Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Humanitarian Intervention?
Reutersward's revolver UN Photo
Source: Quaker United Nations OfficeWhat is to be done in a crisis like the genocide in Rwanda, when the international community seeks to stop the killing? Can nations, acting through the UN Security Council, fulfill a “responsibility to protect” innocent civilians? Or is such a doctrine just a Trojan horse for great power abuse and more mendacity?
When nations send their military forces into other nations’ territory, it is rarely (if ever) for “humanitarian” purposes. They are typically pursuing their narrow national interest – grabbing territory, gaining geo-strategic advantage, or seizing control of precious natural resources. Leaders hope to win public support by describing such actions in terms of high moral purposes – bringing peace, justice, democracy and civilization to the affected area. In the era of colonialism, European governments all cynically insisted that they acted to promote such higher commitments – the “white man’s burden,” “la mission civilisatrice,” and the like.
The appeal to higher moral purposes continues to infect the political discourse of the great powers. Today’s “humanitarian intervention” is only the latest in this long tradition of political mendacity. It is perfectly clear in such cases as the US-UK invasion and occupation of Iraq (UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has called it a “humanitarian intervention.”) But should intervention (even multilateral intervention, approved by the Security Council) be excluded in all circumstances?
This section looks at the issues and the fierce debate that has arisen within the United Nations about these “new approaches” to sovereignty and collective action.
Documents | Speeches | Articles
Also See GPF's Pages on:
Empire? | NGOs in the Field | UN Reform Topics
Documents
Responsibility to Protect: Moving the Campaign Forward (October 2007)
This report by the University of California, Berkeley supports the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and offers suggestions on how to move R2P from principle to practice. The study suggests the UN should bring R2P into force in order to “prevent, react to and rebuild after mass atrocities in the 21st century.” The report, however, does not reflect on whether powerful countries will use force to promote their own national strategic goals rather than for “humanitarian purposes.”Excerpt of the Millennium+5 Outcome Document (September 15, 2005)
Heads of state who gathered at UN headquarters for the Millennium+5 Summit approved the final outcome document. Although the document insists on pursuing peaceful means to protect populations from crimes against humanity, it also accepts the need that the international community, through the United Nations, should “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner…on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate.”Excerpt of Kofi Annan's Report on UN Reform: In Larger Freedom (March 21, 2005)
Aware of the sensitivities involved in the debate, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reiterates the existence of a “responsibility to protect,” but stays away from linking the concept to the “right to intervene.” He insists on the responsibility of the international community to use “diplomatic, humanitarian and other methods” and suggests that the Security Council “may out of necessity decide to take action under the Charter of the United Nations, including enforcement action.” (United Nations)Excerpt of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (December 2, 2004)
Although the High Level Panel acknowledges that the tension between the “competing claims of sovereign inviolability and the right to intervene” has yet to be overcome, its final report endorses the “emerging norm that there is a collective international responsibility to protect, exercisable by the Security Council authorizing military intervention as a last resort.” (United Nations)The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (December 2001)
This ICISS report charts the evolution of “sovereignty as responsibility” and attempts to develop consistent, credible and enforceable standards to guide state and intergovernmental practice on humanitarian intervention. (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty)
Speeches
The Schizophrenias of R2P (June 30, 2007)
Jose E. Alvarez, Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Columbia University, warns against turning the idea of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) from "political rhetoric to legal norm." Alvarez asks what it means to protect and whether R2P justifies the use of preemptive force, which would explain the concept’s popularity among powerful countries such as the US.We Are in Iraq to Bring about Democracy (September 28, 2005)
In his speech at the Labour Party’s 2005 conference in Brighton, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jack Straw justifies the war in Afghanistan and Iraq in the context of “responsibility to protect.” At the 2005 Millennium Summit, “with the UK in the vanguard,” the UN adopted the concept as a major UN reform. While Straw says he favors “collective action” and vows to put the Responsibility to Protect “at the heart of British foreign policy,” he defends the occupation of Iraq saying “we are in Iraq to bring about democracy.”A Road Towards Peace, Harmony, and Common Development (September 19, 2005)
