Humanitarian Intervention: Legitimate or a Scam? Essay Sample

A humanitarian intervention can be defined as the action by international bodies or independent states in another state to avert the proliferation of a particular human crisis such as civil war, famine, human trafficking and so on. The limit of what qualifies to be a "humanitarian intervention" is a topic for much debate in International Relations (Baylis, Owens & Smith, eds., 2017). Theorists and practitioners in the disciplines governing Humanitarian Interventions at crossroads as concerns what action qualifies as a humanitarian intervention. An element of force characterizes most of the humanitarian interventions (Bellamy, 2017). However, on the other side, some argue that there are forcible and non-forcible types of humanitarian interventions. Non-forcible humanitarian interventions involve supplying relief food, medicine, drilling boreholes for a famine-stricken community and so on. Forcible humanitarian intervention means there is a military presence of foreign forces (NATO, UN, etc.). An example is the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) which is a peacekeeping initiative backed by both the United Nations and the African Union. AMISOM was a response to the attacks around East Africa by Al Shabaab, the Islamic terrorist group.

In neo-realism, as put forth by Ken Waltz in his 1989 book, "Theory of International Politics," anarchy is the natural state of affairs in the international system; meaning that there is no world government but only states seeking their interests (Barry& Osborne, eds., 2013). States seeking their benefits is very much the case in many humanitarian interventions. On the other hand, Social Constructivism is the theory that states interact with each other in a quid pro quo manner, with social structures in place that are inter-subjective rather than material (Peltonen, 2017). Humanitarian interventions are forcible as in most cases, the threat to human rights is in itself violent (Hughes, 2017). For example, the persecution of the minority Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar is a current event happening now as we approach 2018. The Rohingya Muslims are not recognized by the Burmese government even though 135 ethnic tribes have their own identities.

To the Myanmar government the Rohingya do not exist- even in official records, there is no mention of the name "Rohingya." Instead, the Rohingya are classified as Bengali refugees and illegal immigrants who came from Bangladesh and India in the 1970s even though documents from as far back as 1799 mention Rohingya living in Rakhine, Northern Myanmar (Humairoh, 2017). Violence against the Rohingya has hence been the order of the day. Most recently, the Rohingya have found themselves under violent attacks, and some have had to band themselves in squalid camps for Internally Displaced People (IDP). Their homes have burnt together with crops and many have opted to cross the border across to Bangladesh and India to seek refuge (Ripoll, 2017). In response to the discrimination, a militant group the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army has been launching attacks on Buddhists since August 2016. Buddhists make up 90% of the Burmese population. Most of the laws do not encompass the beliefs of other religions such as Islam and Christianity. Hence, the Rohingya crisis is fast becoming an international issue; NATO has shown concern and several key players are pressuring the United Nations to intervene.

Aung San Suu Kyi is the State Counsellor, a position equal to Prime Minister, and the leader of Myanmar. In 1991 she was awarded The Nobel Peace Prize after fighting against the dictatorial government and enduring 15 years of house arrest. Surprisingly, she has not spoken out against the Rohingya crisis. As of December 2017 more than 650,000 of the Rohingya have fled across the border to Bangladesh. The Burmese Army has been caught on camera by satellite images shooting at the Rohingya as they escape to Bangladesh. Civil rights movements and the United Nations have been denied access to these areas (Lestari, 2017. Now Aung San Suu Kyi could face genocide charges because the so-called "ethnic cleansing" has happened under her watch under she has on occasion called out the Rohingya as "terrorists" and "illegal immigrants."

Considering the Rohingya crisis, hypothetically speaking a humanitarian intervention seems the best course of action for the coming months and into 2018 (Chong). The State Counsellor Aung Suu Kyi does not control the military, which acts under its leadership. However, she has criticized international aids groups such as The Red Cross for "misinforming" the world on the crisis and she, like major top officials in the government and military has refused to call the Rohingya by name- calling them terrorists. In her speech after she received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, Aung Suu Kyi said, "Ultimately our aim should be to create a world free from the displaced, the homeless and the hopeless, a world of which each and every corner is a true sanctuary where the inhabitants will have the freedom and the capacity to live in peace." (Chakraborty, 2013) Much of the world is questioning whether she meant any of it at all while others are adamant that she is now showing her true authoritarian colors.

The fact that Aung Suu Kyi has stayed her moral sense and spoken for the majority of the Burmese she represents is a perfect example of a state looking after its interests which is a significant commandment of neo-realism. Ethnic cleansing is morally wrong, but Aung Suu Kyi is looking the other way as the military kills and displace the Rohingya from homes they have lived in for centuries. She has cited that international aids groups are misinforming the world concerning the crisis while she has not done anything to change the situation. It is she clear the State Counsellor is willing to let the government act as it wishes despite civil rights activists and the international community condemning the ethnic cleansing. Some experts in International Relations are suggesting the invasion of troops organized by the UN to solve the situation, but it is not as easy as that. The international laws concerning humanitarian interventions are yet unclear and states rarely agree on any course of action (Recchia, 2017).

