A Case For Foreign Intervention?

Remove all ads!

With all the current debate over foreign intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations, it seems pretty obvious to me that there needs to be some internationally recognised set of rules that would provide clear guidance on when such intervention is justified. As it happens, just over a year ago, Canada presented just such a proposal to the U.N. This proposal deals with situations of mass killings similar to what is occurring in Liberia. For various reasons, this proposal did not get much reaction at the time it was presented, but Canada is going to try again.

Please read the short synopsis (it's not very long, linked below) and provide your thoughts. Would such a set of guidelines be useful? Would they work? Do you think they should be expanded to cover other scenarios not involving mass killing?

The Responsibility to Protect
You can click on “The Responsibility to Protect” in the upper left corner of the linked page to take you to the detailed paper, but it’s pretty lengthy.

And please, if you would like to discuss this proposal by commenting on how it could have been used in Liberia and Iraq, please feel free to do so. However, please refrain from using this thread as an opportunity to criticise the current U.S. administration’s involvement (or lack thereof) in those countries; there are several other topics on this forum more appropriate for that purpose. And I am hoping that this discussion will be of a more general nature anyway.

[ August 01, 2003, 20:38: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

In 1990 Uri Ra'anen of the american institute for the study of conflict, ideology and policy said: "You don't throw away a useful tool like national sovereignty unless you have a better one to put in its place. You better have a clear, coherent and sensible system."

Eroding national sovereignty for humanitarian reasons is a dangerous, destabilising thing - as sovereignty is the cornerstone of the current system of international relations and international law.

That's my starter.

 

And yet sovereignty is constantly compromised as part of the regular global economy and society - trade agreements, U.N. resolutions, the European Union, etc.

The question to me is, does a sovereign nation have an obligation to protect its people, and if so, would its failure to do so justify or even obligate the intervention by an internationally recognised body such as the U.N.? To me, "eroding national sovereignty for humanitarian reasons" (italics added) is probably the most justifiable reason for such erosion.

[ August 01, 2003, 23:36: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

You are definitely right there, to some point. Humanitarian reasons are indeed a nice argument to justify military action, much better and much more noble than the old national interest.

The critical point about humanitarian intervention is if it can replace sovereignty and if it will result in an order of nations that still works.
It's pretty much like with individual property and socialism. If you find a way socialism works, great, then you gave something that is beetter for the greater good than capitalism. Historically this approach had difficulties though.

The local gvts who came into existence as a result of intervention are classically weak - look at afghanistan where the president, totally dependent on foreign aid and troops as well as US mercenaries for his personal safety, doesn't rule beyond the magic circle around Kabul, or in Bosnia where a high comissionary can nullify every gvt action per decree - thes gvts are a result of humanitarian intervention and these countries have both one thing in common, very weak authorities and sorts of vacuum that is easily filled up by foreign terrorists or petty smugglers and thugs. Groups close to Al Quaida had training camps in Bosnia too.
The humanitarian intervention of NATO in Kosovo were, just like the recent US attack on Iraq, a clear violation of international law.

For a country that has nothing in resources or income, sovereignty is about the last thing that can hold the whole country together.

Another dangerous thing about the case or intervention is that intervention is a shortlived thing, to achieve a long-term result like stability and human rights you may need a longtime presence. And this gives reason to ask if normal aid and development support would perhaps the better alternative, emphacising *peaceful pre-emption* (that must sound most alien to the neocons) over reaction.
Some critics have mocked that the main advantage of intervention is that it's cheaper than a long term involvement, just come around when it's at it's worst, treat the worst symptoms and move on to the next urgent crisis.
It might have been more consequent by the authors to demand re-colonisation, that is another point critics point on. That has really a ring to it, considering what the africans made of their continent after the colonial powers formally pulled out.
Another problem perceived is a degree of cultural bias, kinda like: These people cannot take care of their own issues effectively, so let us handle that. Humanitarian intervention also conflicts with the right of self-determination of the peoples, and frankly, no one likes colonistion. The case for intervention is widely perceived as a new western sense of mission for re-colonisation, in africa especially.

