The Moral Myth and the. Abuse of Humanitarian Intervention

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Moral Myth and the. Abuse of Humanitarian Intervention"

Hector Barton
6 years ago
Views:

1 The Moral Myth and the Abuse of Humanitarian Intervention Zhang Qi Abstract The so-called humanitarian intervention has taken place frequently since the end of the Cold War. However, in practice there is often an alienation phenomenon being the end result divorced from original goals. The underlying cause lies in the fact that the idea of humanitarian intervention is incompatible with the existing international order. However, the international community, which holds an enduring and unrealistic myth about morality, seems to have the conviction that the idea is both desirable and feasible despite its contradiction with the existing international system dominated by nation states. Barring a fundamental transformation of the international order, the phenomenon of alienation cannot be totally eradicated. But normalization, institutionalization, and legalization of the concept can help mitigate the problem of alienation. Key Words: responsibility to protect, humanitarian intervention, power, morality Introduction Responding to some internal conflicts, the international community, in the name of humanitarian intervention or responsibility to protect (R2P), has intervened militarily more than once since the end of the Cold War. NATO s intervention on Kosovo issue in 1999 is an obvious example. Another example is NATO s intervention on Libya in 2011, invoking the Resolution 1973 of Security Council, which is thought to be the first perfect model to implement the idea of responsibility to protect. 1 However, if we reexamine these so-called humanitarian interventions, we will find that the original goals declared by the interveners didn t achieve at last. The alienation phenomenon can be seen from two aspects. Firstly, in contrast with their alleged humanitarian goals, the outcome often showed that the interventions brought even worse humanitarian disasters. A counterfactual analysis shows that without NATO s intervention in Libya in 2011, instead of a bloody war and long lasting national instability, the military conflict would end much sooner and the deaths would be fewer. 2 Secondly, in contrast with their declared fascinating idea of 1 Ivo H. Daalder and James G. Stavridis, NATO s Victory in Libya: The Right Way to Run an Intervention, Foreign Affairs, Vol.91, No.2, March/April, 2012, pp Alan J. Kuperman, A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO s Libya Campaign, International Security, Volume 38, No.1, Summer 2013, pp

2 humanitarianism, the interventions actually deviated from the idea with some actions having nothing to do with the humanitarian purpose. Why does the humanitarian intervention turn out to be misused and subject to criticisms? Is there any humanitarian intervention worthy of its name? In other words, is it really possible in the existing international order? In the ensuing part, the article will state briefly the underlying ideas for humanitarian intervention and then analyze the difficulties to implement the ideas. In the end, I will provide a possible approach to mitigate the alienation phenomenon. The Underlying Ideas for Humanitarian Intervention Generally speaking, there are two approaches to justify the intervention for humanitarian purpose. One is humanitarian intervention, the other is responsibility to protect. As J. L. Holzgrefe notes, humanitarian intervention means the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied. 1 R. J. Vincent provides a powerful justification for humanitarian intervention, which is premised on two arguments. The first argument is that all human being has the basic rights to life, safety and survival. The government gains its moral legitimacy through protecting the rights of its citizens. The failure of a government of a state to provide for its citizens basic rights might now be taken as areas on for considering it illegitimate. 2 The second argument is that the modern society shares the common morals and norms that every government should obey. Therefore, when terrible humanitarian disasters occur in certain country, the international community has the moral duty and right to use all kinds of measures including military option to intervene. Responsibility to protect was first used by International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in And then it was adopted by 2005 World Summit Outcome of United Nations. It is a new concept to legitimate intervention for humanitarian purpose following the concept of humanitarian intervention. The concept has three pillars. The first pillar is that each individual state has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The second pillar is that the international community has the responsibility to encourage and help states to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability. The third pillar is that the international community also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against 1 J. L. Holzgrefe, The Humanitarian Intervention Debate, in J.L.Holzgrefe and Robert O.Keohane eds., Humanitarian Intervention: Ehtical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p R. J. Vincent, Human Rights and International Relations, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986, p.127.

