The Pros And Cons Of Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention has been the target of much criticism, essentially in the past several decades. Particularly, questions arise when analyzing how nations decide whether or not to intervene in another sate’s internal affairs. Politics plays a large role in most nations’ internal and external decisions. When faced with the question of if or where to intervene, concerning parties, being governments or IGOs, resort to the concept of a cost-benefit analysis to generate their verdict. Despite the magnitude of the violations, parties will ignore the violation of human rights in nations where the cost may outweigh the benefits. This concept generates a structure in which one’s right to liberty or one’s right to deny another’s liberty is based upon your social status as well as your networks. It is not typical for a political leader to intervene in another state’s internal affairs if they do not expect to succeed. Conditions such as the success rate and the projected time till outcome are reflected upon whilst deciding to undertake a policy. The lack on involvement during the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 is a clear example of this. According to Samantha Powers, despite the degree of brutality, it was believed that the United Nation decided against the mediation because they could not afford another failed intervention like Somalia, which could hurt the future of the its peacekeeping program. Moreover, she believed the United States failed to make a contribution to the closure of the genocide largely because of the aftermath of Somalia that left eighteen deceased American soldiers. Rwanda was not seen a possibility after a public outcry of Americans dying “needlessly” (2002, p.541) The American choice not to intervene makes it less ...

... middle of paper ...

...the events in Somalia can be seen as an illustration of how only losses endured by governments are those that promote the reason of state. The US citizens actively supported its nation’s participation in ceasing the crisis in Somalia only until the death of American soldiers and thereafter demanded the operation be terminated (Wengraf, 2011, p.118). If the safety and protection of those suffering from violations of human rights is not the core motive during mediation, then the intervention is not humanitarian whatsoever, but merely a war on a sovereign state. Without a political or economic benefit, it becomes very difficult for governments to employ its limited resources in order to fulfill the needs of individuals in foreign states. Though the international law orders the security of human rights beyond national boundaries, it fails to impose an established duty.