The importance of humanitarian intervention

As one of the strongest nations in the country, the United States should always be cognizant of humanitarian issues. The United States has been given the title of the “world police,” which entails the responsibility of addressing humanitarian issues across the world. I believe it is already established that many institutions, including and especially, the United Nations, are a manifestation of the United States’ power and influence. Part of the responsibility of the United Nations is to take care and addressing humanitarian violations across the world whether it is genocide, natural disasters or civil war. The United States cannot turn a blind eye to an issue when it is the priority of the United Nations and the rest of the world. As the most powerful country in the world, the United States has an unspoken duty of making sure that citizens of other nations have the ability to enjoy the fundamental rights that Americans have. Now, this, of course, can’t be perfect for every nation across the world and it does not mean that the United States has to inundate every nation with western, liberal democratic ideology and norms.  This means that human rights violations must be paramount when it comes to international relations. As another caveat, this also does not mean the United States must involve themselves with every international conflict that arises. Many situations, especially when it comes to civil war, are extremely complicated and nuanced and involvement in the issue could further complicate it, like Syria, for example. In Syria, there are major geo-political complications and entanglements that direct involvement would bring about. However, the issue should never fall by the way side and be ignored. If direct involvement is not a wise solution, diplomacy is almost always an option.  The reason I say almost is because of extreme cases like North Korea where it’s more difficult to have a “rational” conversation. There’s something valuable in having as much influence and power as the United States has and to let go to waste when there are potential humanitarian crises in the world. The U.S. has the power to set the agenda and decide what is important and what gets addressed. Additionally, having the strong power in the form of military might and economic stability also helps when wanting to address humanitarian issues. Ulterior motives are spoken of usually in a negative context. I see this for good reason when the humanitarian issue is not of importance to the country. I conceptualize this concept when looking at the United States motivation for entering Iraq. Although I do not think it was the only reason, oil was of great importance to the country when deciding to invade Iraq. The pessimist in me says that a person is fairly naïve if they do not believe acquisition of oil was not a motivation to invade Iraq. Despite Iraq, I do not think humanitarian intervention is no longer valid if the country has other intentions. If, hypothetically, the United States wanted to help a nation that is going through a crisis, which in turn, makes the United States look better on the world stage, I see no issue with that. Just as long as the humanitarian aspect is the primary goal and that the country, as a government and as a whole, truly values the upholding of humanitarian rights.   And that is something that has to be an intrinsic part of our identity as a country.