanitarian intervention?

Humanitarian intervention is good in theory but difficult in practice. Instead of genuine understanding of issues involved and peaceful resolution it has become political ploys of the nations who have power. Dictators/Governments are disposed/installed as needed in the name of human rights? US aided overthrow of dictators like Saddam Hussein and Qadaffi to what end?

Perhaps we need to let events run their course rather than dictate the course for them.


Edited by return_to_hades - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by charminggenie


@Lalalee
For now we are only aware of one successful case of humanitarian intervention which was during Kenyan unrest. It was also more about diplomatic  and political aid than a military action. 

R2P (Responsibility to protect) by it's definition is very ambiguous , which states- If a state fails to protect it's citizens ,it then becomes the responsibility of the international community to protect that state's population in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It includes use of military force by the international community if peaceful measures prove inadequate. The UN outcome document was unanimously adopted by all member states but is not legally binding.

Now the application of R2P has significantly been misused in most cases especially since Libyan intervention. R2P is not solely about military intervention and should be the last resort , if at all. 
R2P also includes "responsibility to prevent" and the "responsibility to rebuild" . 

Humanitarian intervention, as you said, originally includes protection, prevention, reconstruction and nation building. It also includes relief work. There are more cases that are considered successful (despite mass killings). Japan, Austria, Germany, Italy (Post WWII) - reconstruction and nation building, prevention for Japan. Kuwait - reconstruction and protection. Berlin Airlift. However, as past events have demonstrated, intervention can prove to be a disaster, even if for relief purpose(Somalia).

I doubt member countries were unaware that R2P was going to be misused one day. Bigger powers must have known. Smaller ones might have been idealistic.

Independent UN- The configuration of power will always be dependent on economics. It would always favor the "rich" nations because of their contributing power, which is similar to how things usually operate in the world, otherwise. The key would be like you mentioned , in dismantling the power block i.e. permanent chairs of security council by removing the veto power and letting the whole structure be democratic. But I very  much doubt if it could be achieved considering the big 5 won't want to let go of this power as it gives them a leverage . UN has it's hands tied down when it comes to  political situations. 

An independent UN strips away sovereignty and no country wants that. - Interesting point, but won't an independent UN rather be more suited to decide upon the status of a  state than say a one which would be influenced by few handful of powerful nations . Why would non-influential countries , oppose it . Or you refer to situations like Kashmir or Gaza. 

Independent doesn't mean it couldn't become corrupt, inefficient or authoritarian so it may or may not be more suited. Sovereignty essentially implies supreme and independent authority. A body that assigns status, can always take it away, which means no country (in such a system) is sovereign. Non-influential countries have learnt from history, experience and observation that an independent UN doesn't and most probably won't exist. They have also understood that many other international organisations and treaties (GATT) cater to those with more contributing power. Leaders of most of these countries receive education in powerful countries and dance to their tune (Jawaharlal Nehru - Lord/Edwina Mountbatten, though India is influential). Some non-influential ones are too small and dependent on bigger powers to demand equal status at the international level (a few among the Commonwealth Realm). Those who voice their protests or go against the system are finished or replaced (If you believe Chavez's assassination was plotted by the CIA, Afghanistan).  

Economic sanctions- are more of a joke these days .The reason why certain Western European countries keeping mum on Ukraine situation is because of their economic ties with Russia . Should the UN not be more strict with economic restrictions and prohibition . It can also ban export of weapons to the state under conflict. 

Countries that want to export weapons will do so at any cost to fulfill personal agenda. They might flout rules openly or covertly - Iran/Hezbollah. Why would anyone mess with an aggressive country home to abundant natural gas and nuclear strength? What happens when countries at the top of the UN ladder want to supply arms and ammunition? If Russia quits exporting arms to Syria, its trade would be adversely affected. Why would it self-destruct? Jewish lobbies with financial clout press the US to support Israel with weaponry. Why would the US disagree? Why would countries not sell weapons to Pakistan, when balancing power in the region is a primary motivation? More importantly, there will always be black market transactions.

