A Critique of Humanitarian Intervention

A Critique of Humanitarian Intervention

            Recently there has been debate over whether or not the U.S. should get involved in Syria. Many argue against intervention for fear that the United States will get stuck in another prolonged war, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Others argue that intervention is necessary because Bashar al-Assad has barely cooperated in negotiation and has continued killing the opposition. The question: “Should we intervene?” has become popular over the past two years, however, I think a better question we should be asking is: “Why should we intervene?” and, “If we intervene, will it actually be on the grounds of humanitarian intervention?”

            Humanitarian intervention is “the use of force to stop a mass atrocity.” (McCulloch Lecture) Healthy states use this foreign policy tactic in order to help weaker states combat their sources of instability. Although this aid may seem generous on one states part, the harsh reality of it all is that these powerful states only intervene because of ulterior motives. Every state is selfish and will always put their survival before that of anyone else’s—this is rational. States will only offer a helping hand to a fallen neighbor, when they know they will receive some form of gain in the end. Two instances that clearly demonstrate this argument are the United State’s involvement in Greece/ Turkey in 1948 and lack of involvement in Rwanda in 1994.

             As WWII came to an end, the Soviet Union quickly began spreading their communist ideology throughout Eastern Europe. Noting this threat to their power and interest, the United States quickly responded by enacting the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and the Marshall plan in 1948. The Truman doctrine was specifically aimed at supplying Greece and Turkey with economic and military assistance in effort to combat communism. The U.S. government spent millions of dollars in order to reconstruct post-war European countries and to protect their democratic interests overseas. If it hadn’t been for the threat of communism, the United States would not have intervened in Europe after the war, and they definitely would not have gotten involved in proxy-wars, such as Vietnam and the Korean War.

            In 1994, the Rwandan genocide killed about one million people. Despite this clear mass atrocity, the U.S. did not intervene. Why not? Some argue that the U.S. was weary of getting involved because of the losses suffered in Somalia not long before. Although Somalia’s fate was a big factor, it was not the only factor that explained the Clinton’s admirations refusal to act. Rwanda held no important interests to the U.S.; therefore they felt no need to respond. The U.S. did recognize their failure to act through the establishment of the Clinton Doctrine, however this policy only came after the U.S. received immense critique from the public.

            In his blog post, Ty Solomon poses an interesting question: “Why is it only now, with the use of chemical weapons – and not the use of “conventional” bombs and guns – have the US and UK governments seriously debated intervening [in Syria]?” Now that more threatening weapons are being used in Syria, the U.S., as well as other nations, feel that their security is more at risk. Thus, intervention becomes more prevalent when taking into consideration the nations interests. Solomon even notes that, “The conflict has not necessarily taken a turn for the worse.”

Humanitarian intervention is great in that suffering states do receive aid from their neighbors; however, these weak states are not receiving aid because others feel generous or sympathetic. Strong states merely want to demonstrate their power and uphold their interests and will put on the façade of humanitarian in order to get what they want.   

Sources:

http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2013/10/words-of-mass-destruction-in-the-syria-debate.html