Introduction
Humanitarian intervention as a concept can be traced back to the seventeenth century. This is the time when the foundations for the contemporary internationally recognized system of sovereignty of states and the principle that such sovereign states have control over all the matters within their borders was established. Since them, the concept has been reformed to enable the international community through the United Nations to protect citizens within sovereign states from human rights abuse, civil wars, ethnic cleansing and political abuse (Piereson, 2013). Although the United Nations charter does not allow the intervention in sovereign states, various humanitarian crises since its formation have led to given rise to the concept bestowing responsibility on the international community to protect citizens of sovereign states from the atrocities of repression, genocides, serious harm resulting from internal wars, especially if the sovereign states are unable or unwilling to stop or prevent them (Piereson, 2013).
This concept was raise in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty following the inactive state of the United Nations in the genocides of Rwanda and the crisis in Kosovo (Piereson, 2013). Humanitarian intervention is not a recent concept in the United States. Any claims contrary to his represent a deep misunderstanding of the protracted history of humanitarian intervention in American history (Bloodworth, 2012). Although Vogel (1996) claims that the reasons for humanitarian intervention by the United States are based on national interest, such as the search for oil (Choi, 2013), instead of general altruism. However, this paper argues that humanitarian intervention by the United States is informed by relative failure of the United Nations and the international community in the face of humanitarian crisis and its desire to preserve moral values as a democracy.
Discussion
It is important to ventilate on the propositions that the reasons that the United States of America participates in humanitarian interventions are based in national interests (Vogel, 1996). In advancing his argument, Tobias Vogel discusses the unilateral humanitarian interventions by the United States in various conflicts like Haiti and Bosnia. He argues that the humanitarian interventions in these countries were based in national interest if the United States. For instance, the restoration of peace and tranquil in Haiti would avert the influx of Haiti refugees and asylum seekers in the United States. The Bush Administration’s foreign policy in Haiti entailed the forceful repatriation of all refugees and asylum seekers back into Haiti (Ausink, 1997).
The succeeding Clinton Administration continued with the forceful repatriation of Haiti refugees and asylum seekers although this move was contemptuous to its earlier plans. The intervention of the United States in Haiti was based on the national interests of the country with regards to the escalating situation. This is because the continued stay of Haiti refugees and asylum seekers in the United States had both social and economic implications on the federal government of the United States. The assertions of Vogel (1996) set the tone under which the relative inactivity and the late decisions of the American government in the Rwandan genocide can be vetted.
The relative inactivity of the American in the Rwandan government was informed by the outcomes of the multilateral insurgency in Somalia a few years before. The federal government led the humanitarian intervention in order to enhance the distribution of relief food to hard hit areas in the heartland of Somalia. This United State led humanitarian intervention was very successful, enabling the distribution of relief food to starving people in Somalia. As Ausink, (1997) reports, the United Nations was buoyed by the success of the United States led humanitarian intervention that the global body passed resolutions to take over command from the United States and shift from famine relief to more sustainable approaches like nation building and the rehabilitation of political and social structures in the country.
The implication of this is that even if American forces were still involved in the humanitarian intervention, they were under the command of the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM). This also implies that the UNOSOM command was not directly accountable to the United States even though the United Nations sanctioned command continued to use the military and military resources of the United States. The loss of command and the consequent death if American soldiers in an botched attack in Somalia is what led to a change in foreign policy, especially with regard to participation in peace keeping missions (Clarke & Herbst, 1996) where the range of decisions made by other commands in place of an American command that would be directly accountable to the federal government was characterized by ambiguity (Ausink, 1997). Given that the multilateral humanitarian intervention in Rwanda were led by the United Nations, implying that the United States would not have control over its military plans inspired the shy actions of the federal government (Ausink, 1997). This vindicates the argument by Vogel (1996) that humanitarian interventions by the United States are based in national interests.
The previous paragraph has highlighted the humanitarian intervention efforts led by the United Nations in Somalia. The reasons for which the Bush Administration took part in the humanitarian intervention not only challenges the argument by Vogel (1996) that any humanitarian interventions are based on national interests, but also vindicates the thesis that the United States led humanitarian interventions are aimed at the preservation of morals. Cusimano, (2011) argues that the participation of the Bush Administration in the humanitarian intervention in Somalia was based on its responsibility to protect the human rights of Somali citizens. Additionally, the moral concerns of the government’s foreign policy also compelled the Bush administrations to lead military offensives in order to enhance the distribution of relief food. This shows that the argument by Vogel (1996) could not be further from the truth in this instance. When considered objectively, the decision to change its foreign policy, especially with regard to its participation in peace keeping missions, especially after its soldiers were killed after losing command to UNOSOM can be understood.
In order to further understand the argument raised by the paper, consider the fact that the United Nations charter does not allow military interventions into sovereign states for whatever reasons (Piereson, 2013). This means that any humanitarian interventions by the United States are in contravention of the United Nations charter. However, this thought is challenged by Bajoria & McMahon (2013) in their argument that the Genocide Convention held in 1948 overrode principle of nonintervention embraced by the United Nations charter. The deliberations of the Genocide Convention held in 1948 reiterated the responsibility and commitment of the international community to not only prevent genocides and crimes against humanity but also punish the perpetrators. This allows the United States as a member of the international community to intervene in order to preserve and restore human dignity and peace even in sovereign territories.
