week 9: humanitarian intervention (my video essay question, cant answer on exam)

First

• The use of military force by one or more sttates agisnt another state in order to protect civilians from violence and repression

• Ex: nato bombing serbian military targets to prevent ethnic cleansing. In this case, humanitarian intervention is good and saving strangers. 

• Sometimes states will save their own, in other situations, states will save strangers. Important to flag. 

Second, 

• it has a long history obvi

• History

• Thru the 1800s, the british, french, russian govts are said to have engaged in a series of humanitarian interverntions against he ottoman empire. 

• Scholars suggest that this is the start of states taking military action to save the ppl who arent their citizens

Thirdly

• It didnt die in the 70s, 20th century had a lot

  • Indias intervention to bangladesh

  • Viet into camovdia

  • Us no fly zones in iraq

  • Nato in kosovo

  • And nato into libya. 

Fourth

• Can be caused by domesttic human rights campaigns pressuring policymakers toa ct.

  • When the british decided to svae greek christian independence from the ottoman empire and lobbied their govts to use military force to protect persecuted villains. 

  • In the 90s, american activists lobbied their govt to use military force to protect civilians in somalia and bosnia. 

  • Foreign policies enacted thru protests and social movement pressure. Outlining and highlighting the ethnic cleansing in bosnia. 

  • All of these foregin policies are the product of activists pressuring policy makers to do something abt strangers suffering hr violantions (human rights)

Fifth

• Are launched selectively, helping some groups but ignoring others. 

  • In the 19th century, european powers engaged in hi (humanitarian interventions) in support of ottoman christians. They did not intervene on behalf of oppressed african communities, or colonies of europe, britain, france, etc. selective. Some are protected, some are pushed aside

  • 90s, us intervened to help somalis and bosnias, but nothing for rwanda, burundis, darfuris. 

  • This suggest teh challenging nature of hi. U cant help everyone. Some groups are under the right conditions for help, others will fall short. 

Six

• Said to be essential to ending some of the worse forms of political vioelnce (massacres, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc)

  • Naming and shaming is jsut words. It will work when state leaders care abt their reputation. 

  • What do u do when states dont gaf? U could go to the icc and etc, but what if theres no mandate? No state cooperation? Whats left? Some suggest the last resort is hi. 

Seventh

• Sometimes are said to make situations worse. 

  • The interveners may have good intentions abt helping victimized non combatant civilians, but often, ppl point out the implementation of the policies makes things worse. By overthrowing govt, u may create anarchy and chaos. 

  • Increase elvels of impoverishemnt, may eliminate one govt but put a worse one in power, etc. 

  • Clearly seen in libya

    • Ruled by a dictator in 2011. Protests happened threatening the regime. Mini civ war between protesters and govt. Nato started to intervene to overthrow the govt and protect civilians and instill a new govt. The intentions may have been good

    • But the results were HORRIBLE. Reduced libyas oil production, bad economy, draining foreign currency reserves. Electricity is no longer provided in major cities for most of the day. 

    • Road to hell is paved with good intentions

  • Libya case is not an outlier. Another one w nato and kosovo

    • Chomsky also argues for the libya thing in the week 5 reading/mention. 

    • It wouldve been better to do nothing. 

    • Chomsky said specifically for kosovo, it was irresponsible. 

    • More ppl died, fighting rose, lot of civilian deaths attributed to nato bombing

8th

• The idea that its bluffing. Its imperialism by disguise, involving the use of moral language and rights talk to cover up the pursuit of state power. 

• Us policy makers siad that we have a surpressed group in serbia, things might be getting bad, how do we leverage that situation to justify our presence on their grounds when we rlly want to occupy them and we have ulterior motives?

  • This argument isnt right or wrong. Its hard to figure out what states are doing. 

  • This reflects the fact that states routinely justify foreign policies by using leverage. 

  • Putin justifying ukraine invasion

    • Its goal is to protect ppl - putin. 

    • Does this disclaimer mean putin is engaging in hi?

  • French govts and west africa invasion

    • We can hope to wtiness the nations’ advancement in higher civilization. We must impose individual freedom - some french govt guy. 

    • We’re all abt humanitarianism. “Saving others”

9th

• Can incentivize groups to engage in strategic victimhood

  • Strategic victimhood: calculated behaviour wherein a group brings its own suffering to get external resources and aide. 

  • Consider the civil war in darfur

    • Many dead and dispalced. The conflict was labelled a genocide by the us govt and sparked the creation fo a mass social movement aka “save darfur”

    • But why did the conflict happen in the first place?

      • Strategic victimhood

      • The rebel groups provoked a genocidal retaliation from sudanese military in hopes of creating conditions for a foreign led militariazed intervention

      • Puts moral pressure to send air power. 

10th 

• Is one of many foreign policy tools that policymakers can leverage to promote hr around the world. 

• What are the other policy options?

  • Name and shame

  • Refer icc

  • Do nothing

  • Offer foreign aid

  • Fund domestic opposition movement

  • Impose economic sanctions

  • Engage in cyber warfare

  • Engage in hi

• How mightve these other options have worked instead?

Break

Remember the hindu stuff

• How can we justify humanitarian intervention?

Video

• SECURITY DILEMMA. Serb didnt agree to a peace treaty between serba and kosovo because they thought america would just take the territory for themselves. 

• Still ethnic beef. 

• Ultimatum was given

• Refusal to the ultimatum created war. Could hi been avoided if there was no ultimatum, but it couldve been negotiated in another way?

Arguments in favour of the do nothing approach. Not my circus not my monkeys

1. Addressing domestic hr issues is more important morally and practically than addressing distant ones

2. Foreign interventions vilate the norm of domestic sovereignty, which is central to maintaining intenraitonal peace and stability

3. Foregin interventions, no matter how well intended, can make things worse. 

Few questions to ask abt justifying hi

1. Is the use of military force going to be successful

2. Do the civlians we are trying to save want us to save them

3. Are the rights and violations we are trying to stop severe enough to warrant an intervention

4. Are we sure we have exhausted all other policy options