3 humanity if the national authorities are manifestly failing to exercise the responsibility. 1 After carefully examining, we will find that the concepts of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect have some differences and similarities. The differences are demonstrated as follows. Firstly, although holding the same purpose of humanitarianism, they have different approaches to justify themselves. The former resorts to the right to intervene while the latter resorts to the responsibility to intervene. Secondly, there are obvious dissimilarities in terms of their specific content. The prerequisites to humanitarian intervention were not vivid in the cases of Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo in 1990 s. Who have the right to decide and carry out an intervention? How to intervene and how to assess the outcome of an intervention? The concept of humanitarian intervention does not provide clear answers. Meanwhile, from the beginning, when the concept of responsibility to protect was raised, these problems were taken seriously. In the report of responsibility to protect published by ICISS in 2001, the criteria to intervene were clearly listed: right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospects. 2 Thirdly, the concept of humanitarian intervention is just a kind of political discourse while the concept of responsibility to protect is a kind of qua-norm. Without any international law or specific institutions to back up the idea of humanitarian intervention, it turns out to be a certain moral appeal and political initiative, which is probably abused by great powers. By contrast, the concept of responsibility to protect has been normalized and legalized step by step since its birth in Soon after its birth, it was quoted by an official document of United Nations in 2004 and then published by then Secretary-General Kofi Annan in As mentioned above, latter it was cited in 2005 World Summit Outcome. Up to now, it has been considered in the general assembly of the United Nations. Thus, the idea of responsibility to protect is more likely to be a kind of norm or principle shared by international community. Since the underpinning of the two concepts is humanitarianism, they also have several similarities. First of all, their motive is said to be out of moralism, instead of national interests or strategic concerns. In terms of their alleged goal, averting or halting humanitarian disasters is the sole purpose and final aim. Secondly, the two concepts both presuppose that the measures can fit the motive perfectly and the normative appeals can incorporate into national interests harmoniously. It seems that there is no contradiction between the moral concern and intervener s interests. Thirdly, the underlying argument for the intervention is based on cosmopolitanism. The two ideas call on the international community dominated by national states to save strangers beyond national borders instead of their own citizens, which goes far beyond the international order characterized by national state system and 1 UN General Assembly, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, U.N. Doc A/63/677, January 12, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), The Responsibility to Protect, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001.

4 responsible government. The similarities of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect are the core elements providing the basis for intervention in the name of humanitarianism. Therefore, the problems of the intervention in practice also have a close relationship with these ideas. Humanitarian Intervention: an Impossible Mission? Is it really possible to carry out an authentic humanitarian intervention in the anarchy world? The answer may be negative. The moral concerns for humanitarian disasters are always manipulated and abused by power politics. As numerous convincing researches show, power has different faces. During the policy-making process, the first face of power comes to us. 1 The second face of power is demonstrated through non-decision-making, mobilization bias and agenda-controlling. 2 As Steven Lukes points, power also has the third face, which is about using cultural beliefs, norms, traditions, histories and practices to shape political meaning. 3 As power has various forms, it plays a key role in the so-called humanitarian intervention. First of all, when the humanitarian issue is raised, the influence of power politics begins to emerge. Why were Kosovo and Libya chosen by NATO to intervene while the even worse humanitarian disasters in Rwanda were ignored? What is the underlying cause of intervention or non-intervention? The answer is power. In these cases, the powerful countries who were dominating the world affairs decided whether to intervene or not. Here shows power s second face. Secondly, power politics is even more evident in the decision-making process. Even in the Security Council meetings to discuss humanitarian issues, the members still speak for their own interests. All the five permanent members, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States, are using the Security Council as a means of promoting its interests in the world. 4 According to Aidan Hehir s research, the Security Council never reached consensus on the idea of military intervention. As for the Resolution 1973 which cited the concept of responsibility to protect, it was also a discretionary entitlement. 5 Action taken on the basis of altruistic individual impulses cannot reasonably be cited as constituting a precedent or new norm. Rather, it is more accurately described as aberrant behavior impelled by a unique 1 Robert Dahl, The Concept of Power, Behavioral Science, Vol. 2, Issue 3, Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, p.7. 3 Steven Lukes, Power: a Radical View, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp Mats Berdal, The UN Security Council: Ineffective but Indispensable, Survival, Vol.45, No.2, Summer 2003, p Aidan Hehir, The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect, International Security, Vol.38, No.1, Summer 2013, pp

