It was declared by Kofi Annan, the former security general of the UN in September 1991 while addressing the general assembly that the developing international norm of forcible humanitarian intervention was to be replaced by a new one. In the new norm the UN Security Council was to put a stop to forcible interventions in fully functioning sovereign states. At the 2005 UN World Summit the definition of the responsibility to protect was adopted by the UN General Assembly (Alex J. Bellamy, 2008). This has been the approach and norm taken up by the UN while dealing with matters of humanitarian interventions. Based on the principles set in the UN charter, it has been argued by Michael Reisman (1985) that the UN Security Council should have then taken armed action against those states that took part in genocide and mass murder during the cold war. As seen through out history this action has failed to take place. Furthermore, under the UN charter possible interventions have to be called out or have the issue raised by the Council or Secretary General. This proves to be in-adequate as the suffering states are left at the mercy of the UN in deciding if at first the issue is even worth raising and if it is, then discussing if any and what type of action is to be taken. This process can be agonising long for the citizens of those states who are in dire need of a humanitarian intervention (Alex J. Bellamy, 2008). In order to be able to build up a fair judgement of the current norm and to understand the UN’s role in humanitarian intervention, it is important to recognise the boundaries the organisation is confined within.
It is not to say that humanitarian interventions have not taken place or in some case not been successful because that would be an un-fair statement. They have taken place and done a fair amount of good as well, but they have mostly been in the form of a military intervention. There are many other ways of preventing crimes against humanity in particular genocide and mass murder, but the most used response is that of a military intervention, which really should be used as a last resort and not the first choice. As laid down in the responsibility to protect report (2001) the international community is to react with appropriate ‘coercive measures like sanctions and international prosecutions and in extreme cases military interventions’ (1CCISS, 2001.p.p. XI). Furthermore as described in the report if military interventions do take place then they need to be of the duration and intensity so to secure the human protection objective. This sadly has not been the case as economic sanctions along with other peaceful methods have not been used to the fullest or been backed by military interventions which have gone beyond their need to intervene.
It is important to recognise that states do not intervene for purely humanitarian reasons. They only risk the lives of their soldiers if something is to be gained for them or their state. Interventions are guided by national interest than anything else. As the realist perspective would argue that political leaders do not have the right or the power to shed blood of their own citizens for suffering foreigners (Alex J. Bellamy, 2008). This point was fairly proven when the UN or any of the VETO powers choose not to respond or intervene during the human rights disaster in Rwanda or Sudan. One of the reasons for not intervening was there were no physical commodities to be gained from the intervention and neither was the US’s national interest at stake. Since there was nothing at staked or to be gained it was not feasible to lose soldiers lives while doing ‘good’. The second reason for not intervening by the VETO powers was that it is believed that the US played a hand in creating the crisis. In Rwanda the CIA and MI6 are known to have played a role in the insurgency that led to the humanitarian crisis of genocide and mass killing as suggested in the International State Crime Initiative (Cameron). This goes to show where nations have failed to intervene when most desperately needed to. When states do decide to intervene they have done so while abusing this power in the process. The power to intervene has been abused several times in the past by various powerful states such as the USA and coalition forces war in Iraq in 1991 and Hitler’s invasion into Czechoslovakia on the bases of humanitarian intervention. These decisions to intervene were based on the nation states that did intervene gaining something in return. It is simply the abuse by the powerful in order to justify interference in the affairs of the weak nations (Alex J. Bellamy, 2008). It is this selectivity of the response that makes the international norm even the more in-adequate in responding to intervention needs.
The current norm of humanitarian intervention is not sufficient, as seen in the past again and again mass killings keep on going and nations not intervening unless it is in their interest. The realist and liberalist perspective look at the whole issue of intervention from two very different lights but both respond against intervening. The realists see it as against the states interest and the moral duty towards the state comes above anything else. The liberalists believe in the power of democracy and the states in need of help of intervening should sort it out themselves by overthrowing tyrant governments and establishing democracy. The UN and Security Council are there but they are limited to the boundaries set forth in the charter. With regards to further research, the responsibility to protect report provided some good suggestions and maybe creating a separate body that looks into issues of intervention can be formed, but then forms the problem of discrediting the UN and its sovereignty. The current norm of intervention is week but it can be made stronger by developing various other ways of intervention and limiting military intervention as an absolute last resort.
Bibliography
Alex J. Bellamy, N. J. (2008). Hummanitarian Interventions in World Politics. In S. S. John Baylis, The Globalization of World Politics (pp. 522-538). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, H. (n.d.). Rwanda/DRC Draft UN Report . Retrieved 01 08, 2011, from International State Crime Initiative: http://statecrime.org/index.php/state-studies/rwanda
ICISS. (2001). The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Kant, I. (1724). To Perpetual Peace: A philosophical sketch. In T. Humphery, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (pp. 107-144). Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.
Mills, J. S. (1973). A few words on Non-Intervention. In G. Himmelfarb, Essays on politics and culture (pp. 377-8). Gloucester: Peter Smith.
Reisman, M. (1985). Criteria for the lawful use of of force in international law. Yale journal of International law , 279-285.
Tim Dunne, B. C. (2008). Realism. In S. S. John Baylis, The Globalization of World Politics (pp. 90-106). New York: Oxford University Press.