The Myth of “Humanitarian” Intervention- Iraq, Kosovo, Sudan, Haiti, Liberia, Afghanistan

[Orwellian_Ghost]

The Myth of “Humanitarian” Intervention
June 27, 2003
Ivan Eland

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JNlxgs6qm2M/R3vZhkKsxDI/AAAAAAAAA_k/mbmFS_sNbuE/s320/Narcissus+on+the+Telly.jpg

But what is so wrong with deposing petty despots and bringing democracy and free markets to the world at the point of the bayonet?

First, we may liberate others, but enslave ourselves. The founders of the United States, reacting to European monarchs who took their countries to war at the expense—in blood and taxes—of their people, created a constitutional restraints designed to curb this practice. That system is now in shambles. Congress, the arm of the people, no longer declares wars. The imperial executive can now take us to war without any congressional approval—and often does. Also, with each U.S. military intervention overseas, America’s unique civil liberties at home erode, especially if a war’s blowback—read terrorism—happens on our own soil. Savage ethnic or tribal civil wars are a particular breeding ground for terrorists.

Second, the humanitarian veneer can be used to justify wars that are really undertaken for reasons of realpolitik. For example, President Clinton threatened to invade Haiti, not for the humanitarian reasons stated, but to stem the flow of poor refugees from there to U.S. shores. That example and many others show interventions are rarely undertaken for purely humanitarian reasons. President Bush appears to be willing to undertake a potentially risky quagmire in Liberia to score points with regional leaders before his trip to Africa.

Third, the U.S. record in “peace keeping” and “nation-building” in the developing world is abysmal. Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq all have been or are becoming disasters. Either the countries are no better off (and sometimes worse off) than before the U.S. intervention, or violence and instability will likely resume when the United States tries to withdraw from the morass. The often-cited post-WWII models of Japan and Germany have little relevance to conflict-ridden places in the developing world. Japan and Germany were first world nations (with tremendous reservoirs of human capital) who were ready to quit fighting after being pummeled into the dust. They had a strong sense of national identity and were not fighting amongst themselves. They even had some prior experience with democracy. Most of those Japanese and German advantages are not shared by fractious developing nations.



http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1129

[Idealism]

1. Humanitarian intervention is a euphemism for rape and pillage. n/t

[patrice]

2. War is proof positive of FAILED LEADERSHIP.

Killing people and destroying their homes and land for something that you calculate that they may, or may not, do, only insures that they will, in fact, go ahead and do whatever it was that you don't want them to do, at the earliest opportunity.

[BeFree]

3. Congress to declare war?

Congress never did declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan, did they?

Well, it's time they did. There needs to be a discussion in congress about declaring war and let there be an up or down vote. We know what's going on over there, there need not be more than a day or two of speeches and then have a vote. The constitution demands that it be so.

[patrice]

4. Agreed.

As long as no one who thinks it is wrong has to go do it and we don't have to pay for it either.

Let those who think it is the right thing to do justify their moral decision by putting their own lives on the line, no maximum age limit, not gender limitations. If you're an adult and for it, you go do it, end of discussion.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

5. History is important here

In virtually all of these cases of "humanitarian" intervention what we find is that those who are ostensibly to be helped by these interventions have been and still are being thoroughly exploited by those who are calling for such intervention.

What we find is that it is those areas that suffer from the legacy of colonialism are still suffering from the realities of neo-colonialism and the call for "humanitarian" intervention, not by accident, corresponds to these areas.

[patrice]

6. Don't the proponents of War usually point to WWII, though, and say "War DOES work sometimes" so

we have to give it a try, because ____________________ is so horrible, we would be remise in not "giving our utmost" and taking this chance to stop or prevent _______________________."

[TBF]

7. There are many horrible dictators in the world. The interesting part is that

we are most likely to "help" when there are natural resources in their country that we find useful (profitable).

[alsame]

23. That seems to be the case when people cite WW2. Their

perception is that we were the 'good guys' with good motives - we stopped the genocide and liberated Axis-occupied countries. The generation that lived through that war seems to have a very different perception of US military interventions than do those of us who came later.

