Humanitarian Intervention and Ulterior Motives

When discussing the subject of humanitarian intervention in foreign states, I think one very interesting aspect is that of motivating factors for intervening in a state that seems to need help. More specifically, I think that the presence and influence of ulterior motives is thought provoking. Although ulterior motives may have more influence in certain scenarios than in others, I believe that they are always present when humanitarian intervention is present.

Humanitarian intervention is the use or threat of force to stop a “mass atrocity” in another state. However, I believe that this is never done without one’s own state’s self-interest in mind. For example, why did the United States not intervene in Rwanda? Simply because we stood to gain nothing significant enough to warrant intervening. This concept hearkens back to the old philosophical thought that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. This meaning, when one helps others they are always doing so as it is in someway advantageous or beneficial to themselves. For example, if you donate money to charity, you too are benefiting. This benefit could be as blatant as writing off part of your taxes or something more subconscious, like feeling good about yourself for donating. In the realm of international relations, this same concept can be applied to reasons behind humanitarian intervention.

One of the more obvious ulterior motives for humanitarian intervention is personal gains or natural resources. A prime example of this is the recent intervention against ISIS. From the point of view of the United States, humanitarian intervention in the area occupied by ISIS was/is necessary to prevent the organization from becoming more powerful. Additionally, it was imperative to take this measure against the terrorist group to protect American assets. From this it can be seen that the intervention was not only done to help citizens of Iraq and Syria who have been terrorized by ISIS, but also to protect the United States and our interests overseas. This is how the intervention would result in personal gains for the United States.

One of the more subconscious, less obvious ulterior motives for humanitarian intervention is the good reputation that it will build for the state. If one state aids those in need for the sake of doing so, this can foster the creation of alliances or even just make the state’s form of government seem more appealing. This goes back to the concept of a state’s soft power. A democratic system of government could become appealing to a non-democracy if a democratic state is viewed as humanitarian or benevolent in the realms of the global community. In this way a frequently present ulterior motive is the desire to garner more soft power.

Humanitarian intervention is a noble concept that can be very effective at saving millions of lives around the world. However, the state that is intervening can also stand to benefit from helping out. Although it is a cynical view of the world, humanitarian intervention is done in such a way that the helping state is benefiting as well.