US Foreign Intervention, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The below paper is designed to discuss the difference in international politics of the United States towards Yugoslavia and Rwanda, using a theoretical approach. The historical, political and justification methods will be featured in the study in order to conclude the main themes of international policies and approaches of the United States. The Rwandan genocide has many features resembling the civil war that took place in former Yugoslavia. However, the level of solidarity shown by the U.S. government towards the two countries was different and while there was a military-humanitarian intervention in the case of Yugoslavia, no involvement was initiated in Rwanda.

However, before examining the theories related to international intervention and policies, it is important to review some of the commonly accepted definitions of forced military intervention and humanitarian interventions. The authors would like to use the definitions outlined by Ludlow (1) . Humanitarian intervention, according to the author, is “forced military intervention, sanctioned by the United Nations, in the affairs of a sovereign state, based primarily on humanitarian grounds.” The two main characteristics of the above description of humanitarian military intervention is that there is a lack of consent from the state the military is targeting, and the more important feature is that the motivation is humanitarian.

Hypotheses and Individual Case Reviews

Hypothesis 1: The great power struggle influenced the decision of the United Nations and the United States to intervene in Yugoslavia, and their interest lay in preserving Europe’s political and social stability.

Hypothesis 2: Rwanda did not trigger a motivation to intervene in the United States and the United Nations because of the combination of the following reasons: incapacity and unwillingness to respond.

The case of Yugoslavia. The intervention of Kosovo is described by Ludlow (26) as the emergence of “‘sovereignty as responsibility”. This shift of principles, moral and international considerations has triggered a debate on the justification of humanitarian intervention. The legitimacy of the intervention was questioned not only by individual states, but even the United Nations. The UN response was to reinforce and reinterpret the norms and definitions of state sovereignty. As a result, the following statement was implemented:

“State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the       international responsibility to protect.” (ICISS, para.xi)

The case of Rwanda. Ludlow (3) states that the main reasons that led to the United State’s failure to respond to the genocide that took place in Rwanda were due to international relations obstacles. The author states that the main reasons were incapacity and unwillingness to respond. There was no “clearly defined national interest” or public pressure to make the government to react to the situation. Another possibility, according to Ludlow (5) is that the state would not have been able to effectively respond at a timely manner. However, it is important to review the normative aspects of humanitarian rights and their protection in order to understand the lack of response. In order to  “to prevent or to end gross violations of human rights” (Kardas 22), there is a need for a United Nations authorization. However, the attitude of the international organization or the state towards the “domestic affairs” influences the decision as well. Kardas (24) states that “The case of Rwanda signified the un-humanitarian non-intervention in the face of genocide”.

Justification

The existence and the emphasis of common norms in the international society is highlighted as one of the most important explanations of humanitarian military intervention by Kardas. (22) Accepting what the author calls as an “English school” theory that international society is anarchic, he states that there is a need for a “common authority”. (25) This common authority can be identified as the organization of the United Nations. However, interveners can also claim that they act in order to restore sovereignty. (35) Bellamy (117) also makes it clear that intervention can justify the hierarchical approach of international relations, allowing strong states to invade weaker ones and impose influence. Heinze (2009; 23) also says that the justification can be achieved through consensus between the intervening and target state. Still, there is only a few examples for the existence of this consensus.

Humanitarian intervention can also be justified as a form of rescue, according to Lee (24). There are two types of rescue identified by the author: mere rescue and rescue through regime change. It is easy to find an example in the 20^th Century international relations history for both. Further, Lee (25) explains that intervention can occur in a normal, inept or failed state. This type of justification is in contrast with the idea of liberal cosmopolitanism, which calls for intervention only in the cases when the sovereign state fails to protect its citizens. The theory will be explained in detail in the next chapter.

Reviewing eight different theories, Lee (28) determines several possible approaches towards justifying humanitarian intervention. The most commonly used explanations are: threat to international peace, fighting for moral reasons, similar to fighting terrorism or crime, to preserve universal human rights (jus ad bellum) as Walzer explains the problem, or to act to express international responsibility.

Spadling (3) states that the debate is between scholars who are trying to justify international humanitarian intervention with morals and those who are considering the authority of a sovereign state more important than international relations. The latter accept the “sovereign state as a supreme moral authority”, denying the existence of general, commonly accepted human rights and moral norms, like the ones determined by the United Nations. Drawing from Hobbes’ idea of universal human rights, the first group of scholars assume the supremacy of universal morality over sovereign states. Ludlow (4) considers the solidarity concept of international society as the best approach towards justifying humanitarian intervention.