[Number23]

8. KicknRec. My husband I have had several discussions about the role of ngo's lately

While I'd like to think that the humanitarian world is above the petty tricks used by the rest of the corporate world to keep themselves in business, sometimes you have to wonder...

[Djinn]

9. No nation has EVER gone to war for humanitarian reasons

Not one not ever. Occasionally there are humanitarian outcomes that just happen to coincide.

Not one Allied power fought to save the victims of the Nazi's, they fought to stymie Nazi territorial ambitions and make sure THEY kept their colonies.

The US did not enter Vietnam to save non Communist Vietnamese, the Vietnamese didn't go into Cambodia to save Pol Pot's victims.

I find it very depressing that this has to be stated with each and every foreign "adventure"

K&R

[Orwellian_Ghost]

10. That's very true- case in point

The Myth of Western Humanitarian Intervention
Grim Lessons from the Killing in Kosovo
A Case Study



Introduction

In the aftermath of the 11th September attacks, the Bush administration has been escalating plans to impose U.S. hegemony in key strategic regions. The oil-rich Middle East is high on the agenda. The U.S. government and its British partner in crime are building up to a two-pronged killing campaign in the Arab region: one part of the campaign is already in overt motion in the Israel-Palestine conflict, where Sharon is pushing forth with his plans to smash the Palestinian people Sabra&Shattila-style; another part of the campaign is proceeding steadily behind-the-scenes, where the Anglo-American duo are attempting to galvanise a pretext to launch a full-fledged bombing assault against Iraq.

The two-pronged campaign is rooted in a wider military escalation that is set to be so brutal and final in scale that the Pentagon has already established contingency plans for nuclear war in relation to conflicts in the region, and in other regions of strategic interest to the United States. The motives and context of this build-up to war in the Middle East are extremely pertinent to anyone with the slightest regard for the future of their children, and of humanity at large. The motives of the Bush administration, supposedly, are fundamentally benevolent. That is the unquestionable axiom underlying almost all mainstream political discourse in the West. The U.S. government, we are told, is fighting a “war on terror” to save the entirety of civilisation from destruction at the hands of international terrorism. Hence, we must all stand behind the “war on terror”, and give it our full support – otherwise, we are no better than the terrorists themselves, beyond the pale of civilisation.

This paper attempts to consider, on the basis of contemporary history, whether it is probable – or even possible – for the Western powers to fight a “war on terror” for benevolent purposes. It does so by studying in detail the case of Kosovo. It is the opinion of this author that recent history provides a principal source of insight into the most current developments in world order under U.S.-led Western hegemony. The case of Kosovo is particularly pertinent, since according to the ardent supporters of interventionist Western foreign policy, Kosovo is a case par excellence of Western humanitarianism, benevolence, and opposition to global terrorism.

Indeed, the intervention in Kosovo is an oft-cited example of what is supposed to be a new idealism among the Western powers: an unwillingness to tolerate tyranny and a relentless concern for humanitarian principles. President Bill Clinton, who of course was deeply involved in the intervention in Kosovo, has articulated the alleged humanitarian implications with great eloquence:

“What is the role of the UN in preventing mass slaughter and dislocations? Very large. Even in Kosovo, NATO’s actions followed a clear consensus expressed in several Security Council resolutions that the atrocities committed by Serb forces were unacceptable, that the international community had a compelling interest in seeing them end. Had we chosen to do nothing in the face of this brutality, I do not believe we would have strengthened the United Nations. Instead, we would have risked discrediting everything it stands for… By acting as we did, we helped to vindicate the principles and purposes of the UN Charter the opportunity it now has to play the central role in shaping Kosovo’s future. In the real world principles often collide, and tough choices must be made. The outcome in Kosovo is hopeful.”<1>

This official interpretation of the intervention in Kosovo is, however, in contradiction to the facts on record. This paper is the first in a two-part series conducting a critical review of the Western response to the crisis in Kosovo, analysing the context, ramifications and consequences of the NATO military intervention. It is the hope of this author that this series provides crucial insight into the realities of Western policy, a policy that deliberately divides communities, fosters wars, and devastates countries to secure power and profit. An impartial analysis demonstrates that neither Western diplomacy nor NATO bombing contributed to the resolution of the conflict in Kosovo, but rather systematically exacerbated the war to an extent that brings into question the motives of the Western powers.

