Proper Humanitarian Intervention

Before I tended to lean towards neo-conservatism believing that intervening on the behalf of others suffering was legitimate, but now after the readings I realize that intervening is sometimes an overextension of power by powerful nations and brings more harm than good.

According to the Right to Protect document, all states are to protect people and deserve assistance in doing so, and if a state were violating this doctrine by harming the people through mass atrocities, the state would be penalized and military force would be allowed and an actual responsibility of other states to intervene. While these regulations seemed ideal, many powerful states have taken advantage of the responsibility to intervene to pursue vital interests and end up leaving a bigger mess than before.

For instance, some argue that the United States intervened in Iraq due to Iraqi government’s human rights abuses and effort to spread democracy. The United States and other states believed that by spreading democracy in Iraq it would benefit their interest in the oil in the Middle East. After invading and toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime, the situation in Iraq actually deteriorated and causing intercommunal violence between Iraqi Sunni and Shi’a groups which led to a civil war. While the first civil war ended, after the United States withdrew from Iraq, the terror campaigns escalated once again, and have the potential to cause yet another civil war.

As Mill stated, foreign states may not effectively lead people to freedom, because freedom given is not the same as freedom that is earned. Therefore, it is almost pointless to intervene on a country if the intervening state doesn’t stay to rebuild and regulate the new government after the initial intervention. This chaotic aftermath after the intervention resembles the Fall of Saigon after the United States withdrew from the Vietnam War and left South Vietnam to fend for itself against the North Vietnamese leaving it in utter chaos.

After this lecture I am more inclined to agree with the Liberal Internationalist point of view on Humanitarian Intervention. I believe that intervention could be successful and effective if the intervening state remains present after the initial war by helping rebuild, as can be seen in the success in the United States occupation in Haiti. However, I don’t believe that for every human rights violation and intervention is necessary. Intervention should be a last resort and must be to particular circumstances and done through the proper means, as to not bring more harm than good.