Nuclear strength - It would just let to other forms of war like terrorism , insurgency etc
Ceasefire- is not a solution to a problem . it just is a way of biding time and now is used as a way of making political statements.

Ceasefire can be the first step to resolving a conflict. What it has become is a different issue altogether. 
 
UN- A biased UN will always be short-changed in handling matters of conflict. But then democratically , it would encourage lobbying , power-blocks . Perhaps the process and conditions of a conflict to be heard and addressed in UN can be tightened. 
Democratically led countries- It would depend also on how democracy is implemented.  Democracy in a state might not assure no outside attack but it can remove a greater probability on internal unrest. 
You reckon a Hitler like situation can happen or ignored , in current times. 

I don't understand what you mean by Hitler like situation. If you mean dictators can rise to power through a democratic process and govern like Hitler, it is very possible (I wonder if China is evolving into a Hitler like country). If you are talking about a dictator trying to wipe out a community, such things are happening (Hutus vs. Tutsis, Bhutanese vs. Nepalese in Bhutan), though not on a large scale or of equal atrociousness, and are ignored or downplayed. 

Cultural Imperialism - I don't know non-violence could be used as a practical way of dealing with border unrest like say in case of Gaza strip. It at bests works well while building a state , internally . Then too a non-violent protest against a dictator might just attract international community for military interventions. 

Non-violent revolutions basically are of 3 types - when a government refuses to use force against people but people are willing to become violent, when people are non-violent but a government is okay with employing violent tactics and when both parties are non-violent. In the Hawaiian revolution, non-violence successfully deposed the one-party dominant regime (an internal force). In the Indian war of Independence, non-violent tactics played a major role in getting rid of an external force. There were other factors that influenced both conflicts but were largely characterized by non-violent methods. Gaza is a different story and I too doubt non-violence would work here. It could garner greater international support for the Palestinian cause and public shaming for Israel. Anything more than that? maybe, maybe not.          

How different would an International govt be from UN?  Won't it also be constructed on imbalance of power.

A world government is a hypothetical construct. Regulations would be legally binding, unlike those of the UN. No nation would be sovereign. They would resemble state governments. Power could be centralized or decentralized, unlike the UN that was founded on decentralized cooperation. If power is centralized, the world government could become totalitarian. If power is decentralized and the institution is democratic and just, the Earth might become a better place to live on. Wealth and resources would be proportionately distributed. Economy could be capitalist, socialist or mixed. Culturally speaking, a policy of either accommodation or assimilation would be adopted. The government might make efforts to homogenize people. Minority groups might be treated as specimens in a museum. If the government becomes dictatorial and imposes unfair laws in a region, humanitarian intervention for humanitarian reasons may not happen. In short, it can go both ways.     

Agree stability is more about how the people respond to it. But I feel if ever there is a need for international council to play the police then what should be the ways to go about it. Can they cripple a conflict economically? How would you describe the appeasement between conflicting nations?

There are too many conflicts to cripple economically. Decision makers would financially suffer if they go around genuinely trying to cripple all conflicts. Besides, there's underground economy to sustain bloody aggression. For instance: Al Qaeda is funded through drug money. 

Some conflicting nations choose not to fight bloody battles. When Chinese maps laid claim on Indian territories (Cartographic aggression challenging India's territorial integrity), India released a statement. The US appeasement of Iran has endowed Iran with nuclear capabilities. Appeasement, today, is because of weak global economy. High interdependence and connectivity have made the world a smaller place. (Burmese nuke = South East Asia in trouble. A conflict in China will cause tremendous destabilization). Democracy, post Bush administration, has made it difficult for governments to militarily intervene anywhere/anytime/anyhow, if not impossible. Many countries are stuck with their own problems and are least interested in putting up a fight against an external agency. No country really is non-aligned and most have a Big Brother. Recent conflicts have shown that outcomes can't be controlled and can become monstrous. Non-government agencies have become a global threat and need to be dealt with jointly. Weapons have become more dangerous and can cause unprecedented destruction.        