In this sense, there are very pertinent lessons to be learned from Western policy in Kosovo under U.S. leadership. Under the “war on terror”, the United States is leading the Western powers in a reinvigorated policy of interventionism with the purported aim of eliminating terrorism worldwide. This case study of Western intervention in Kosovo, however, discloses a matrix of interests and policies that seriously challenges the idea that the Western powers are capable of waging such a war. Indeed, this study suggests that the promotion of conflict and terrorism is an integral dimension of the doctrine of Western humanitarian intervention, pursued to secure regional Western interests. We need to understand exactly how the doctrine of Western humanitarian intervention is – in reality - intrinsically bound up with the support of terrorism, the provocation of wars, the fabrication of pretexts for intervention, and the justification of mass murder. This understanding will allow us to see clearly what the Western powers are planning in the increasingly volatile Middle East.

<snip>

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq33.html

[G_j]

14. good article

" We need to understand exactly how the doctrine of Western humanitarian intervention is – in reality - intrinsically bound up with the support of terrorism, the provocation of wars, the fabrication of pretexts for intervention, and the justification of mass murder. This understanding will allow us to see clearly what the Western powers are planning in the increasingly volatile Middle East."

very well said..

[Juche]

15. What are you basing that on

Do you know the motives or results of every intervention in the history of politics?

When the EU sends peacekeepers to the Congo, what resources does the congo have that the EU wants?

The fact that the world stood by and did nothing when Rwanda happens show true humanitarian intervention means little to the world political leaders (at least in 1994, things can change in 15 years). And as a guess I'd say 90% of humanitarian interventions are covers for empire building.

But the reality is sending small military units to prevent massive humanitarian crisises has valid realpolitik justification. About 80% of the public (last time I checked) support the idea, it can build international capital in the form of goodwill, and helping other countries maintain stability helps to keep them from becoming failed states which may give us trouble down the road.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

25. Coltan

Look into this. It's common knowledge that coltan, the new black gold, is the primary reason for the Western intentions in Congo. I'll gladly send you some articles on this if you'll promise to read them. Otherwise just google Coltan, Congo, Weapons et al and you'll see what is happening. It's a war for resources as usual.

There is also much mythology wrapped in the Rwandan genocide and your example of Haiti in another post is the perfect example of what the article refers to when debunking the Western humanitarian intervention concept. I'll gladly send you info on that as well. It's just gussied up imperialism. Quite transparent and wicked.

The New Humanitarian Order

When World War II broke out, the international order could be divided into two unequal parts: one privileged, the other subjugated; one a system of sovereign states in the Western Hemisphere, the other a colonial system in most of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Postwar decolonization recognized former colonies as states, thereby expanding state sovereignty as a global principle of relations between states. The end of the cold war has led to another basic shift, heralding an international humanitarian order that promises to hold state sovereignty accountable to an international human rights standard. Many believe that we are in the throes of a systemic transition in international relations.

The standard of responsibility is no longer international law; it has shifted, fatefully, from law to rights. As the Bush Administration made patently clear at the time of the invasion of Iraq, humanitarian intervention does not need to abide by the law. Indeed, its defining characteristic is that it is beyond the law. It is this feature that makes humanitarian intervention the twin of the "war on terror."

This new humanitarian order, officially adopted at the UN's 2005 World Summit, claims responsibility for the protection of vulnerable populations. That responsibility is said to belong to "the international community," to be exercised in practice by the UN, and in particular by the Security Council, whose permanent members are the great powers. This new order is sanctioned in a language that departs markedly from the older language of law and citizenship. It describes as "human" the populations to be protected and as "humanitarian" the crisis they suffer from, the intervention that promises to rescue them and the agencies that seek to carry out intervention. Whereas the language of sovereignty is profoundly political, that of humanitarian intervention is profoundly apolitical, and sometimes even antipolitical. Looked at closely and critically, what we are witnessing is not a global but a partial transition. The transition from the old system of sovereignty to a new humanitarian order is confined to those states defined as "failed" or "rogue" states. The result is once again a bifurcated system, whereby state sovereignty obtains in large parts of the world but is suspended in more and more countries in Africa and the Middle East.

