The Moral Stand of Intervention

Liberal internationalists believe that there is a moral obligation to help one another and States have a duty to help other states during times of oppression. It is not justifiable to sit still while injustice happens to others. Although J.S. Mill argues for non intervention as it undermines the struggle of the state for freedom, as they would lack the confidence to uphold it if intervention occurs, the theory underestimates the urgency of the Rwandan genocide. The Tutsis were being butchered daily by the Hutus. They could hardly scream for their freedom in that scenario. A different case is Libya, the people did rise and revolt against the tyrannical leader Kaddafi. But their actions weren’t enough. They still needed outside help to assist them in obtaining freedom. They succeeded and this proves his theory inapplicable to them. The United Nations is increasingly played a stronger role in maintaining standards of human security and justice. Yet, dealing with the humanitarian intervention issues have been a challenge for the UN. Despite what J.S. Mill’s non intervention theory, the missions often increases the duration of peace.

I believe that Libya succeeded because they were responsible for fighting for their freedom, NATO intervened only through air strikes and drone patrol. The rebels had control of their political interest. Whenever, there has been a major humanitarian crisis, the reaction of the international community has been very weak both in terms of prevention and intervention. They are often driven by narcissistic ideas. This can be seen with how the Western States handle policies relating to Africa. It creates a self-image of the generous West rescuing Africa from poverty and political repression. Interventions on the basis of self interest is the most common when dealing with States, they do not intervene in a troubled State unless their interest is concerned. Although I believe that interventions often save lives, it also brings with it other side effects the distressed State could have been done without. When interventions are made, militarism occurs thereafter. Interference in the political and economic activities of the State by the foreign State often occurs and this may lead to friction and regressive affairs. Not only do the intervening State force their culture and political mindset onto others, they also want to them to fully implement their political background which could spell disaster for the already troubled state. These hegemonic ideals they are forced to comply with often ruin the fragile state of the people. I think that a possible solution is for the UN to enforce peace building mentions along with accountability to the intervening states. Assistance should be given by the foreign state to help reconstruct the damage done but direct interference into the economic or political activities of the troubled state should be avoided.