@lalalee - Absolutely loved reading your well thought-out comments. Much to ponder and learn.
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by lalalee




I doubt member countries were unaware that R2P was going to be misused one day. Bigger powers must have known. Smaller ones might have been idealistic.
I think the imbalance of power was known to everyone . Considering how this would always need security council clearance. The purpose was to derail World war like situation for that moment. 


Countries that want to export weapons will do so at any cost to fulfill personal agenda. They might flout rules openly or covertly - Iran/Hezbollah. Why would anyone mess with an aggressive country home to abundant natural gas and nuclear strength? What happens when countries at the top of the UN ladder want to supply arms and ammunition? If Russia quits exporting arms to Syria, its trade would be adversely affected. Why would it self-destruct? Jewish lobbies with financial clout press the US to support Israel with weaponry. Why would the US disagree? Why would countries not sell weapons to Pakistan, when balancing power in the region is a primary motivation? More importantly, there will always be black market transactions.
My argument was more for powerful country vs another powerful nation. Russia's economic ties with Germany et al which split the western Europe on Ukraine. If Un was made more legally binding - could this sort of economic blockage influence a powerful country to retract it's steps. Economic Isolation in all sorts of form. The fear of self-destruct due to lack of trade, won't also make powerful nations from keeping their unwanted nose out of other's business. 
US has a substantial Jew population and people working at top echlons of power, it would always take Israel;s side but by economic restriction on any outside help postulated by mandatory UN regulations can atleast keep it superficially out of the picture. 
To stop supply of weapons temporarily , UN would need majority approval and also consider the prevailing situation. Only act when the troubled region holds immediate threat to another state's sovereignty. 

 
I don't understand what you mean by Hitler like situation. If you mean dictators can rise to power through a democratic process and govern like Hitler, it is very possible (I wonder if China is evolving into a Hitler like country). If you are talking about a dictator trying to wipe out a community, such things are happening (Hutus vs. Tutsis, Bhutanese vs. Nepalese in Bhutan), though not on a large scale or of equal atrociousness, and are ignored or downplayed. 
The spurting of dictators across Africa but they are restricted to a particular region , they cannot afford to go on a nation capturing spree outside their immediate region. Take the case of North Korea, isolated and empty words. China is communist and might internally have unilateral power core but it would never go Hitler way swimply because it is still economically dependent on many countries . It sits on a very region which has other nations equipped with Nuclear power.
 

A world government is a hypothetical construct. Regulations would be legally binding, unlike those of the UN. No nation would be sovereign. They would resemble state governments. Power could be centralized or decentralized, unlike the UN that was founded on decentralized cooperation. If power is centralized, the world government could become totalitarian. If power is decentralized and the institution is democratic and just, the Earth might become a better place to live on. Wealth and resources would be proportionately distributed. Economy could be capitalist, socialist or mixed. Culturally speaking, a policy of either accommodation or assimilation would be adopted. The government might make efforts to homogenize people. Minority groups might be treated as specimens in a museum. If the government becomes dictatorial and imposes unfair laws in a region, humanitarian intervention for humanitarian reasons may not happen. In short, it can go both ways.     
Sounds Utopian . Might just be the case of too much decentralization. The pyramid of power would have always have top composed of powerful, economically rich countries . Huge gap of communication between different nations, people and region. it would be very difficult to simplify abstract and subjective sentiments like religion for a singular power point.  Economic disparity might create a permanent divide between rich and poor nations. Rich would influence policies for their gain.  Pretty risky proposition.  I relate more to the cons than the pros here. 


There are too many conflicts to cripple economically. Decision makers would financially suffer if they go around genuinely trying to cripple all conflicts. Besides, there's underground economy to sustain bloody aggression. For instance: Al Qaeda is funded through drug money. 
But Al Qaeda was initially created by US as part of it's Humanitarian Interventions. Underground economy should have to be stopped but then it does help governments in many other ways. 