The Westphalian coin of state sovereignty is still the effective currency in the international system. It is worth looking at both sides of this coin: sovereignty and citizenship. If "sovereignty" remains the password to enter the passageway of international relations, "citizenship" still confers membership in the sovereign national political (state) community. Sovereignty and citizenship are not opposites; they go together. The state, after all, embodies the key political right of citizens: the right of collective self-determination.

The international humanitarian order, in contrast, does not acknowledge citizenship. Instead, it turns citizens into wards. The language of humanitarian intervention has cut its ties with the language of citizen rights. To the extent the global humanitarian order claims to stand for rights, these are residual rights of the human and not the full range of rights of the citizen. If the rights of the citizen are pointedly political, the rights of the human pertain to sheer survival; they are summed up in one word: protection. The new language refers to its subjects not as bearers of rights--and thus active agents in their emancipation--but as passive beneficiaries of an external "responsibility to protect." Rather than rights-bearing citizens, beneficiaries of the humanitarian order are akin to recipients of charity. Humanitarianism does not claim to reinforce agency, only to sustain bare life. If anything, its tendency is to promote dependence. Humanitarianism heralds a system of trusteeship.

<snip>

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/humanint/2008/0910newhumorder.htm

[Hannah Bell]

26. "the world stood by" - the big powers produced the rwandan massacres.

very little in the world is what we're told it is, i think.

[cali]

11. I support humanitarian intervention

in some circumstances and unders the auspices of the U.N. The title of this piece is designed to be attention grabbing (shocking, I know).

General Romeo Dallaire, has said many times that a U.N force of only a few thousand, the genocide in Rwanda could have been halted.

[Mari333]

12. brilliant k and r

[Juche]

13. I support humanitarian intervention

In Haiti we helped reestablish the democracy. I would've been happy to see 10,000 UN (or any nation willing to do it) troops sent to Rwanda to stop the genocide.

The article is 100% true, humanitarian intervention is generally a lie to promote empire. The Japanese claimed they invaded China in the 30s to liberate them. Germany said the same about the Chezk republic, and Italy about Ethiopia. When the world kicked Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 it wasn't about democracy, it was about preventing Iraq from controlling too much of the world's oil reserves because Saddam could've held the world economy hostage.

On another note, political science research has found that countries which are stable democracies generally don't cause trouble. If you look at the US's foreign policy, most of our stresses come from trouble with dictatorships (Communist dictators, Myanmar, Mid east dictators, Sudan, Japan & Germany in WW2, etc).

Freedom house releases ratings on political and civil freedom each year. In 2000 their worst of the worst list (worlds most oppressive countries and territories) included the following 11 countries:

Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan


In the last 9 years we have gone to war with and overthrown 2 of those countries (Iraq & Afghanistan), we are constantly hostile with N. Korea. Syria and Saudi Arabia support terrorist groups. We have considered sending military forces to Sudan. We have sanctions against many of these countries. Overall we have been in military conflicts with several of these countries. We almost never get involved in military conflicts with liberal democracies that respect human rights.

Liberal democracies generally don't cause serious problems for us. There is a valid realpolitik justification for supporting human rights and democracy in foreign countries, because liberal democracies generally don't bother us.

[TBF]

16. On Freedom House -

I had never heard of this group so I looked them up: http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=2

It is non-profit, non-partisan, and American. It's headquartered at 1301 Connecticut Ave. in Washington DC. Thus we are not looking at reports from a more international group, this group is very decidedly an American group that is picking it's tyrants. Big surprise that they would pick regimes with which our government has "concerns".

Amnesty International (http://www.amnestyusa.org/state-of-the-world-report/2007/page.do?id=1051209) might be a better source for this kind of info.

[Juche]

17. They list some of our allies as human rights abusers too

Our relations with China & Russia are sensitive, but they still rate them as abusers of their people. They also list countries like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.

You can see the scale they use to judge countries.

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=341&year=2008

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=414


But yes, they have been criticized before but I do not think they are a shill group designed to further US interests.