In his speech during the 2005 UN World Summit, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxiang warns the General Assembly against any abuse of the “right to intervene” and insists that the Security Council authorizes any collective action. Li states that China is strongly against “any willful intervention on the ground of rash conclusion that a nation is unable or unwilling to protect its own citizens.”Chavez Criticizes UN Reforms in Speech (September 17, 2005)
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez criticized the outcome document for the 2005 UN Summit, in a public speech in New York. Skeptical about the concept of “responsibility to protect,” Chavez argued that the concept might serve as a vague justification for “powerful countries [to] invade developing ones whose leaders are considered a threat.” As one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration, Chavez warns that "responsibility to protect" might also be used as a justification for intervention in Venezuela in the future. (Associated Press)Regarding “The Responsibility to Protect” (February 15, 2002)
At a seminar on “The Responsibility to Protect,” Médecins Sans Frontières UN Delegate Catherine Dumait-Harper draws attention to the increasingly “blurring lines” between humanitarian and military intervention. While Dumait-Harper favors setting objective criteria for intervention, she insists that in practice national interets prevail over the protection of populations. These criteria, she says, can only protect civilians if the international community is willing to carry out “human protection interventions.”Human Rights - A Priority of Britain's Foreign Policy (March 28, 2001)
In a public speech on human rights, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Robin Cook examines when is it right for the international community to intervene to uphold human rights and who decides that it is right? Concluding that the UN needs new rules on when it can intervene within a state rather than between states, Cook lays out a number of principles for humanitarian interventions.The Blair Doctrine (April 22, 1999)
In this speech defending NATO’s Kosovo war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair outlines a set of five major conditons that, if met, would justify foreign military intervention. These conditions include the certainty of the case for war, the exhaustion of all diplomatic options, and whether the crisis involves British national interests. Are these, in fact, objective criteria? And are US and British foreign policy actually guided by a “subtle blend of mutual self interest and moral purpose,” as Blair claims? (Public Broadcasting Service)
Articles
2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 |2004 | Archived Articles
The New Humanitarianism (December 2003/January 2004)
This major article looks thoughtfully and critically at humanitarian intervention. Reviewing the growing literature, the author concludes that the global economic order produces civil wars and failed states and elicits interventionist responses. Humanitarian interventions, he argues, maintain the unjust global order and obscure its negative consequences. Humanitarian agencies are complicit. (Boston Review)2008
The R2P Controversy (March 2008)
This Development & Cooperation debate showcases an ardent proponent and a fierce critic of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine. Ramesh Thakur argues that R2P offers a sound basis for deriving the rules of multilateral action in a world that, he believes, can never free itself of military intervention. Such thinking contributes to a “new militarism” because violence can never achieve humanitarian goals, urges Mary Ellen O’Connell. Rather than legitimize “doing good” by violent means, O’ Connell suggests that the UN adopt a responsibility to do no harm.The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A Way Forward – or Rather Part of the Problem? (February 2008)
This Foreign Voices debate suggests that the R2P doctrine can only protect human rights in the context of non-violence. By citing the tragedies of Srebrenica and Rwanda, R2P enthusiasts divert attention away from the meddling role of Western countries in creating crises. One essay notes that the central element of the Responsibility to Protect is to prevent conflict rather than react through military means. Regional arrangements like the African Peer Review Mechanism, not foreign armies, ensure efficient prevention.This Zeal for Intervention is Imperialism in New Clothes (February 13, 2008)
This article critiques the emerging trend of “liberal interventionism” and “engaged national interest” within international relations. Arguing that intervention mirrors moral imperialism, Simon Jenkins states that there is no justification for “ramming a system of governance down the throats of others.” Jenkins concludes that “a true democrat cannot abandon Voltaire’s respect for the autonomy of disagreement, let alone seek to crush it.” (Guardian)Intervention, Hailed as a Concept, Is Shunned in Practice (January 20, 2008)