5 constellation of necessarily temporal factors. 1 Thirdly, during the intervention, the moral impulses to save strangers are always misused by great powers to achieve other implicit purpose. It is not their legal obligation to intervene. If they did, they would act for their own benefits undoubtedly. In the Libya case, United States, France and United Kingdom misinterpreted the Security Council Resolution 1973 deliberately, supporting the rebel force to strike the government s army, which was far beyond the Resolution 1973 and their alleged humanitarian purpose. Lastly, after the intervention, there is no assessment mechanism to judge the outcome of the intervention. Of course, the strikes which betrayed the humanitarian purpose would not be punished. Essentially, the concept of humanitarian intervention is a kind of political discourse while responsibility to protect is a qua-norm. They have both not yet been listed in international law documents. Therefore, interventions invoking these ideas cannot be judged and supervised by international law. Why is it so? If the intervention is just a political responsibility other than legal obligation, the powerful countries have the convenience to choose intervention or nonintervention. It is beneficial for great powers to exchange interests with others and make decisions case by case without the restriction of international law. Overall, in every phase to implement humanitarian intervention, the moral impulses of saving strangers will be terribly affected and tarnished by power politics. It is quite reasonable to question the possibility of authentic humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian Intervention: just a Moral Myth? The entrepreneur of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect believes that the ideas are not only desirable but also feasible. But the terrible abuses of the interventions demand us to rethink the feasibility of the ideas. I will argue that the ideas of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect are not logically reasonable. First, the selfless purpose of the so-called humanitarian intervention is contradicted with the self-interest nature of nation state. In the world politics, we cannot guarantee that the intervener will keep selfless motive to participate in humanitarian intervention. According to the collective security mechanism of United Nations, the intervention authorized by Security Council is carried out by temporary coalitions of members or some powerful countries. In the anarchic and hierarchical world, undoubtedly, the great powers will take advantages of the choice to pursue their own interests. Thus, the humanitarian purpose may be cannot achieved. 1 Aidan Hehir, The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect, pp

6 Second, the potential intervener has no legal obligation to be responsible for the strangers beyond its border. Rather, it should be responsible for its own citizens. Although the international community, as the humanitarian ideas say, has moral right or responsibility to intervene, it also has the right not to take actions. It is not its obligation to obey. Meanwhile, as a responsible government for its citizens, the potential intervener s primary responsibility is to promote its citizens wellbeing. If there are sharply contradictions between the moral impulse to save strangers and the obligation to promote its citizens wellbeing, the government, no doubt, will assume the latter obligation first. So it was reasonable for the Clinton government to withdraw all American troops in Somalia when fierce criticisms emerged resulting from several American soldiers deaths in Mogadiscio. 1 Third, the non-humanitarian measures have conflicts with the humanitarian aims. The humanitarian intervention should be humanitarian and the measures also should be humanitarian. Can non-humanitarian means achieve humanitarian purpose? On the one hand, the nature of purpose will define the proper measures accordingly. On the other hand, the measures underlie the development and accomplishment of the purpose. So the humanitarian aim can be accomplished only by humanitarian way other than non-humanitarian way. But in practice, the original goals are always misunderstood by interveners deliberately. The impure motive will bring impure outcome definitely. Besides, the executive means often divorce from the principle of humanitarianism. As thus, how can we expect a humanitarian outcome? So it is questionable to call NATO s actions in Kosovo and Libya with fiercely bloody strikes humanitarian intervention. From Responsibility to Protect to Obligation to Protect It is obvious from the above that the so-called humanitarian intervention cannot fully realize in the existing international system dominated by nation states. But it doesn t mean that the international society should do nothing to do with humanitarian crises. The key point is to achieve humanitarian purpose while averting the influence of power politics to the greatest extent. Noticing the abuse phenomenon of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect, the policy-makers and the intellectual are posing new concepts to modify or replace them. In 2011, the concept of responsibility while protecting which emphasizes the responsibility during the intervention was raised by Maria Viotti, Brazil s ambassador to UN. 2 Besides, Chinese scholar Ruan Zongze proposed the concept of responsible protection to avoid the abuse. 3 However, after carefully 1 Nicholas J. Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, UN General Assembly, Letter dated 9 November 2011 from the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc A/66/551 S/2011/701, November 11, Ruan Zongze, Responsible Protection: Creating a more Safe World, International Studies, No.3, 2012, pp