Another fundamental principle in neo-realism is the distribution of capabilities or decentralization of power by states (Martill, 2017). For Myanmar, the case is undoubtedly valid. Aung San Suu Kyi is the Is not the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The military acts independently, while the State Counsellor is the political leader of the party in power which at present is the National League for Democracy. Aung Suu Kyi hence can comfortably say the Rohingya crisis is not a primary objective in her party manifesto- because there is no mention of the Rohingya" in her party's manifesto and indeed most of the government's official documents and periodicals. The military has decided that the Rohingya are terrorists and Aung Suu Kyi has on occasion given the same opinion. Foreign journalists are denied access to Rohingya territories, and several have been detained. Canadian journalists and French Reuters journalists have been arrested in the country as recent as December 2017. Free media is something which Myanmar does not condone. Another reason people are pushing for humanitarian intervention is the suppression of the press especially foreign media. Myanmar is supposed to be a democracy but the way things are at the moment, it looks more and more like a dictatorship.

Neo-realism do not suffice to explain much of the actions of states such as the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Paris, 2014). Neo-realism prides itself on its simple premises but in International Relations complexity is the default setting of many happenings. Where neo-realism fails to explain affairs, social constructivism attempts to do so. In humanitarian interventions, in most cases, this is partly true. In 2010, NATO forces invaded Libya, and on 20th October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was killed in yet unclear circumstances (Bandeira,, 2017). Social Constructivism decrees that where cooperation of states cannot be fostered then violence and war is eminent. In Social Constructivism there are two extremes: mutual cooperation between two allies or a clash between two rivals which in most cases means war. The reason why NATO was invading was to overthrow the despot Gaddafi and let the Libyans form their government but as of now factions are still fighting for political power (Okibe, 2017). Six years on, the cost of living of Libya is at an all-time high, and the Islamic State is ruling with an iron fist. The Libyans are crying and wishing Gaddafi was alive. Meanwhile, Barack Obama hopes he had done something more following the toppling of Gaddafi.

France, England, and the USA apparently had their interests besides liberating the Libyans from oppressive rule (Morgan, 2017. Gaddafi reportedly wanted to establish a gold-based currency for the whole of Africa. Gaddafi was elected the African Union chairman in 2009, a position he was holding when he was unceremoniously killed. The gold-backed currency supposedly threatened the US dollar and the Euro which are the top two exchange currencies. Hence, NATO had to act. Also, Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. WikiLeaks disclosed classified documents in an email sent to the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on April 2nd, 2011 which show that the United States was interested in Libya to have more share in the production of oil and to ensure that Gaddafi's gold-backed currency plans did not come to fruition. In 2011, the Central Bank of Libya was 100% state-owned and reportedly had 144 tons of gold. In 2017, the Central Bank of Libya has been looted in the ensuing years. Its running and ownership are marred by controversy, and some conspiracies have emerged. Hence, from the Libyan Arab spring of 2011, it can be seen that humanitarian crises can be used by powerful states to establish their self-gain.

During the Cold War, The Soviet Union and the United States engaged in stockpiling weapons in the arms race. In many cases, other countries were used. For example, the Vietnam War is a perfect example of the self-interest of powerful nations under the guise of humanitarian interventions. The Viet Cong and Northern Vietnamese wanted to reunify the country, but the United States got involved to stop "communism from spreading to South Vietnam." The United States and other capitalist states had their reasons for engaging in the war- they represented a higher power called capitalism, which had created ties with South Vietnam. The communist states Russia and China were united by the "Communist cause," and they had to help the Northern Vietnamese as they all were Socialists. Hence from 1955 to 1975, the Vietnam War raged on, fueled by opposing economic ideologies and the Vietnamese people suffered. The United States lost the war as the North and South united and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was formed. Vietnamese lives were lost, but the United States and the Soviet Union only cared about winning the Cold War. Vietnam was just a pawn in the grand scheme of things.

Powerful nations use other nations to achieve their agendas. Humanitarian interventions have been used several times to act as a cover-up for the actions of superpowers (Kuperman & Crawford eds., 2014). Superpowers use allies; they sponsor development programs and give grants and other forms of aid to buy allegiance from "weak" countries. Africa, Asia, South America and Eastern Europe are the regions where humanitarian interventions have been used as an excuse for the presence of powerful states (Freedman, 2017). Long before nations, empires were run this way. Humanita...