In 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted the concept “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). Since then, several institutions are launching research centers promoting the R2P concept and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has created an assistant secretary general post on R2P. This New York Times article supports R2P but acknowledges that advocates have begun to discover that theory is not easily converted into practice. Moreover, some developing countries worry “that they could become targets of intervention.”2007
Western Humanitarianism or Neo-Slavery? (November 7, 2007)
In October 2007, Chadian authorities arrested European NGO workers for kidnapping more than 100 children they falsely claimed were Sudanese orphans. In light of this scandal, UNESCO Chair in Human Rights, Professor Amii Omara-Otunnu critically assesses “Western humanitarianism” and the role of NGOs in Africa. Omara-Otunnu argues that “little has changed since the mid nineteenth century,” when Christian missionaries viewed African people as lesser human beings who needed to be saved through European colonization. (Black Star News)Humanitarian Advocacy in Darfur: The Challenge of Neutrality (October 2007)
This Humanitarian Policy Group brief analyzes the nexus between humanitarian, political and military action within Darfur. Questioning the impartiality of aid agencies in formulating policy positions, the report claims that traditional notions of neutrality are being eroded. This “non-permissive advocacy”, has led to “high levels of insecurity for aid workers, and continuous efforts by the Sudanese government to curtail what it believes to be ‘political’ activities.”The Dismantling of Yugoslavia (October 2007)
This Monthly Review article tells the story of a dismantled Yugoslavia, where not only internal problems, but also external political pressure, especially from the US, tore the country apart. According to the article, the US - acting through NATO - legitimized the military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo by calling them “humanitarian interventions.” At the time, the Security Council did not approve the interventions, but it later provided the US with an ex post facto legitimacy. The authors argue that Western media and politicians have simplified the history of the Balkan civil wars, portraying the wars as a battle between good and evil, while neglecting the role and interests of the US.Bush's Napoleonic Folly (August 24, 2007)
In this article, Middle East history scholar Juan Cole draws parallels between US President George Bush’s occupation of Iraq and Napoleon Bonaparte’s conquest of Egypt two hundred years ago. Both leaders used the rhetoric of “liberty, security and democracy” to justify invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern country, with dire consequences for its people. Cole argues that unlike Napoleon, Bush’s “neocolonialism…swam against the tide of history, and its failure is all the more criminal for having been so predictable.” (The Nation)Peacemaker or Puppet? (August 16- 22, 2007)
Al-Ahram discusses how US policy influences UN action. On the pretexts of “humanitarian intervention” and peacekeeping, the US and NATO have solicited UN blessing for self-interested projects in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and now, Sudan. The article concludes that, if it can shake off US control, the UN will be better equipped to preserve “international peace and security” as its founders envisioned.Humanitarian Wars and Associated Delusions (August 14, 2007)
For author Paul de Rooij, the humanitarian rationale for military intervention is nothing else than a “cynical means to sideline international law” when in fact governments' reasons to wage wars lie in their basic strategic interests, such as guaranteeing access to natural resources and markets. He deplores that western powers have succeeded in using the humanitarian interventionist doctrine to sell their war and dupe public intellectuals, NGOs and the anti-war movement. (CounterPunch)An Atrocity That Needs No Exaggeration (August 12, 2007)
The New York Times reveals that the “Save Darfur” campaign greatly inflated the number of deaths in order to heighten the sense of crisis in Darfur and press for intervention. Experts have contested the widely advertised death toll of 400,000 and the most reliable estimate suggests that there were 131,000 excess deaths in Darfur as of June 2005, after which date, United Nations and relief groups register a sharp drop. According to the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaster, most deaths were due to malnutrition and disease, not violence. “Ultimately, the inflated claims fuel a death race in which aid and action are based not on facts but on which advocacy group yells the loudest,” concludes the article. Facts were manipulated in order to promote a policy of humanitarian intervention.Harvard's Humanitarian Hawks (July 14, 2007)
