Download Introduction to International Relations Name: Zhang Shubo Student

Introduction to International Relations
Name: Zhang Shubo
Student ID: I34046
<Comment Paper Regarding Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics>
Question: When and where do you think (forcible) humanitarian intervention
can be justified? Please use at least two real world examples to support your
argument.
I. Summary
In international society, when civils in some countries are trapped into severe
catastrophe, or their human rights are violated, it is other countries’
responsibility to do humanitarian intervention to terminate the genocide or
mass murder and deliver humanitarian aid to civilians trapped in war zones with
the authorization of UN. However, the insufficiency of humanitarian intervention
should still cannot be neglected. Although the appearance of R2P alleviates the
controversy of supporters and opponents of humanitarian intervention, severe
issues still exist. However, we cannot say humanitarian intervention is not
effective at all, since it still give significant people to flee from terror. Therefore,
I will take the relationship between Iraq & USA, and Kosovo war as examples
to explain when and where humanitarian intervention is justified.
II. The concept of Humanitarian Intervention
According to Wikipedia, Humanitarian Intervention is has been defined as a
state's use of "military force against another state when the chief publicly
Introduction to International Relations
declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being
perpetrated by the state against which it is directed. It means that when human
rights in a state are violated, such as holocaust and genocide, humanitarian
intervention of other countries in international society is justified and
reasonable.
However, in real world, there is a debate between supporters and opponents
of humanitarian intervention. Although there are law and moral justification
providing background and evidence for humanitarian intervention, restrictionist
international lawyers argue that there is no basis for humanitarian intervention
in international law. What is more, states prefer to serve their own national
interest rather than intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons.
The controversy is alleviated to some extent after R2P, namely, the
Responsibility to Protect is put forward. Whereas a great amount of issues exist
still, agreement on criteria, for instance, does not guarantee agreement on
action in real cases. Meanwhile, the criteria are open to manipulation by
powerful actors. Therefore, when and where on earth humanitarian
intervention can be justified? I will illustrate it in following part
III. Real cases of world examples
1. Gulf War
In August 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait, claiming it was historically part of Iraq.
Based on the reaction to his invasion of Iran, Hussein had concluded “that the
Introduction to International Relations
Security Council would … again take no early action” In November 1990 the
Security Council passed Resolution 678 demanding that Iraq withdraw from
Kuwait or be forced to do so. Following the expiry of the deadline for withdrawal,
the US led a coalition, mandated by the United Nations, against Iraq in Kuwait
on 17 January 1991 which pushed the Iraqi army out. Combat operations
officially ended on 6 April. During the Gulf War in 1991 the US Government
encouraged the Iraqis to take measures into their own hands and overthrow
Saddam Hussein. Resolution 688, passed by the Security Council mandated UN
troops to Northern Iraq and provided for no-fly zones over northern and later
southern Iraq. Following the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was the subject of what
come to be a highly controversial sanctions regime. The sanctions were
exploited by Hussein, and the impact was borne by the civilian population,
especially children.
As far as I am concerned, during Gulf War, the humanitarian intervention of
the states led by United States is justified. There are three reasons to explain
this viewpoint. Initially, morally speaking, Iraq invaded Kuwait cannot be
accepted. Hussein claimed that Kuwait was a part of Iraq. Actually, Kuwait had
been independent for a great many years since World War II. Although both
Iraq and Kuwait have controversial territory, it can be solved by negotiation or
some peaceful methods. Territory was merely an excuse to invade Kuwait in
order to gain some oil. The inhumane activities in the cost of 15000 Kuwait’s
solders were not accepted by the whole international society. The humanitarian
Introduction to International Relations
intervention under the leadership of United States is just. Secondly, the
humanitarian intervention of the states is legal with the authorization of United
Nations. It means the action that United States and some other countries
utilizing the military forces to attack against Iraq was deeply discussed in United
Nations, most of states were outraged to Hussein’s tyrannical actions, and
reached an agreement to make a humanitarian intervention to Kuwait. The
decision is not made only by Untied States or any other individual country.
However, someone argue that United States was just to gain the oil of Middle
East, not to save the refugees of Kuwait. With the breakout of Iraq War in 2003,
the intention of United States seems be completely bared there and then.
However, in the theory of realism, national interest always comes first. In my
opinion, protecting self-national interest could be accepted to some extent.
Meanwhile, Gulf War did harm to US solders as well. Since they touched some
21 kinds of poisonous things during Gulf War, most of their babies were disabled.
Thirdly, regardless of Iraq War in 2003, United States and other countries really
made a contribution to Kuwait in Gulf War. Since the intervention of United
States and other countries, Iraq opt-out from Kuwait in the end. Civilians in
Kuwait were free from pain of war.
2. Kosovo War
There are two reasons why NATO made humanitarian intervention to Kosovo.
Firstly, Kosovo’s government did not comply with the resolution of UNSC which
Introduction to International Relations
were resolution 1160 and 1199. The other one is the ethnic cleansing has made
huge destroy and threaten the whole world. Therefore, NATO made a
humanitarian intervention to Kosovo. However, NATO did not receive any
authorization from UN, and took action. It is obvious that this humanitarian
intervention was illegal. Member states of UN did not reach a consensus
regarding the issue of Kosovo. NATO’s action was not wise. Meanwhile, in spite
of the fact that considering about self-interest is common, the intervention that
avoid all the humanism, and only care for their own interest in the cost of
sacrificing Kosovo’s interest. The humanitarian intervention had no justified
point. What is more, totally speaking, after the NATO made humanitarian
intervention to Kosovo.350000 residents were forced to leave homeland, and
more than 1000 were killed. 200000 Serbians died in the war. Though death is
not rare in the war, since the intervention intensified the death without changing
anything. The intervention is not justified.
Conclusion
There is almost no perfect humanitarian intervention in the world. National
interest always comes first. Whereas, in my viewpoint, when the humanitarian
intervention could change the horrible situation of the suffering country, the
humanitarian intervention is justified.