Neo-Colonialism Disguised as Humanitarian Intervention Humanitarian intervention is argued to be a necessary means as to prevent foreign states abusing the human rights of its citizens; this position is essentially held by the powers which have the capacity to undertake (but also to undermine) these international interventions. This argument that if taken at face value could be seen by the majority as a respectable position to support as it is popularised by the altruistic feelings garnered from the vocal support, or silent nonchalance towards the enacting powerful groups of humanitarian intervention agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America (USA/US). This essay will expand upon the moral codes of which humanitarian interventions are based upon; I do however counter these idyllic foundations with the outcomes from two specific case studies being the US’s Iraq “humanitarian intervention” and the UN’s Libyan humanitarian intervention. These two case studies showcase the alternative neo-colonialist motives behind organizations’ altruistic façade which frames the lives of people as sufferers in conflicts, which is done to support their interventions.
Introduction Some argue that globalization will, on the long term, bring all cultures as a unique Western, if not Americanized, culture, while others argue that some cultures will persist in order to keep their own essence and therefore avoid the homogenization of all cultures. Alongside pure tradition, global conflicts, contradictory political regimes and the diversity of economic systems, some cultures are bound to face issues when trying to fully fit in a global western culture, and that is why cultures are adaptable to one another, but with some limits that we will express in this essay.
Why have some American attempts at humanitarian intervention been successful and others not? Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation
Globalization is the process by which different societies and cultures integrate through a worldwide network of political ideas through transportation, communication, and trade. Generally, globalization has affected many nations in various ways; economically, politically, and socially. It is a term that refers to the fast integration and interdependence of various nations, which shapes the world affairs on a global level. Simply put; globalization is the world coming together. In this essay I will discuss multiple perspectives on globalization through the analysis of these three sources.
The role of globalization has had a major influence on society and the world, and this essay will argue it has resulted in cultural homogenization. This can be illustrated through an introduction to globalization, the consolidation of media, ownership and vested interests, world standardization and neoliberalism, politics and the media and public service media. Examining the different views of globalization, including Appadurai and McChesney as well as other sources it can be clearly understood the negatives arising due to
Cities in US History: 20th century We all come across with the term globalization. The developing countries have battled with increased globalization. But be careful, the effects of globalization are very complex as well as far-reaching. No doubt there are certainly some positive effects, but one cannot overlook the negative consequences of globalization over the area like cultures in the widespread developing world. Globalization is a nothing but the concept that symbolize the contested visions of a worldwide identity. In America, the heritage, culture and individuality has been compromised by this globalization. The face of this region has been changed and not always for the better. Nevertheless, there are the issues like social as
When a country encounters a catastrophic situation where human rights are being violated, it is the state’s responsibility to protect its nation. Frequently state’s shift from humanitarian intervention to responsibility to protect as a solution to human rights violations. Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a states’s use of “military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.”1 In order for a state to successfully protect, according to Anne Orford in the article Lawful Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, they must “prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.” (pg 248, Orford) A state is responsible for protecting its population, if they fail to do so the responsibility and authority to do so shifts to the international community.
‘Globalization is a term that came into common usage in the 1980’s to describe the increased movement of people, knowledge and ideas, and goods and money across national borders that has led to increased interconnectedness among the world’s populations, economically, politically, socially and culturally’. ‘Although globalization is often thought of
Globalisation is the process of interconnectedness and the integration of national and regional culture, economies, and society through the global network of communication, immigration, transportation and trade (Financial Times Lexicon, 2017). According to Reiche (2014), globalisation did not mean much in the past fifty years. It could be
Globalization is a concept that we have heard for years, but is not until recent years that we had studied and analyzed the benefits and issues of this international term. During years, it has been discussed the implications that globalization has had in some countries, more or less of them in a decent way and some of them in a corrupted way. Since young, political figures have taught about the role of the United States in the world and how they promote the expression freedom and success around the globe. As the reading from “Globalization and Empire says; and quote: “Empires have had the greatest influence in determining the nature of the forces of globalization, they are the chief globalizers of the world. Throughout history it is clear that empires were the principle forces that determined the nature of integration of different societies in the world.”(Peter Iadicola, p.4). Being United States the first world superpower, it has some failures based on the documentary of John Pilger, where he demonstrates that because of the globalization, most of the U.S. companies are profiting from those wretched areas or countries where the workforce is at low-cost. This bring out a simple questions, is that the example leaders want to demonstrate? Hiding things that are happening around the world? The New Rulers of the World Documentary are presented to us that the globalization has marked on a vast scale the difference between the rich and the poor. They are controlling even what the
Globalization implies distinctive things to diverse individuals. To the individuals who support it, it speaks to less explanations behind outfitted clashes, more open doors for getting away from the bounds custom and bias, a higher expectation for everyday comforts, and more access to the great things of life; so, private enterprise and majority rules system. To the individuals who doubt it or disdain it, it implies the submersion of national power, the elimination of territorial societies, the advancement of multinational enterprises and the chapter 11 of corner stores, the undermining of religion, and the defilement of profound quality; to put it plainly, private enterprise and popular government.