“Should a human rights center at the nation's most prestigious university be collaborating with the top US general in Iraq in designing the counter-insurgency doctrine behind the current military surge?” asks The Nation. This article discusses how the Harvard-based Carr Center for Human Rights contributed to the shaping of the new Pentagon “warfighting doctrine” and questions the role played by the human rights institution, known to be a strong advocate for humanitarian intervention.Darfur Advocacy Group Undergoes a Shake-Up (June 2, 2007)
Save Darfur, the most prominent advocacy group on the conflict in Sudan, has aggravated many aid agencies working in the region. Aid workers suggest that Save Darfur’s conspicuous ad campaigns, which often call for intervention, occasionally bend the truth and make negotiation with Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir more difficult. Save Darfur is beginning to respond to these criticisms by reorganizing and changing their tactics. (New York Times)Where Anti-Arab Prejudice and Oil Make the Difference (May 29, 2007)
While the myriad activists rally to intervene in Darfur, where several hundred thousand innocents have died, far fewer people – politicians and public alike – acknowledge the estimated 3-4 million deaths in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This Guardian article argues that the perceived ethnic make-up of the groups in conflict in Darfur – “Arab killers” versus “African victims” - is one reason for the disproportionate attention given to Sudan. The other reason, the author claims, is oil interest, particularly that of China and the US. The article says that “liberal interventionism” is prone to double standards and disaster.Will Iraq Be the Next Rwanda? (April 15, 2007)
This Washington Post opinion piece claims that the withdrawal of US troops would generate more sectarian violence and create a humanitarian catastrophe on the scale of the Rwandan genocide. The author uses the discourse of “humanitarian intervention” to justify the US presence in Iraq. However, critics argue that the occupation has indeed exacerbated, if not generated, violence in the country.A Fair Foreign Policy (April 2007)
“UK foreign policy is at a crossroads,” warns this Oxfam report. As a strong supporter of the British-sponsored concept of “responsibility to protect,” Oxfam regrets that, after the “success” of military “humanitarian” interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, the spectrum of the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq has tarnished the reputation of British foreign policy, as London advocates for the protection of civilians in Darfur.No Such Thing as Humanitarian Intervention (March 21, 2007)
The newest dogma in the international community, following Humanitarian Intervention in the Nineties, is the Responsibility to Protect, adopted by the UN in 2005. The author of this Harvard International Review article looks at four cases where so-called humanitarian intervention took place, namely the First Gulf War, Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. He warns about embracing new doctrines for humanitarian intervention uncritically as states with geopolitical interests can hide behind a moral obligation. According to the author, the consensus among many Western leaders, that humanitarian interventions are above criticism, vilifies any attempt to discuss alternative solutions.The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency (March 9, 2007)
This London Review of Books article discusses the consequences of a potential humanitarian intervention in Darfur. The author argues that foreign military intervention in Sudan – as lobbied for by the organizations that make up the Save Darfur campaign – will only result in an escalation of violence. Instead the most effective way to end the crisis is to focus on negotiating a political settlement between the different parties and realize that “peace cannot be built on humanitarian intervention.”In Search of Symbiosis: The Security Council in the Humanitarian Domain (March 2007)
This article, by Aurelio Viotti, analyzes the symbiosis between international security and humanitarian action by the Security Council. The author states that the merging of these two differing concepts has effectively blurred the distinction between the doctrines of just war theory and international humanitarian law. As a result, imprecise notions such as the “Responsibility to Protect” and “human security” threaten the impartiality of humanitarian action, as well as undermine one of the salutary political achievements of the Twentieth Century, the prohibition of the use of force within international relations. (International Review of the Red Cross)Introduction to "Selling US Wars" (March 2007)
This excerpt from the book “Selling US Wars” by Tariq Ali analyzes the theories and mechanisms employed by the US to “ensure indirect domination” worldwide. One of the justifications the US gives for the extension of its sphere of influence is the “global war on terror,” which the author states is an unacceptable form of “political violence terror.” Ali also asserts that Washington’s selectivity in enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is another tactic in its pursuit of regional and global ambitions. Moreover, the author criticizes the use of “humanitarian intervention” and “democratization” as reasons for military invasions. (Transnational Institute)Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia? (February 7, 2007)