The democratic peace theory is still important, and either currently is or should be a cornerstone of the foreign policy of OECD nations.

[maryf]

18. Kind of ambiguous info?

According to the "Well established Democratic Peace Propositions" in the upper right I'd have to say we're not a democracy!! surprised? Not real sure there isn't some forms of famine going on here either...

[Juche]

20. 10% of the country is on food stamps

It is probably more now, but I thought it was 10% last time I checked. But we are a country which has enough of an open market and enough power in the voting booth to help keep famine at bay. In a dictatorship there likely wouldn't be food stamps at all and people would just starve.

[TBF]

21. Giving them just enough not to starve, and just enough false hope to get them to the next day.

Is that really so much better?

[Juche]

24. What do you propose we do

I'd be fine with increasing the food stamp program, especially now. Food stamps are actually a great way to grow the economy as they are actually spent, and a good deal of the manufacture and service that goes into food is done domestically. So its not like buying gasoline where most of the money goes to foreign countries.

But yes, the food stamp program is better than what you'd find in a dictatorship. Look what happened in China, Russia or north korea when they had economic turbulence. Millions starved to death. In the US you go on food stamps.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

27. Haiti

Haiti and The Dangers of Responsibility to Protect
By Anthony Fenton *
Haitianalysis
January 3, 2009

As an emerging lobby advocates for the institutionalization of a controversial doctrine of "humanitarian imperialism,"1 and a new administration that is friendly to this doctrine gets set to occupy the White House, a reminder of the case of Haiti points to the potential dangers posed by an "operationalized" Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm.

Introduction

In 2004, Haiti's democratically-elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide, was overthrown by a small but well organized and funded opposition movement backed by the most powerful members of the "international community" - the U.S., Canada, and France.2

Doing what his father and Bill Clinton were unable to before him, President George W. Bush led the way in answering the question that had vexed consecutive administrations since Haiti's popular movement swept the Duvalier's totalitarian dynasty from power in 1986: "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"3

In December of 2005, Fabiola Cordova, the program officer who was overseeing the National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) burgeoning program in Haiti described how, even after more than a decade of efforts to undermine, demonize, and isolate Aristide leading up to the 2004 coup, the U.S. based their political operations on the following calculation:

"Aristide really had 70% of the popular support and then the 120 other parties had the thirty per cent split in one hundred and twenty different ways, which is basically impossible to compete ..."

The goal, then, was to us "even the playing field' inside of Haiti under the auspices of 'promoting democracy." This translated to the establishment of policies operating in parallel fashion on several tracks. The political opposition, factions of which were linked to the 'rebel' paramilitary movement that would emerge, was bolstered in attempt to consolidate it as a united movement against Aristide. Meanwhile, Aristide's government was simultaneously isolated diplomatically, a de facto economic embargo was placed on his government, and aid money was circumvented around the government and given to NGO's, many of which helped form the opposition.

Combined with a variety of other factors, the strategy had the effect of creating an enabling environment for Aristide's extra-constitutional removal from power.

With UN Security Council authorization, the U.S., Canada, France, and Chile were the first countries to send their militaries in to "stabilize" the country. They quickly joined forces with the anti-Aristide political opposition and "rebel" insurgency. On the one hand, they set up a puppet regime that was swept clear of Aristide's Lavalas party, which was occupied by Western 'technical assistants' and Western-friendly 'technocrats.' On the other hand, the UN occupying forces joined the anti-Aristide insurgency and waged a counterinsurgency (COIN) war against Lavalas, whose members were included among those identified as anti-occupation 'insurgents.'4

<snip>

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/humanint/2009/0103haiti.htm

[maryf]

19. K&R

[leftstreet]

22. K&R

[NashVegas]

28. Lewis Lapham Wrote a Brilliant Essay On This

Comparing Clinton's use of war for humanitarian reasons, v Bush's empiricism, and showed the former for exactly what it was.

[blindpig]

29. War is Peace

Call it Orwellian, call it the Matrix, it is a complete mindfuck. And not only this, but the way we are told that the economy works, the way we are told that politics works, the way we are told society works. It is all lies in the service of the ruling class.

Take the Red pill.