Humanitarian Intervention Is An Unacceptable Assault On Sovereignty Essay

The UN and the US government are accredited for deploring conflict situations as well as contributing humanitarian aid, and this is what these two organizations did in Rwanda and Darfur. However, the UN did not do anything to punish or prevent the genocides that took place in these two countries. The US government promised to support the peace talk’s agreement in Darfur and hold the perpetrators accountable for their acts. It never kept that promise since nothing has been done. So far, the UN’s Security Council has also failed in its peace keeping mission effeorts, and is instead pressuring Sudan with words only. No solid steps have been made to bring the wrong doers into justice (Shapiro).

Creating relations between races and ethnicity's has always been vital to the success of the world. The United States and the international community have been, more often than not, late to stop violent acts against humanity. It took decades after the United Nations was created, and after a horrendous genocide in Rwanda, for the International Criminal Court to be created. Despite these two establishments created for international peace and security, crimes against humans rights are still occurring.When human rights are being violated, it is necessary for the U.S. and its allies to intervene in ethnic conflicts. While others may say humanitarian intervention goes against a state’s sovereign authority,it is necessary to protect

The war in Darfur materialized at the wrong time for the United States, Norway, and Britain, two of which are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. At the time, they were focused on ensuring the success of the Naivasha negotiations in Sudan. The Naivasha agreement, also known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was an permanent ceasefire agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/ Sudan People’s Liberation Army to end the Second Sudanese Civil War. This was long time coming because the conflict had started all the way back in 1983. The Security Council used the ‘Brahimi principal,’ which states “regional organizations take primary responsibility for the problems in their backyard” to push responsibility on to the A.U. The Brahimi principle The Security Council was glad to give someone else the responsibility of Darfur so they could focus on others tasks at hand.

Misunderstandings arise looking at Article 51 in international law that gives the right to self- defence. It is debatable as to whether this is an explicit right, only exercisable in response to armed attack or whether it allows force in response to potential attacks. Article 2(4) of the UN charter states that the use of force by states is banned however this has not stopped over one hundred large conflicts since 1945. States generally use international law as an excuse and form of justification for their actions (Evans, 2006: 589). Article 2(4) declares “all members shall abstain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.” Yet the main exception is self- defence (Evans, 2006: 598). The article does not make clear what constitutes self- defence. How is a state to distinguish self-defense from hegemonic desires?

The inquiry recommended an action plan on genocide and ethnic cleansing going forward to prevent further tragedies from occurring. Furthermore, the inquiry called for improvements to the capacity of peacekeepers in genocidal situations. In conjunction to this, there was a strong emphasis on improved protection of civilians and early warning capacities and mechanisms in order to prevent and/or slow ethnic cleansings. However the most profound introspective analysis was that of the nature of international politics and political will. The United Nations in hindsight of Rwanda stated that “political will to act should not be subject to double standards” therefore declaring that the Security Council must be prepared to act in all issues of human rights (UN DOC

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.

The United Nations has become a sort of bureaucracy, dependent on the views of the five major powers that sit on the Security Council. The United Nations during the Rwandan crisis centered their policies on the survival of the institution itself. The Preventable Genocide International Panel of Eminent Personalities for Rwanda reaffirmed these realist interests in saying: "On April 8 and 9, Dallaire's UN troops were immediately ordered – by the Secretariat in New York, and under strong pressure from western countries to work with the French to evacuate foreign nationals rather than protect threatened Rwandans" (Rwanda). This is an unfortunate example of realist interests, which is not to say that these men and women were not important, they were, but extra support was not given to help pull them out which meant that the support the Rwandans needed was of even lesser strength than it previously had been. The UN at this point in history was failing from many defeats such as the intervention in Somalia , and it was therefore very reluctant to commit to another mission, which defiantly clouded judgement when it came to intervening in Rwanda. Alison Des Forges amplified this in saying most staff at the U.N. were fixed on averting another failure in peacekeeping operations, even at the cost of Rwandan lives" (Des Forges). Dallaire looks at the UN more in-depth by

On October 10, 2014, the special advisors published a statement concerning the genocidal violence and acts of terrorism in Kobane, Syria. “mission and work of the UN system as a whole. UN agencies, departments and programmes contribute to the prevention of genocide by, inter alia, supporting equitable economic development and the fair distribution of political power; promoting tolerance and respect for ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, and the protection of human rights; providing humanitarian assistance; and interceding to ensure peace, security and stability.” (the UN website). When a genocide, war crimes, acts of terrorism, and crimes against humanity have taken, the UN lets the International Criminal Court (separate from UN) to investigate and press charges. The UN uses many different committees and groups to prevent the terror of genocide in all countries, around the

I will shed the light on the Security Council which is the keystone of the United Nations system of collective security, and its role in maintaining international peace and security by settling disputes pacifically under chapter VI of the UN Charter and by taking action regarding threats, breaches, and acts of aggression under chapter VII. I will then discuss the several options that Nation states had resorted to in the past to intervene in order to protect civilians. And I will finally highlight the notion of the responsibility to protect which emerged in 2001 and its implication on populations under

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits members of the United Nations the right of individual or collective self-defense preceding an armed attack.

Humanitarian intervention can come in one of two different variations dependent on the case at hand. To put humanitarian intervention into a basic definition, it is “An armed intervention in a state, without that state’s consent, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights” (Segen). Intervention can be

Herein lies the central dilemma of deploying armed force in humanitarian interventions for peace. I have talked about the good that can be brought about by peacekeeping forces, even suggesting that the United Nations Peacekeeping force in Rwanda should have intervened more proactively to prevent the genocide in 1994.

Limitations of UN Peacekeeping have been exposed time and again. The alterations caused by these limitations have now been incorporated in the operational structure. The influence of a UN Peacekeeping Operation, too, depends on extent of involvement of various actors, whose conduct depends greatly on assessment of strategic interests. So, the characterization of United Nations as an international authority which could issue directives to enforce its mandate would be an overstatement as previous missions have demonstrated. There have been calls for overhauling the UN Peacekeeping structure. A High-level independent panel on peace operations was appointed by Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary General of United Nations in October, 2014 to review the state of UN Peacekeeping Operations. A major concern shared by all panel members which was also earmarked as an essential shift in the future process was the emphasis laid on striving towards a political solution rather than an attempt to diffuse the crisis by military means alone. Political instability has been at the roots of many conflicts, which the UN has sought to defuse by deployment of peacekeeping missions. Most missions failed to address the larger issue of restoring stability, on account of the fact that military interventions change the dynamics of regional security forever. Also, removal of a regime could lead to further deterioration of the conflict as political vacuum created by such removal and facilitating the creation of an interim proxy regime has challenges of its own. Taking out governments/rulers is perceived as the most effective immediate response to any call for intervention. The real challenge for international community arises after a successful throw over, as it pushes the country towards a political crisis. It is this situation that world/regional powers are keen on exploiting by appointing ‘friendly’ rulers, with an eye on strategic interests, which is why a concerted political solution should be the primary objective of the international community to avoid complications. U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley recently hit out at the UN peacekeeping operations, calling for a clear demarcation between

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an