This Global Research article discusses the concept of humanitarian intervention and the different actors involved – as well as their associated motivations – in pushing for intervention. In the case of Darfur, the author argues that a complex web including corporations, nongovernmental organizations and Western media outlets are all complicit in pushing governments to act to “save” the victims of the crisis. However, the article maintains that the motivation behind such intervention ultimately comes down to access and control of natural resources.2006
The Humanitarian War Myth (October 1, 2006)
This Washington Post piece points out that “humanitarian intervention,” one of the justifications used by the coalition for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, leads to large scale human rights abuses, civilian casualties and sectarian violence. Author Eric Posner argues that all interventions based on such justifications fail to “liberate citizens from tyrants.” By replacing old dictators with foreign occupying forces, intervening countries further increase tensions and the risk of civil war, and subject civilians to a state of constant warfare.Responsibility to Protect? (September 19, 2006)
While Ottawa has invoked the principle of “responsibility to protect” individuals from gross human rights violations to justify Canada’s intervention in Haiti, this Znet piece argues that removing Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power has “exacerbated, rather than improved Haiti’s human rights situation.” This article critically comments on the conclusions of a Lancet study in light of Canadian involvement in Haiti, and questions the very arguments of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.Justice Unfettered? Internationalizing Justice in the Human Rights Era (July 2006)
The global community’s growing interest in fighting impunity for crimes against humanity has contributed significantly to the internationalization of law. This Integrated Regional Information Networks report examines the historically complex relationship between international criminal law and state sovereignty. The report further analyzes the controversial concept of “humanitarian” intervention, which some defend as a means to justice, but critics often deride as a tool used by powerful nations to meddle in smaller states’ affairs.A Just War? Hardly (May 9, 2006)
Noam Chomsky believes that proponents of “just war theory” – such as Michael Walzer – are ignoring historical facts. Wars have rarely been “just.” Normally countries waged wars because of their national interests. The US, which proclaimed the interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan as “just wars” uses this concept as a pretext for “preventive war.” (Khaleej Times)Declassifying Canada in Haiti (April 7, 2006)
This two-part article discusses the extent of Canada’s participation in the US-led 2004 coup that ousted Haiti’s democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Publicly, Ottawa denies any involvement in the coup and maintains that Canada was seeking a peaceful settlement to the crisis. However, according to classified memos obtained by the Dominion, Canada was planning the removal of the Aristide government under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine months before the coup. This principle justified the military intervention under the guise of “humanitarian intervention for human protection.” But rather than avert a crisis, the “duty to protect” intervention in Haiti became the backdrop for a major escalation of atrocities, with thousands killed and hundreds jailed for their political views, all to serve Canadian, US and European political and economic interests in Haiti.Fragile Countries and United Nations Reform (February 23, 2006)
Many UN Reform proposals deal specifically with the topic of fragile states, including the Peacebuilding Commission, global democracy fund and responsibility to protect (R2P). R2P however is a sensitive subject that raises “thorny issues” of sovereignty, proportionality and the extent of military action. Commentators raise concerns that reform of UN bodies leads to a system that could support an “empire-like” approach. Moreover UN failure can lead to further instability. (Bangkok Post)Humanitarian Intervention: Evolution of a Dangerous Doctrine (January 19, 2006)
Focus on the Global South’s Executive Director Walden Bello criticizes the rationale behind the concept of humanitarian intervention. By using force against a sovereign country, humanitarian intervention not only undermines international law but also causes greater human rights violations in that country. Bello also warns that these military actions set the stage for future cases, letting the “hegemon” further advance its geopolitical interests.2005
