Michael Walzer makes a compelling argument in his article on global crisis, “the Argument about Humanitarian Intervention”. Walzer argues that humans have always been fighting each other and causing global problems. He claims that with today’s technology it has never been simpler to kill large numbers of people, if one has the resources of course. Walzer poses the question that in the event of a humanitarian crisis, such as cases of severe war crimes or ethnic cleansing, to what degree should the rest of the world respond? In Walzer’s article he discusses four major questions. First he talks about in what circomstances is intervention necessary. Second, he asks who the preferred people would be to intervene. Thirdly, how should these agents conduct their intervention? Finally he asks, how long should an intervention last? Walzer first writes about the circumstances in which military intervention is necessary in global crisis.
…show more content…
He argues that a crisis needs to be very extreme to justify military use. He claims that not every violation of human right warrants armed intervention. Walzer interestingly point outs that in many cases foreign leaders or military commanders will misunderstand a crisis in a country they are unfamiliar with. We have seen this happen many times in history. Some countries instead of intervening directly usually will try to use “external acts” such as economic sanctions to stop a crisis (Walzer 2). When this doesn’t work, Walzer claims that the army invading a country will argue they are fighting for “human rights” (Walzer 2). Walzer makes a fascinating point that in most cases the “rescuing forces are the invaders” most of the time we view invaders as the bad guys, this could lead to confusion among the population of the country in crisis (Walzer 3). The second question Walzer addresses is who should intervene in a global crisis. Walzer notes that most successful interventions are usually conducted by neighboring countries. This makes sense, if a country in helping its neighbor with a problem they don’t have to travel very far. Whereas another country might have to travel across the globe to provide aid. In addition Walzer brings up an interesting point, should interventions be conducted unilaterally or multilaterally? In other words, is it better for countries to act alone in providing military aid, or should groups of countries work together to solve a crisis. In general we see “unilateralism” more often (Walzer 3). Walzer argues that most countries don’t want to lend armed forces to a coalition where they don’t have direct control. In addition, Walzer notes that in some situations when the world is too shocked by a global crime to form a coalition quickly then individual countries should act alone. This makes sense. One concern of unilateralism is that countries may intervene in global crisis for only selfish goals. While this may be a factor in some cases, if a country is intervening in another country for self-interest, but also helping stop genocide then what there are doing could still subjectively be viewed as good. However, Walzer argues that humanitarian intervention is an “imperfect duty” (5). In a crisis countries know someone should act, but there is no official country or group that always acts as the global police. This is a benefit of multilateralism. Malzer claims that in multilateralism we as a world can “assign responsibility” to certain groups or countries to act if needed (5). The third Questions Malzer asks is how countries should act when they intervene militarily. Malzer argues that the intervening army’s overall objective should be to stop the adversary force that is massacring or endangering the population of a country. The intervening soldiers must act as a barrier between the innocent civilians are the people prosecuting them. The intervening army might set up safe zones as well and help organize cease fires. Most of the time though the intervening army has to fight a traditional war to resolve the issue. In today’s world, instead of sending a ton of ground troops to resolve global crisis, many countries send in jets and drones. This significantly reduces the loss of life for the military intervening. Malzer argues it should be the priority to fix the immediate problem in regards to using
He argues that a crisis needs to be very extreme to justify military use. He claims that not every violation of human right warrants armed intervention. Walzer interestingly point outs that in many cases foreign leaders or military commanders will misunderstand a crisis in a country they are unfamiliar with. We have seen this happen many times in history. Some countries instead of intervening directly usually will try to use “external acts” such as economic sanctions to stop a crisis (Walzer 2). When this doesn’t work, Walzer claims that the army invading a country will argue they are fighting for “human rights” (Walzer 2). Walzer makes a fascinating point that in most cases the “rescuing forces are the invaders” most of the time we view invaders as the bad guys, this could lead to confusion among the population of the country in crisis (Walzer 3). The second question Walzer addresses is who should intervene in a global crisis. Walzer notes that most successful interventions are usually conducted by neighboring countries. This makes sense, if a country in helping its neighbor with a problem they don’t have to travel very far. Whereas another country might have to travel across the globe to provide aid. In addition Walzer brings up an interesting point, should interventions be conducted unilaterally or multilaterally? In other words, is it better for countries to act alone in providing military aid, or should groups of countries work together to solve a crisis. In general we see “unilateralism” more often (Walzer 3). Walzer argues that most countries don’t want to lend armed forces to a coalition where they don’t have direct control. In addition, Walzer notes that in some situations when the world is too shocked by a global crime to form a coalition quickly then individual countries should act alone. This makes sense. One concern of unilateralism is that countries may intervene in global crisis for only selfish goals. While this may be a factor in some cases, if a country is intervening in another country for self-interest, but also helping stop genocide then what there are doing could still subjectively be viewed as good. However, Walzer argues that humanitarian intervention is an “imperfect duty” (5). In a crisis countries know someone should act, but there is no official country or group that always acts as the global police. This is a benefit of multilateralism. Malzer claims that in multilateralism we as a world can “assign responsibility” to certain groups or countries to act if needed (5). The third Questions Malzer asks is how countries should act when they intervene militarily. Malzer argues that the intervening army’s overall objective should be to stop the adversary force that is massacring or endangering the population of a country. The intervening soldiers must act as a barrier between the innocent civilians are the people prosecuting them. The intervening army might set up safe zones as well and help organize cease fires. Most of the time though the intervening army has to fight a traditional war to resolve the issue. In today’s world, instead of sending a ton of ground troops to resolve global crisis, many countries send in jets and drones. This significantly reduces the loss of life for the military intervening. Malzer argues it should be the priority to fix the immediate problem in regards to using