Humanitarian interventions violate the principle of non-armed intervention provided by the United Nations. Traditionally, Western states are the ones who increasingly use this medium to give legitimacy to a security plan to protect its global economic interests. The fact invoked humanitarian grounds to intervene in domestic affairs of other countries is done to protect economic interests of interveners countries. Paradoxically states most involved are precisely those that contribute more funds to the United Nations for humanitarian action. Western nations have invoked numerous moral reasons born of natural law by which an intervention is justified as such: to penalize the wrong and protect the innocent. As Nardin (P.70) argued: “The tradition of natural law or common morality, sees humanitarian intervention as an expression of the basic moral duty to protect the innocent from the violence.” International organizations based on international law such as the United Nations, the International Red Cross, UNHCR among others, when they intervene in conflicts are always faced with a moral and ethical dilemma because their interests do not coincide with the benefit of the intervenor's countries.
External intervention for humanitarian purposes has proven to be a controversial issue both when it has happened, as seen in Bosnia and Kosovo and when it failed to happen, as in Rwanda. The idea of humanitarian intervention in order to prevent or stop crimes against humanity would appear to be reasonable, since the international community has the economic and military advantage needed in order to stop the violence that mainly occurs in third world countries (Kuperman, 2008: 49). Nevertheless, for years the idea of intervention in another state’s affairs has been considered a breach of state sovereignty and therefore it has been avoided in many cases (Thakur, 2002:325). Following the tragedies in Rwanda and Kosovo, in 1999 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan tried to get an international sense on the issue by questioning the world, “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to Rwanda, to Srebrenica to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?” (Evans, 2004:79).
The consensus among the international community affirms that nations, like individuals, have basic rights, namely, the right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty. When another nation violates these rights, it is considered an act of aggression. However, there certainly are situations where a violation of territorial integrity or political sovereignty is justified, namely in humanitarian intervention, “the use of military force against another state when the chief declared aim of that action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.” The issue of humanitarian intervention has been at the forefront of international relations discourse, particularly after the end of the Cold War. It has been a highly contentious subject, having impact on millions of people and many regions around the world. The international community has yet to settle on a set of principles and parameters that define and characterize justification for intervention. However, writers like John Stuart Mill and Michael Walzer outline the conditions for which humanitarian intervention is permissible. A violation of a nation 's political sovereignty and territorial integrity for the purpose of humanitarian intervention is justified in Michael Walzer’s revision of the Legalist Paradigm when there is a substantial violation of the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property, and the host nation is either complicit in the injustice or
Globalization is an undeniable reality of the modern world. That said globalization means different things to different people. The debate about globalization is particularly complex because of the wide variety of ways that globalization affects people. Everyone has a stake in globalization, but some have more power to affect the system than others, Rebecca Todd Peters, in her book In Search of the Good Life, attempts to clarify the debate about globalization by identifying the 4 main viewpoints that exist. She identifies the dominant theories of globalization as neoliberalism and social equity liberalism. The to resistance theories, she characterizes as, earthism and post-colonialism. All the theories have specific proponents, historical contexts, ideologies, and goals for an ideal form of globalization. The goals of Peters’ book are to describe, critique, and provide her normative analysis of each model. She analyzes each model based on their idea of the ‘good life.’ She does this by asking three questions: “What is the position’s understanding of moral agency? ”, “What is humanities purpose –our end, or Telos? ”, and “What constitutes human flourishing?” (Pp. 22). Peters develops her normative analysis by providing answers to these questions based on her perspective and moral values.