Legalized Imperialism”: “Responsibility to Protect” and the Dubious Case of Haiti (December, 2005)
This Briarpatch Magazine article suggests that Canada invoked the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) to legitimize foreign intervention and overthrow Jean Bertrand Aristide in February, 2004. When Aristide put the needs of Haiti’s poor ahead of the International Monetary Fund’s structural adjustment program, the US, France and Canada rallied behind Canadian MP, Denis Paradis’, rhetoric of R2P, to enforce a UN mandate for the coup. As John Pilger puts it, R2P looks like “the latest brand name of imperialism.”The New World Order (July 14, 2005)
David Rieff, in his book "At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention," considers the problematic political, legal and moral implications of humanitarian intervention. Reiff examines responses of the international community in face of political conflicts, such as inaction in Rwanda, the late intervention in Bosnia, and the war in Iraq. This New York Review of Books article asks "how can the international community decide when to stand aside and when to act?"Once Again (May 15, 2005)
Proponents for humanitarian intervention are advocating for the creation of a UN Force, ready to intervene in situations like Rwanda and Srebrenica. Although the UN Charter included a UN capacity for military action, the US and others have always opposed the idea. "Even if a multinational force existed, the UN or some other body would have to authorize action," reminds this Washington Post piece, questioning whether "talk of an international humanitarian intervention force may be nothing more than an academic exercise."An Idea Paul Wolfowitz and Kofi Annan Can Agree On (March 29, 2005)
David Reiff’s book, “At the Point of a Gun,” discusses armed “humanitarian” interventions and the shifting US opinion towards the moral imperative of protecting human rights abroad. Reiff notes that intervention “in the name of democracy, human rights and humanitarian need” unites neo-cons, activists and humanitarians alike, but is destined to fail because the disguise of “reducing human suffering” is really a “recipe for recapitulation in the 21st century of the horrors of 19th–century-colonialism.” (New York Times)Crime of Crimes (March 6, 2005)
This Washington Post editorial questions whether genocide should be the determining factor for humanitarian intervention. As the author demonstrates, genocide is difficult to label, and doing so neither indicates that intervention will happen nor rules out intervention in cases not labeled as genocide. Though the author offers some controversial solutions and even advocates US unilateralism at times, he notes that the using the word genocide leads to a “warped diplomatic parlor game” and that “realities, not labels, should define our response.”2004
How Silent Are the Humanitarian Invaders of Kosovo? (December 8, 2004)
John Pilger compares the fables of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to US and UK-fabricated figures of victims of genocide in former Yugoslavia. In both cases, Pilger argues, Washington and Downing Street justified the interventions with fraudulent evidence. For Iraq it was false proof of WMDs while for Yugoslavia it was exaggerated reports of mass killings. These justified the bombing of civilians and led the way to an imposed neo-liberal “free market economy.“ (New Statesman)A UN for This Century, Not the Last One (December 3, 2004)
Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook discusses the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’s recommendation of humanitarian intervention and highlights the dilemma between the right to protection from outside intervention on the one hand and the right to override state sovereignty when a government oppresses its people on the other. Cook expresses his concern about whether the UN will succeed in realizing some of the goals the panel has set for the reformed world body. The panel’s emphasis on the rule of international law seems incompatible with current US reluctance to respect international agreements and a US Attorney General “who dismissed the Geneva Convention as ‘quaint’.” (Guardian)UN Panel Proposes New Criteria for Using Force (November 28, 2004)
The High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change has proposed to expand the criteria for UN military intervention as part of its efforts to reform the world body. Suggestions include taking action against terrorist threats and ominously echo the US doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, but a strike would require Security Council approval. (Reuters)UN Reform Pushed by Martin at APEC (November 21, 2004)
At the APEC summit Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin made a passionate plea for UN reform and sought support for his concept of a new L-20, a group of “existing and emerging economic powers” that would, ironically, conduct its business outside of the United Nations. Martin also promoted the idea of humanitarian intervention, or "responsibility to protect," a concept that appears benign but may offer a humanitarian cover for great power intervention. (London Free Press)Enough Imperial Crusades (August 18, 2004)
