Importance Of Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention is military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. This term is controversial and therefore often debated, as it is an evaluative and subjective term. The common use of the term itself is the desire to come in help to other people, however according to some other opinions, it is the outcome of the intervention that defines it. Firstly, it is essential to define what is meant by the word abandoned in this context. As HI has been happening throughout history, abandoned would imply an on-going lack or diminishing numbers of interventions.

Human catastrophe is the biggest reason as to why we need interventionism. It will help us put an end to any and all future genocides. The second reason to have interventionism is so we can maintain our allies. Without our allies we would not be capable of doing all the things we currently do, like invading places that so desperately need our help. Think of it like this, our country is having a genocide, and to know that other countries are aware of what is happening and won’t come to help because of their own petty reasons, would you then consider isolationism to be an option? In conclusion, whether we should or shouldn’t adopt an interventionism policy should not even be a question, because when the lives of those who are helpless cannot simply call out to us, they should know we will always be there to support

What does 200,000, 800,000 and 11 million mean to you? Anyone seeing these numbers simply just sees them as a random group of figures; however, to the victims of former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and the Holocausts, these are the number of civilian casualties as a result of genocide, or the methodical massacre of a sizeable group of individuals. Throughout history, there have been several examples of genocide. In some instances, those affected received aid or a form of intervention, while others did not. I believe humanitarian intervention is permissible, especially in the cases of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and victims of the Holocausts. When it comes to saving innocent lives, protecting human rights, and preserving the state, humanitarian intervention

American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop

The Darfur genocide was the first genocide in the twentieth century and it is also the first genocide to be declared genocide. Sadly the Darfur genocide still remains and millions of people are still being affected as of today. Roughly around 400,000 innocent lives were lost. (Society in Darfur, Chiff.com) In the year 2011 more than 500,000 Sudanese civilians were being driven out of their homes by the government’s harsh actions and decisions and this number is still rising. (It’s in my blood, stopgenocide.org.) Many of their homes and villages were burned to nothing bust ashes by the Janjaweed. In the year 2008 the United Nations created a “hybrid” United Nation and African Union mission known as UNAMID. They had planned to send over 26,000 troops to help defend the citizens with force if necessary. But they only sent around 9,000 troops so far and they also lack the proper equipment (Sudan Protest, guardianlv.com). The United Nations have stationed many refugee camps. Many people run away from their village to get to the refugee camps and get the protection they need. Many associations are making an honest effort to help send supplies to Sudan. So far around 6.1 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance as of 2014. And the response by the several of humanitarian groups has been amazing. They have raised 6 million dollars’ worth of donations and was sent to Sudan last year in 2013. The Relief International group stationed many health outposts throughout

History has been shown to repeat itself, and if we don't learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it. We have watched many genocides happen within the last decade, some of which the U.S. has intervened, and in some cases where they have not. The United States should not intervene in foreign countries for humanitarian reasons because the U.S. may lack investing the amount of troops and resources necessary to make the intervention successful ; that doctrine will be abused unless there is a self-interest at stake.

The Iraq War was not a humanitarian intervention, but a humanitarian war. Humanitarian invention mainly consists of threats, and the United States made the decision to physically intervene in Iraq’s affairs. The United States main reason to go to war with Iraq was not motivated by humanitarian needs. Bush and his administration made the decision to declare war on Iraq for the sole purpose of preventing the weapons

Humanitarian intervention was put in place to help protect the people. humanitarian intervention occurs when a government, holding the powers of the state and representing the sovereign people, fails to protect the people. Ellery Stowell defines humanitarian intervention as “the reliance upon force for the justifiable purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from treatment which is so arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits of that authority within which the sovereign is presumed to act with reason and justice” (1921, 53) (Benjamin, 2010).

The United State’s aid agencies played a tremendous role in Humanitarian services in crisis areas. Most of the time, the United States aid agencies get involved in areas which have been destroyed either by natural or man made disasters. After a devastating earthquake hit Haiti in 2010, causing death of hundreds of thousands and displacing almost the same number, the United States military and aid agencies were at the Frontline to provide emergency supplies for the people. In Libya the United States involved to protect civilians after the being targeted by the Libyan president at that time Muammar al-Qaddafi militias. But at the end of the day it became military intervention, “military intervention has created a de-stabilized (some say failed)

Often the sentiment in a state is that the first responsibility of your state is to your state. In particular, armed humanitarian intervention would put the lives of a state’s soldiers in danger for another state, which may not even be consenting to the action. Further, the use of violent force for the goal of preserving human right, peace, and stability can be seen as paradoxical. This paradox can be seen in many conflicts which claim to be waging war for the long term goal of peace. There are additional concerns in the “jus post bellum” for armed humanitarian intervention. The intervening country may set up a government that is not representative of the people, using it as an opportunity to exert control over another country rather than protect human rights. Additional critics of the right for humanitarian intervention express realist ideas that ethics is not important in international affairs, or rather against improper use of morality in foreign affairs. A major explanation given by the international community against humanitarian action is the emphasis on maintaining sovereignty. This explanation is especially problematic since human rights should be more valued than upholding the norm of sovereignty, when all other ethical guidelines for intervention

One distressing example of a current humanitarian crisis involves Bashar Al Assad’s regime in Syria which has displaced 12 million people since 2011. Due to lack of leadership in the Middle East, Assad’s regime sprayed thousands of civilians with chlorine gas in April of 2015, which resulted in numerous injuries and deaths. It was only after the U.S. allocated military forces and provided 4.5 billion dollars in financial assistance to Syrian refugees that the international community became involved. European nations such as France and New Zealand are continuing to accept 24,850 Syrian refugees in the next three years. The U.S. will alone accept 10,000 refugees next year. Overall, without America’s actions in humanitarian crisis, these refugees would continue to suffer at the hands of the Assad

Take Iraq for example. There was a war that happened from 2003-2011. The United States intervened in the war, and guess what? Things got worse. Besides, it is a Civil war. The UN isn't allowed to intervene a civil war unless requested from the country itself. Not to mention, innocent civilians’ lives may be threatened. According to a recent Reuters poll, just 9 percent of Americans believe the United States should take military action in Syria (“11 Reasons “ ). Syria poses no real threat to the U.S. The U.S military’s job is to protect the security of the U.S, not to intervene in another nation’s war. Atrocities are happening all over the world. Why should the U.S intervene Syria but not the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, Mali, Philippines, Russia, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, or North Korea? Are the horrible things going on in Syria any worse than those in the listed

The key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.

Humanitarian intervention is the act when states intervene in the affairs of another state because that state is violating the basic human rights of its civilians or because it is in the intervening state’s self interest to get involved. (Humanitarian, 2008) These interventions are not specifically aimed at violating the sovereignty of a state, but rather their purpose is to protect the basic human rights of civilians during civil wars and during crime against humanity. (Humanitarian, 2008) Realism explains that humanitarian intervention came about during the genocide in Bosnia but not in Rwanda because even though it might have been the correct moral action to take, intervention in Rwanda was not in the national interest of other

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will