Some conflicting nations choose not to fight bloody battles. When Chinese maps laid claim on Indian territories (Cartographic aggression challenging India's territorial integrity), India released a statement. The US appeasement of Iran has endowed Iran with nuclear capabilities. Appeasement, today, is because of weak global economy. High interdependence and connectivity have made the world a smaller place. (Burmese nuke = South East Asia in trouble.
An unstable Burma serves more purpose than a full bloodied battle . But a ban on political interference atleast superficially would keep China away for some time. I understand the underhand maneuvering but if a genuine threat of economic restrictions is served, it might make such nations cautious and passive in some cases.

 A conflict in China will cause tremendous destabilization). Democracy, post Bush administration, has made it difficult for governments to militarily intervene anywhere/anytime/anyhow, if not impossible. Many countries are stuck with their own problems and are least interested in putting up a fight against an external agency. No country really is non-aligned and most have a Big Brother.
NAM was a farce even then.

 

As usual , @Lalalee , impressive read.
Posted: 9 years ago
Hades: What you wrote about "war being a means to peace" applies only to "battles" in a secluded ground or a no-man's-land along the border(Indo-Pak wars for e.g.). Not WAR in the all-enveloping-destruction sense it is used in and seen today. And as Genie put it so aptly, in today's world, war bleeds both the agressor and the agressed upon, and is the breeding ground for insurgency and civil conflict. Iraq is the most potent and contemporary example. And as Germany post-WW1 has illustrated, defeat and utter obliteration in war can have far-reaching consequences.

On the topic of humanitarian intervention, its true that such "resolutions" are never drafted or agreed upon in the UN unless one of the Big Brothers benefit from it economically. And this, unfortunately, does not stand to change. Any "changes" in the UN Charter attempted to stop the main intervener from extracting its pound of flesh is going to be vetoed. A classic case of the fence grazing into the field.

There's no easy answer to the questions this issue raises. While one cannot stand by idly while people are butchered in a genocide, no nation on the planet (read 'powerful' nations) is a saint who would go in without the aim of installing a puppet government or capturing a market for its MNCs.

This is a grey area. Somewhat like Communism itself. Attractive, utopian in suggestion, but is unable to be implemented in its true intentions, owing to the downsides of human nature.Edited by krystal_watz - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
Btw Lalalee, speaking of a World Government, what do you feel about a EU-like institution for the world? One for every continent? Or maybe for regions with an underlying basic homogenity of culture or religion? E.g., one for the Middle East, another for South, East and Central Asia, another for Africa and so on? Would it be possible to obliterate the possibilities of any major warfare or State atrocities by making the nations economically interdependant and intoducing a Charter of Fundamental Rights (like in Europe) ? Or would the presence of an upcoming hegemon China render these efforts futile in Asia?Edited by krystal_watz - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
There are EU-like institutions. Examples: GCC in the Middle East (homogeneity of religion and culture), ASEAN in South East Asia. 

As a result of weak leadership, differences in priorities and member countries' disputes, the ASEAN hasn't been able to bring resolution to the cold war with China, over different territories. Several GCC countries have had to send troops to Bahrain to quell the uprising that's been going on since 2011 while Qatar supplies arms to Syrian rebel groups. The African Union, based on the African Charter of Human rights and the UN Charter, hasn't successfully hindered conflict across the continent of Africa - Somalia, Congo, Darfur, etc. South Asia has SAARC that too has been unsuccessful in resolving Indo-Pakistan dispute. As far as the EU is concerned, on one hand, it proposes laws to restrain mineral companies from financing conflict and abuse and on the other, France supplied weaponry to Lebanon and Libya and Great Britain and Finland export the same to Israel. The EU experiment isn't infallible in other areas either. While the UK suffers from overpopulated cities and is unable to do much because of its ties with the EU, 50% of Spanish and Greek youth are unemployed. Economic integration has led to the creation of two Europes - rich and poor. 

To add to that, these institutions are associations of sovereign nations. They aren't United States of Europe or Arabia that no member country can exit or flout rules to wage or fund warfare.  
  
Edited by lalalee - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
But still it has been comparatively smoother compared to these other institutions. Ever since 1993, the overall living standard has got much better across Europe.

Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

6 Participants 29 Replies 2708Views

Topic started by charminggenie

Last replied by Angel-likeDevil

loader
loader
up-open TOP