ETVT Humanitarian interventions are driven by national concerns rather than genuine worries about human rights

T1 – Geopolitical Strategy, genuine worries

HumInt have occurred where states have little to gain strategy wise.

Threats in Sierra Leone were armed militias (RUF), armed thugs (West Side Boys) attacking legitimate gov within nation. Carried out to stop severe HR abuses incl. child soldiers / prostitution, mutilation.

Sig also due to prolonged stay in region, Britain stayed to train military, oversee RUF disarmament despite legitimate gov reinforced after militia defeat.

Also sig in Kosovo, protection against HR abuse despite lack of UN support.

Suggests states act to uphold ITN law even when irrelevant to them.

T1 – Geopolitical Strategy, national concerns

HumInt sig more likely where geopol strategy involved.

Saudi intervention in Yemen due to Houthi bombing of oil tankers, main export. Also due to Saudi as biggest Sunni force in region wanting dominance over Houthis (funded by Iran, biggest Shia force). Seen in questionable bombing strategy that HR orgs said posed threat to civilians (HR of less importance).

No intervention in Rwandan genocide due to failure in Somalia, Clinton more concerned with election (no geopol benefit for intervening).

Countries aren’t concerned about HR until they are affected.

T1 – Geopolitical Strategy, overall

Sierra Leone 30 years ago, sig less HumInt for that reason since. Hypocritical Saudi reveals likely political reasons, suggests hift towards strategic/geopol interests in last 25 years.

T2 – Economic Reasons, genuine worries

HumInt have occurred where there is little economic benefit/interest.

Somalia notable example, one of worlds poorest countries, poor in natural resources (sig factor in interventions). Therefore HumInt not driven by econ benefit. G. H W Bush already lost election “get the food through”, express concern, genuine help with famine.

East Timor also lower-middle income economy (WB), one of poorest GDP/c, but sig intervention. Although may be self-interested Australia (Refugee crisis), long term commitment and investment to building strong legitimate state suggests commitment to preventing HR abuse over economic gain.

T2 – Economic Reasons, national concern

Economic reasons can be deciding factor for whether HumInt takes place.

UN motions for Darfur delayed, China veto due to sig stake in region, therefore HR abuses continue.

No state undertaken HumInt in China (Uyghur camps) due to economic prominence (2^nd largest econ, trillions in trade, largest exporter), sig likely in no state’s economic interest.

Intervention in Iraq fuelled by threat of Oil supplies by Hussein.  US had no problem giving Iraq chem weapons for war with Iran, as was in their interests (less care about HR abuses).

States turn blind eye if done by states they economically gain from.

T2 – Economic Reasons, overall

Somalia was resounding failure despite good intentions, while states committing HR abuses successfully avoid intervention if sig economic stake, suggests money more important than people. Trade needs to continue to flow, expand economy to progress in interconnected globalised world, people sacrificed for this.