The discussion in the previous is important in ventilating over the humanitarian intervention by the Obama administration in Libya. Additionally, the International Commission on Intervention and States Sovereignty bestowed a responsibility on the international community to protect citizens of sovereign states from the atrocities of repression, genocides, serious harm resulting from internal wars, especially if the sovereign states are unable or unwilling to stop or prevent them (Piereson, 2013). Libya was in the threat of imminent massacre due to the offensive by Muammar Qaddafi to flash out rebels. The humanitarian intervention by the Obama administration was done in order to afford Libyans an opportunity to oust the dictator by themselves, thereby ending the spate of economic malaise and corruption that characterized his rule (Bloodworth, 2012).
The intervention by the Obama administration was important especially considering that the United Nations did not look poised to intervene and prevent the imminent crimes against humanity. The intervention by the United States in the face of the inactivity of the United Nations exemplifies the kind of ineffectiveness of the United Nations that Doyle (2000) addresses. It is also the kind of ineffectiveness that was witnessed when UNOSOM, a command sanctioned by the United Nations took over from the task force led by the United States in Somali. The United Nations was ineffective in influencing the political will of the warring factions to end the internal wars, the effect of which is a failed nation (Doyle, 2000). A failure by the United States to intervene would have led to a humanitarian crisis similar to the one witnessed in Rwanda.
Most debates on the appropriateness of humanitarian interventions touch in the interventions by the United States (Hitchens, 2008). With regards to the reasons for which the United States participates in multilateral or unilateral humanitarian interventions, theories have been formulated for explain this phenomenon. Liberals advance theories that the humanitarian interventions are aimed at protecting the citizens of the sovereign states from human violation rights. In contrast, realists advance theories that the purpose of these interventions is secure national interests. In attempt to find out which of the theories were legitimate, Choi (2013) conducted a time-series cross-national data analysis involving 153 countries for the period from 1981 to 2005. This one of a kind study was controlled for media coverage and democracy. The findings indicated that the use of force by the United States was in a manner congruent to the theories advanced by the liberals. This implies that the purpose for which the United States instituted humanitarian interventions was to preserve liberal norms as well as restoring moral values (Choi, 2013).
Conclusion
Humanitarian interventions have been discussed through various perspectives. Such debates have not been able to avoid discussing the role of the United States in humanitarian interventions since the country has been involved in several, and its political ideologies are very influential around the world. It has been argued that the reason for which the United States is involved in humanitarian interventions is to pursue national interest. In ventilating this dimension, this paper highlighted its intervention in the Haitian crisis. The interest of the Bush and Clinton administration to forcibly repatriate asylum seekers and refugees was because of the economic and social implications of their presence in the United States.
However, the actions of the United States in other crises challenge this notion. For instance, the paper has highlighted its task force in Somalia that successfully repelled the insurgents thereby enabling the distribution of relief food. Although it has been argued that its absence in the Rwanda crisis is due to the strategic insignificance of the country, the paper has shown that its absence can also be attributed to the lack of military command in the multilateral intervention in Somalia resulting in the deaths of its soldiers. The paper has also highlighted the ineffectiveness of the United Nations in fostering political will among warring factions in Somalia, resulting in the abortion of the humanitarian intervention after taking command through UNOSOM.
The paper also highlighted the inactivity of the United Nations in the Libya crisis prompting the United States to lead a multilateral humanitarian intervention to protect the people of Libya. As a member of the international community, the United States has responsibility to protect. This responsibility was bestowed by the International Commission of Intervention and State Sovereignty. The good faith that informs the United States led humanitarian interventions is also collaborated by the time-series cross national study carried out by Choi (2013). Although there are dissenting arguments, this paper concludes that humanitarian intervention by the United States is informed by relative failure of the United Nations and the international community in the face of humanitarian crisis and its desire to preserve moral values as a democracy.
References
Ausink, John. (1997). Watershed in Rwanda: The Evolution of President Clinton’s Humanitarian Intervention Policy. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy [Purchase online].
Bajoria, Jayshree and McMahon, Robert. (2013). “The dilemma of humanitarian intervention.” Council on foreign relations.12 Jun. 2013. Retrieved 17 Nov 2014 from http://www.cfr.org/humanitarian-intervention/dilemma-humanitarian- intervention/p16524
Bloodworth, Jeff. (2012). “Humanitarian intervention: The American experience from William McKinely to Barrack Obama.” Origins: Current events in historical perspective. 5 (9):
Choi, Seung-Whan. (2013). “What determines US humanitarian intervention?” Conflict management and peace science, 30(2):121-139
Clarke, Walter and Herbst, Jeffrey. (1996). “Somalia and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention: Learning from the Right Lessons.” Foreign Affairs, March/April.
Cusimano, Maryann. (2011). Operation restore hope: The Bush Administration’s decision to intervene in Somalia. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy [Purchase online].
Doyle, Michael. (2000). “Discovering the limits and potential of peacekeeping.” In Peacemaking and peacekeeping for the new century. Edited by Otunnu, Olara and Doyle, Michael, 1- 17. New York. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, Inc.
Hitchens, Christopher. (2008). “In memoriam: Just causes. The case for humanitarian intervention.” The Council on foreign affairs. Retrieved 17 Nov 2014 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63587/christopher-hitchens/just-causes
Piereson, James. (2013). “Special report against humanitarian intervention: The U.S. cannot plausibly claim it can act unilaterally in defense if humanity.” The American Spectator. 18 Sep. 2013. Retrieved 17 Nov. 2014. From http://spectator.org/articles/54836/against- humanitarian-intervention
Vogel, Tobias. (1996). “The politics of humanitarian intervention.” The journal of humanitarian assistance. 3 Sep. 1996. Retrieved 17 Nov. 2014 from http://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/103