Theoretical Framework

The below framework will analyse the main reasons behind states’ intervention into other states’ internal conflicts. Heinze (15) contrasts cosmopolitanism and statism, one supporting intervention and another non-intervention. Statism can also be described as a liberal approach towards international relations. Examining the morality of intervention, the author states that the concept of basic rights is confronted with the initiative to avoid killing innocent civilians. In all cases, when humanitarian intervention is involved, the main debate is created around the human cost of the military actions: is it worth it to maintain peace and lose lives of civilians in the process?

Defensive Realism. This theory argues that the condition of anarchy has an underdetermining feature. Therefore, aggression should be avoided and instead, signalling restraint should be applied. However, this approach also admits that in some cases aggression and intervention is necessary to create security and balance. Waltz (56) states that when one state increases its defense to create security, it can inevitably create instability for other states. This approach is based on Waltz’s balance-of-power theory, stating that one state’s increased security creates a sate of worry and dilemma in other countries’ leadership. Stronger states may decide to engage in military intervention to communicate restraint.

Offensive realism. The main pioneer of this theory is Mearsheimer. The author suggests that states are inherently self-interested creatures; so to expect them to act in any way that is not in their self-interest is illogical (Smith 9). This also implies that as long as there is national interest involved, humanitarian intervention should occur. Military (humanitarian or other) intervention can be justified by intervening states’ economic, security and geopolitical national interest.

Liberal cosmopolitanism. According to this approach towards international relations and humanitarian intervention, a state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. However, in this theory, other states and the international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfil this responsibility. The approach assumes that there is a consensus between the sovereign state and the international community. While – if the sovereign state is unable to protect its citizens – the international community can intervene through sanctions, military intervention should be used only as a last resort.

Great Power Politics. Roiux (16) states that in civil war and genocide situations. “the interveners are those actors with interests and power.” This statement supports the theory that Great Power Politics influence intervention decisions.  States are looking to gain power over rivals and increase their own security. They also look at extending their power. It is evident that the military intervention of Yugoslavia has led to a greater engagement of the region with NATO and supported the expansion plan of the international military organization. Geopolitical interests were important when the United States intervened in Yugoslavia, so were the economic ones: creating a stable region would support the creation of markets. Assuming that anarchy needs to be minimized, the approach is based on self-interest and power struggle between states/ international organizations.

Emerging alternative views on international relations and intervention. Bellamy (8) describes the relationship between sovereignty and human rights as the main tension within the United Nation’s international relations policies. While there are several measures put in place for the UN to determine when to intervene and when to respect states’ sovereignty within the UN Charter, it is usually hard to legitimize humanitarian intervention. In “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”. Mearsheimer (520) describes this relationship as a tragedy of great power politics. He describes democratic peace theory as one that assumes that all states have a friendly and positive intention. It is indeed the opposite of great power politics, aiming for a “giant zone of peace”. (Mearsheimer 535)

Hobbes vs Kant. Kant implies that our duty to assist others derives from the conclusion that they will at some point require aid for themselves. This theory does support intervention, however, it is a complicated approach, as it assumes that states are equal. It is hard to imagine that the United States would at any point rely on former Yugoslavian states to support the country, however, they might rely on their future help in international humanitarian projects, building on the experience of the country with similar situations.

As a contrast, Hobbes implied that states are driven and motivated by egotism, and conflict was based on three types of competition: for wealth and limited supplies (for example: crude oil), search for glory or distrust. One of the motivators Hobbes determined can explain the intervention in Yugoslavia: “search for glory”. In the Great Power Struggle, the West wanted to create a positive image about their state in the South-Eastern part of Europe to increase its influence, while it was not driven by the same motivations in Rwanda.

Normative Concerns. Stahn (100) states that states have the responsibility to protect, not based on political theoretical approaches, but ethical norms. Completing his research based on the International Commission of Intervention and State Sovereignty, built into the United Nations’ reform in 2004. The document and international initiative calls for a shared responsibility to maintain people’s human and safety rights. Further, it calls for a collective action in case the sovereign state is unable to protect its own citizens. (Bellamy 119) However, Stahn (102) also remarks that there are several divides between the normative and interpretive approaches. This finding could be possibly used to explain the difference between the UN actions related to Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Lee (23) states that “human rights are … universal values”. He talks about the instance when an oppressive state violates the rights of citizens or fails to stop others from violating human rights within the sovereignty.  The situation needs to be carefully analysed in order to determine whether or not a humanitarian intervention can be justified as an action to prevent or stop the violation of human rights.