Peter Hallward traces the crisis in Sudan back to previous US and UK involvement, arguing that any direct Anglo-US intervention today is merely the soft face of imperialism. He asserts "This is a political question before it is a moral or humanitarian one. Today's humanitarian crisis is precisely a result of past political failure." In lieu of western intervention, Hallward advocates western support for African Union-led efforts, stating "Anglo-US forces now have only one moral responsibility: to stay at home." (Guardian)Reinventing US Foreign Aid at Millennium Challenge Corp. (August 10, 2004)
The US takes a new approach in foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Corp. an enterprise combining Wall Street savvy and conservative ideology to regulate and monitor impoverished countries’ use of US aid money. To receive foreign aid, countries must “qualify” in accordance to predetermined factors. (Washington Post)When Intervention is Necessary, Who Can You Call? (August 5, 2004)
Can US power “be used for good in Africa or elsewhere in cases of mass killings or other crimes against humanity?” Acknowledging the harmful and destabilizing history of US intervention, particularly on the African continent, the author nonetheless argues that the scale of “genocide” in Darfur requires that United States lead a multilateral force to end the crisis. (Foreign Policy in Focus)In Sudan Crisis, a Duty to Intervene? (July 21, 2004)
As the crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region escalates, the question of a possible humanitarian intervention is gaining increasing urgency. Many argue that there is a moral imperative to act in such cases, but others avoid using the word “genocide” for fear of compelling intervention. Some advocates of intervention are engaging in civil disobedience and protests to pressure the US government to send troops. (Christian Science Monitor)Never Again, No Longer? (July 18, 2004)
Is humanitarian intervention “yesterday’s problem?” The author of this essay fears that since 9/11 the West is more concerned with its own vulnerability than that of distant strangers, and that the US war on Iraq has “hopelessly muddied the waters on the legitimacy of intervention.” Intervention must involve national interest, humanitarianism is irrelevant, and crises like the one in Darfur will likely continue uninterrupted. (New York Times)No More Lawless Interventions (July 6, 2004)
This article argues that to avoid future cases of “rushed intervention” such as Iraq and “delayed intervention” such as Rwanda, the UN must adopt more precise criteria for international action against dangerous regimes. It proposes a refinement of the “valid but incomplete” criteria for humanitarian intervention put forward by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a 1999 speech. (Guardian)An Immense Charge: Realist Lessons about the Consequences of Intervention (May 26, 2004)
The article outlines several “lessons” to be learned from the history of recent interventions. Interventions “almost inevitably come too late,” address “symptoms rather than underlying causes,” and “can exacerbate, rather than reduce, the humanitarian crisis.” (In the National Interest)A Charter to Intervene: Human Rights Interventions Can Only Be Divorced from Imperialism with New UN Rules (March 23, 2004)
The author criticizes the weakness of current international law in allowing powerful nations to justify their controversial actions as humanitarian intervention. International law needs to develop a balance where permitting force would relieve the suffering of the oppressed people and not further the interests of powerful nations. (Guardian)Blair's 'International Community' Doctrine (March 6, 2004)
Critics are concerned British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “international community” doctrine seeks to justify the US/UK war in Iraq, validates unilateral (i.e. non-UN sponsored) interventions, and offends the principle of territorial integrity enshrined in Article 2 of the UN Charter. (BBC)Haiti: Dangerous Muddle (March 2004)
The author examines US “liberal interventions” in Kosovo and Haiti in 1994, and argues single-power interventions are both politically illegitimate and often lead to further political instability and crisis.Annan Calls For Urgent Action, Even Military Intervention, to Prevent Genocide (January 26, 2004)
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for “strong and united political action and, in extreme cases,…military action” by states to combat acts of genocide. Annan said intervention to prevent genocide was not a “right to intervention,” but at root a responsibility of the entire human race to protect fellow human beings from extreme abuse. (UN News Service)War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention (January 2004)
US attempts to justify the Iraq war, even in part, in humanitarian terms risks giving humanitarian intervention a “bad name” and breeds cynicism about the use of military force for humanitarian purposes, argues Human Rights Watch.Archived Articles
More Information on Empire?
