Essay On Humanitarian Interventionism

Humanity is not always found in humanitarian intervention. The pursuit of safeguarding the rights of all those in the “spectrum of races and religions” has its basis in the idea that human rights are self-evident and universal. The protection of universal rights has been allotted to nations who hold great power yet these nations assume that genocide is a concept of the past-with the tragedies of each new genocide isolated from those of the previous genocide. Two genocides commonly cited by humanitarian interventionists – the Armenian and Rwandan genocides demonstrate the consequences of lack of involvement and a lack of moral will on the part of the United States government. Yet by failing to recognize the challenges that come with foreign intervention, humanitarian interventionists render themselves blind to the feasibility of intervention. The American government should limit its humanitarian interventionist missions as these missions do not account for several challenges: ongoing ethnic conflicts, reconstruction efforts, and a lack of an informed public opinion. In reality, foreign intervention fosters a violation of human rights, thus undermining the value of human rights and highlighting the dependency of human rights on foreign intervention. [2] Although intervention looks morally appealing on the surface, proponents of intervention fail to address the challenges of reconstruction in war-torn areas. The concept of humanitarian interventionism saw its rebirth post-Cold War era when nations “sought to assist needy populations without overthrowing established regimes.” Basically, interventions were founded on the moral belief of aiding the common man- whether this aid was in the form of tangible resources or military intervention to repress outbreaks of genocides. Examples of mass killings such as the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust have been thrown into the argument of Western failure concerning a lack of intervention, but no two examples have been more championed by interventionists than the intervention mission into Bosnia and the lack of involvement in Rwanda. The problem with comparing the success of Bosnia with the failure of Rwanda is Bosnia and Rwanda are not similar countries and thus not similar situations. In the case of Bosnia, its government “sought intervention, “which made “the post-conflict scenario… clear and manageable. “ In Rwanda, the government was “Hutu-run” while the resistance force was “Tutsi-dominated.” The formation of the resistance force was the result of the “extermination of Rwanda’s Tutsi.” With a clear ethnic division in Rwanda that is both “ancient” and “intractable”, reconstruction would not only be needed within the government but also as a way to amend the social construct of the country. The intention of humanitarian intervention is to advance the cause of universal human rights yet transforming governments does not coincide with the reason for intervention. Changing the ideology of a regime does not directly result in tangible aid or the repression of mass killings. If the social construct and government need to be changed in order to prevent future genocides, then the basis for humanitarian intervention weakens thus the argument for intervening based on morality does not stand. [3] By ignoring the complications of reconstruction, interventionists undermine the rights of those subjugated to intervention as their rights are dependent on external forces. Unlike Bosnia, which “sought out intervention”, countries that do not seek intervention may see humanitarian missions as invasions rather than interventions. During the Rwandan genocide, it was proposed that the American troops “[step in] as a last resort and [leave] …show more content…
Before intervention, the urge to amend human rights violations precede the challenges of reconstruction; without necessary knowledge, there is a possibility of a resurgence by the opposition force. Also, humanitarian interventionists fail to recognize that s genocides can be response to civil war. In these cases, foreign intervention would most likely accelerate the speed of the killings, therefore, putting more lives at risk. Concerning foreign intervention, the American public should be able to receive enough information to press for action from their government. If not enough information has been provided, the government does not have the right make a decision that which eventually go against the wants of the American public. The drive to help the needy is an honorable one however, sometimes that drive hinders, rather than helps those who need to protect their human rights from