Morals of Intervention. Heinze (15) looks at the moral dilemma from a moral perspective. According to the author, normative theories all have the same intention: to protect and promote human welfare. In some cases, there is a need for intervention, and these cases are clearly defined by the UN Security Council’s revised recommendation document. This also indicates that the international organization of the United Nations has recently adapted an approach that is closer to cosmopolitanism than realism.

Further considerations. A normative approach towards human rights assumes that people have equal rights and freedoms, and institutions exist to protect them. It also means that regardless of their citizenship status, race, gender, culture or religion, they have the same right for safety, basic needs determined by the United Nations. Media can function as a policy-setting agent, as well as an accelerator to making international policies regarding intervention. Further, lobbying and industries can also put pressure on governments to act, in order to preserve their own interest. For example, a conflict in the Middle East where diamond mines are located would affect large international companies in the industry, and so on. Domestic politics and international regulations can be influenced by media, especially the “CNN effect” can have a worldwide impact on international policies and intervention approaches. They have the power to call for immediate action.

Conclusion

The two hypotheses above have been examined through the lens of different theories (primary and contemporary). The authors have found that Great Power Politics determined the decision of the United States regarding humanitarian intervention. However, self-interest and motivation did also play an important role in the decisions. While the United States (and the United Nations) applied the approach of liberal cosmopolitanism in the case of Yugoslavia, it applied the neo-realist one. This confirms the two hypotheses set in the beginning of the research and answers the thesis question: why did the United States intervene in Yugoslavia and not in Rwanda to end man-created humanitarian disaster and genocide.

Although it is simple to explain the approaches of the United Nations and United States through international relations policies, it is also crucial to note that there was a great difference in the situation and the information that was available for the organization about domestic issues in the two countries. An extensive media coverage was present in the case of the crisis in former Yugoslavia, while the Rwanda situation got less publicity. As Ludlow (3) states, the United Nations failed to collect relevant information about the situation in Rwanda to enable international forces to effectively react in a timely manner.

However, as discussed before, it is also important to consider the influence of media as a policy agenda-setting agent when  reviewing international relation and intervention decisions of governments. As Lee (22) states, humanitarian intervention can sometimes be justified, but only through cosmopolitanism and liberal approaches, and only if one does not respect a state’s sovereignty higher than the well-being of its citizens.

Works Cited

Bellamy, A. (2003) “Humanitarian Responsibilities and Interventionist Claims in International Society”, Review of International Studies 29:3, 321-340.

Bellamy, A. (2008) Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities Cambridge: Polity

Heinze, E. (2010)  “Humanitarian Intervention, the Responsibility to Protect, and Confused Legitimacy”, In: James Pattison (ed.) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 284 pp.

Heinze, E. (2009) Waging Humanitarian War. The Ethics, Law, and Politics of Humanitarian Intervention.  Ch, 1. The Morality of Intervention in International Theory. Suny Press, Alabama

Kardas, S. (2013) Humanitarian Intervention as a ‘Responsibility to Protect’:An International Society Approach.  Presented at: The Doshisha International Conference Asian     Perspective on Humanitarian Intervention in 21^st  Century  Kyoto 28-29 June 2011

Lee, S. (2010) Humanitarian Intervention—Eight Theories. Diametros ? 23 (March 2010): 22- 43

Ludlow, D. (1999) Humanitarian Intervention and the Rwandan Genocide. The Journal of Conflict Studies. Volume XIX, No. 1 Spring 1999

Mearsheimer, J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company. New York, London

Roiux, J. (2003) Third Party Interventions In International Conflicts: Theory And Evidence. Presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Halifax, NS, May 30 – June 1st  2003

Spadling, L. (2013) “A Critical Investigation of the IR Theories that Underpin the Debate on Humanitarian Intervention”,  International Public Policy Review. Vol.7, No 2 June 2013

Stahn, C. (2007) “Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?”  The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Jan., 2007), pp. 99-120

Waltz, K. “Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power” in Neorealism and its Critics, ed. Robert Keohane (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 129.

Walzer, M. (2006) Just and Unjust Wars. Basic Books.