The Controversies Around Humanitarian Interventions : A Missionary in Disguise.

The post-cold war brought the optimism that the world is finally achieving the perpetual peace. Unfortunately, in reality there were an inter-state conflict going on for instance the Gulf War, which is the war involving Iraq and Kuwait. The war was so damaging that cause a massive casualties and it was considered to be a human rights violations. The gulf war called the attentions of the international community particularly United States as the powerful western liberal state. The post-cold war means there was no ideological differences between states therefore the United States would like to form a new world order where the nation states work together concerning the global security as that time the security of the world was in crisis due to the growing of inter-state war. A new world order leads to the appearance of humanitarian intervention. It is when the foreign state is allowed to send their military troops to a conflicted state in order to help them to resolve the war. However, the act of humanitarian intervention is bring a controversy because it challenges the nature of state sovereignty and growing assumption that humanitarian interventions is a tool for powerful western liberal states to falsify their interest. This writing will explain how the humanitarian intervention is averse to the origin idea of UN Charter while the UN is the authority that giving the permission to states to undergo humanitarian interventions and how the humanitarian intervention that has been undergo were clearly showing the hidden motives of western states.

In the beginning the UN charter was originally created on the underlying premise of a Westphalian system of sovereign states. The key element of the UN charter, which prohibits intervention is article 2(7), which states that the United Nations has no rights and authorities to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. It implies that United Nations has no obligations to authorize humanitarian intervention, as it is intervene the domestic jurisdiction of state and humanitarian intervention is certainly opposes the origin idea of sovereignty.

However, in the post-cold war when the western liberal has won the ideological war, they were begins to dominates the international politic system. It was clearly seen through the operation of United Nations. The western liberal was so enthusiastic with the notion of humanitarian interventions and during that time The United Nation did re-interpretation in the meaning of sovereignty that matched the interest of western liberal values. The United Nations stated that any state which fails to protect the ‘natural rights of its citizens’ loses its legitimacy as a sovereign entity and therefore liable to outside interventions. United Nations become actively engage in humanitarian interventions by sending troops or approving states to intervene. For instance during the Somalia war, The United Nations Security Council passed resolutions 794 and 814 which authorized the use of all necessary means to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid and to foster political reconciliation.

Therefore it is give rise to controversy due to the inconsistency of United Nations in upholding the value of sovereignty while it was by origin is their primary foundations.

Furthermore, there was growing assumptions that the changing meaning of sovereignty is to justify humanitarian intervention that usually involving hidden motives and how the humanitarian intervention itself is the tool to falsify the hidden interest of powerful states particularly the western liberal states. The assumptions were clearly seen in the case of humanitarian interventions in Iraq. The Iraq and Kuwait war were driven by the territorial issue pertaining, the ownership of oil. The conflict was manifested in devastating war and derives the attention of International community.

The United States was willing to intervene under the name of human rights. The United States intention was granted by The United Nations because the conflict was troubling the security of countries neighborhood, which are Kuwait, Iran and Turkey. It is because during the war thousands of Kurdish refugees were pushed into the mountains between Turkey and Iraq. The flow of refugees across Iraq’s borders created humanitarian crisis and threatened the security of Iraq’s neighbors. Therefore the human rights crisis caused by Iraq was no longer an internal matter of the Iraqi state and by means liable to international response.

However, United States willingness that seems to be a missionary action from United States to the world through their decision to intervene is being questioned. Whether the United States purely would like to protect the neighborhood countries of Iraq such as Turkey and Iran and also the Iraq’s populations from human rights crisis or because United States recognizing that the crisis in Middle East might affect their security and hindered their global mission which to form a peaceful world under the empire of liberalism. The detrimental impact and massive casualties of the Iraq invasion might induce fear to United States knowing that third world country might become powerful and overrides the western liberal supremacy therefore The United States willing to intervene and settle the disputes in order to prevent the winning of Iraq, which might lead them to become powerful after winning the ownership of the oil. The Iraq invasion was lead by Saddam Hussein who acknowledged as a dictatorship. The western liberal is antagonistic to dictatorship because they believe in the democracy. Liberalism claim in order to create a world of perpetual peace through the spread of liberal democracy which means liberalism must attack difference in this case dictatorship in order to preserve its universal liberal identity. Therefore it is really clear that United States willingness to intervene in Iraq is driven by a strong political will to maintain the empire of liberalism.

In conclusion the humanitarian intervention will always be a controversial practice because there were still ambiguity in defining the sovereignty when it comes to humanitarian interventions even the United Nations itself showing inconsistency in implying the sovereignty. In addition, state sovereignty is a sensitive aspect to be defined in one particular universal notions therefore it will always provoke conflicts that make humanitarian intervention become problematic. The humanitarian interventions will always served with hidden political will. It is simply because a state will not willing to sacrifice their military and soldier without something in return that benefits their favors. The strategic interest of state is integral component of a successful humanitarian intervention.

References :

Humanitarian Intervention as Liberal Imperialism : A Force For Good ? by Joanna Davidson. POLIS Journal Vol.7,Summer 2012. University of Leeds.

Human Rights Norms, State Sovereignty, and Humanitarian Intervention by Carrie Booth Walling.

Human Rights Quarterly 37(2015) 383-415.

The John Hopkins University Press.