Sure, I see a point in humanitarian intervention - to some point. I see a big point in an international criminal court to punish the worst human right violators - even though I'm not yet sure about the impact on sovereignty. Per law this is even less problematic than intervention as the norms handled by that court are mostly ius cogens anyway and therefor beyond national disposition.
I think nation building is important, as we cannot afford or tolerate vaccuums of power (taken advantage of by gangsters and terrorists) in failed states. I could even see a point in changing the old colonial borders to ensure more stable governable units compared to todays territories.
But you cannot force that order on a country from the outside. Somalia had a well working system, for some 200 years, of tribal leaders and consultance. It became a failed state when it adopted western style democracy. You cannot press a country, ignoring it's traditions, into a gvt-form "Democracy, Western Style (tm)". That is one big point of critic about US foreign aid policy: It's like: "First you need a president, elections and a parliament!" No you don't. Some countries may be better ruled by kings - or despots - because the alternative would be worse, chaos. Where's the difference between a president manipulating elections and abusing his power and a despot not even trying to hide it? For his people there is no difference.

In the end sovereignty has it's drawbacks, some thugs hiding behind the status international law gives them. But the question at stake is what's good on long term, erosion of sovereignty by intervention or sovereignty with disappointing results? There is the saying "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."
The question eventually is if the concept of sovereignty is really in need of repair - and if there are perhaps milder forms of treatment of perceived flaws than pulling out the roots.

A couple of links on re-colonisation, humanitarian intervention and erosion of national sovereignty, wich, as I'd like to point out, do not neccesarily reflect *my* opinions. Some are far left, some more moderate. It's just brain fodder, check here and here and here and here or here.

[ August 04, 2003, 13:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I know i may seem irrational but i believe that here it should say tried instead of explored. Anyway it seems like a good starting point for a clarification of the possibilities of foreign intervention and how should these interventions should be made or even thought about. But i think that certain countries won't like it no i don't think so

 

Personally i think there should be a militairy intervention in Chechnia, things are getting completely out of hand there.

A humanitarian dissaster is taking place and nobody seems to even give a damn. I seriously doubt however that someone is willing to go inthere and piss off the Russians.

 

Well, "sovereignity" (sp ?) is a strange concept anyway. My view is, it's a pragmatic solution to cope with reality.

As coming from a country which had to cope with the annoying fact to be encircled with countries full of foreigners which are so insolent being much bigger than we are, there was never a time, that sovereignity wasn't compromised by the frontier to the neighbouring countries. And there's a giantig urge by the people who dwell in the alpine regions, to tell the Dutch, Italians, Germans, Spanish, British, French Sacandinavians and all the rest to go and **** themselves and find another transit and trade route for all their goods and leave the small tormented valleys alone. But, as the world is, that isn't quite possible. Not at least, because e a lot of those alpine dwellers are insignificant minorities in Italy, France and Austria.

Now to the actual issue:

I do not think that it's possible, because:

A. A lot of countries are to big anyway, to mess with their domestics, Russia, as mentioned by Pac-Man, would be an example.

B. Even the smaller countries are too much. Because going in and, as stated in the link, reorganising and rebuild them, is way out of the financial breath of any country I can think of. Even if financial better endowed countries would join together, it would be a herculian (sp ?) task, which couldn't be done that often. It had to be restricted on some countries, whereas other would have to be left alone, because the finances wouldn' allow it.

C. I think former Yugoslavia and predominantly Kosovo is a good example for that. It will take a commitment of about 30 years, to get things ok there, and that's a enormous project. And it was propably picked, because no one wants to see a "damn stupid thing" in the balcans again.

 

Just today I found a nice article here, which is as I like to warn before, US critical so I had to edit out all compromising bits from the text below.
It states three conditions for a nation building, or more popular: regime change, to succeed.

I think they pretty much bring it to the point.

PS: Edited out and edited in parts are in brackets.

 

Ragusa's last post bought up some very good points, particularly the "lessons". The Canadian proposal, to me, addreses two of those lessons:

The third lesson (unilateralism) would be done away with in that it would be a U.N. action rather than that of an individual nation.

The first lesson (tough geopolitical neighborhood far away) can also be mitigated somewhat by being a U.N. action, in that, because there are several nations involved, it is quite possible (or even likely) that some of them have a similar geopolitical climate, and therefore may be able to contribute ideas that would lead to success.

As for the second lesson, this may be an arguement as to why the Canadian proposal should not be expanded beyond what it is trying to accomplish, but in situations where there is mass murders occuring, I think it's worth taking the risk.

 

That is for how to intervene, like "If you do it, do it right!" to avoid leaving behind a messed up country.

The three lessons don't answer the problem of the erosion of sovereignty. So in the end I have to repeat:

In the end sovereignty has it's drawbacks, some thugs hiding behind the status international law gives them. But the question at stake is what's good on long term, erosion of sovereignty by intervention or sovereignty with disappointing results? There is the saying "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."
The question eventually is if the concept of sovereignty is really in need of repair - and if there are perhaps milder forms of treatment of perceived flaws than pulling out the roots.