7 consideration, we will come to the conclusion that these concepts have more similarities than differences. The newly offered concepts are also moral appeals instead of international law which are the same as humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect. It will be the same outcome if international community puts these new concepts into effect. A possible way to reduce and mitigate the abuse is to legalize the idea of humanitarian intervention. If humanitarian intervention is not a country s moral duty or political responsibility but legal obligation, the consequence is likely to be quite different. Firstly, the criteria, mandate, intervener and measures of the intervention will be clearly listed if humanitarian intervention becomes an international law. The actions during the intervention and after the intervention will be supervised by law, which will surely reduce the influence of great powers. Secondly, if humanitarian intervention is every country s obligation, the country that does nothing to humanitarian disasters may be punished. It will be effective to avoid the selectivity problem and the disaster similar to Rwanda is not likely to happen again. Thirdly, the punishment to the abuse of humanitarian intervention will deter the potential intervener with impure motive. In the long run, the effect of power politics on this issue will become weak and the idea of humanitarian intervention maybe come true. Conclusion Human society never stops dreaming of and pursuing a better world. In some sense, the idea of humanitarian intervention reflects such an aspiration. It is a kind of cosmopolitan belief, which can date back to the Stoic school of philosophy. It holds the position that everyone, regardless of race, religion, wealth or status, is considered as equal to share the same just universal constitution. Especially since the end of World War Two, the norms of human rights have widely been accepted by international society. When the horrible humanitarian crises occur, the option of humanitarian intervention is presented. The best way to judge an idea is to evaluate its outcome in practice rather than its literature. Unfortunately, we find in the article that the assumptions of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect are not incompatible with the existing international order. Their alleged selfless purpose is contradicted with the nature of self-interest nation state. And the measures adopted by the intervener always conflict with their aims. In every phase of the intervention, the moral idea of humanitarianism is badly misrepresented and misused. Actually, the humanitarian intervention worthy of its name can hardly come true. From Somalia and Kosovo to Libya, the international community intervened more than once in the name of humanitarian intervention or responsibility to protect to pursue so-called humanitarian purpose. But every time they failed to fulfill their humanitarian commitment. The underlying cause lies in the fact the international

8 community, which holds an enduring and unrealistic myth about morality of humanitarianism, seems to have the conviction that the idea is both desirable and feasible despite its contradiction with the existing international system dominated by nation states. Barring a fundamental transformation of the international order, the phenomenon of abuse cannot be totally eradicated. But normalization, institutionalization, and legalization of the concept can help mitigate the problem.

Veronika Bílková: Responsibility to Protect: New hope or old hypocrisy?, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, Prague, 2010, 178 p.

Veronika Bílková: Responsibility to Protect: New hope or old hypocrisy?, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, Prague, 2010, 178 p. As the title of this publication indicates, it is meant to present