CHAPTER 8: AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF CONTEMPORARY HUMANITARIAN MILITARY
8.5 Altruism and Humanitarian Military Intervention
149
were killed in the military interventions. In short, the application of universal human rights is relative to the importance of the powerful countries. This is questioned by Kurasha who noted that even the killing of a single innocent person is enough to de legitimize intervention and noted that the USA’s action is not guided by morality as noted in the use of drone to kill certain targets which comes at the expense of killing many innocent souls all in the name of eliminating a single person.27
The liberalist argument is countered by cultural relativists. Cultural relativism argues that while there are human rights, these rights are the creation of people in line with their cultural values and practices (Donnelly, 1984: 400). The school of thought also notes that religion plays a major role in assigning rights and duties to society’s individuals. Because of these reasons, cultural relativists argue that there cannot be universal human rights but human rights based on the cultural and religious practices of human beings in different places (Donnelly, 1984: 400).
Cultural relativism has its inadequacies in relationship to HMI. In arguing that human rights are cultural and religious specific (Donnelly, 1984: 400-401), the concept of cultural relativism dismisses the concept HMI. Substantial maltreatment of human beings has been justified on cultural or religious practices. In the pre-colonial and colonial times in South America, Native American tribes practiced human sacrifices that were religious practices (Sorabji, 2007: 20). It was because of this reason and allegations of cannibalism that theological scholars like Sepulveda justified Spanish conquest of the Indians’ lands as humanitarian as it was a mission to Christianize the Indians and save them from being sacrificed by their kings (Reynolds, 2010: 17-22). If one follows a fundamental cultural relativist argument, it is unethical for another state to intervene in another state on the basis that leaders in such a state are violating human rights. From a cultural relativist’s argument, intervening in another state on the pretext of human rights is an imperialistic adventure, which is unethical in international affairs (Calder, 2002: 17).
150
fellow members of the human race; especially, active effort to promote human welfare, (2) a, an act or gift done or made for humanitarian purposes, b, an organization distributing or supported by funds set aside for humanitarian purposes”. Philanthropy can be understood as assisting others out of good will and without expecting returns from the actions. This means philanthropy can be seen as similar to altruism. Krieg (2013: 48) notes that “altruism refers to an action that is not only not self-enriching but actually self-harming while benefiting someone else.” Bar Tal (1986, 5) propounded that for an act to be classified as altruistic, it must have features “(a) must benefit another person, (b) must be performed voluntarily, (c) must be performed intentionally, (d) the benefit must be the goal by itself, and (e) must be performed without expecting any external reward.”
From this definition, any act of good will should not be driven by declared or undeclared motives of personal gain. It is this notion of pure acts of good will in human relations that this thesis argued to be at best theoretical. The definition and classification of altruistic behaviour from which the concept of HMI is derived has telling pointers for scholars like Teson (2005) who have argued that HMI can have both altruistic intentions and self-interest motives. The conduct of HMI should not be guided by the twin questions of; what do I gain? And what do I lose?
In practical cases, when the USA pulled out of Somalia after the death of its eighteen rangers in 1993, the pulling out meant that the intervention was not humanitarian from the ethical principles of altruism. In this case, the USA put ahead the importance of the lives of its rangers and failed to take note of the multitudes its mission was intended to save. Since then, Somalia has fallen to the level of embodying the definition of a failed state while the humanitarian catastrophe has been exported regionally as Somalia has become the hub of terrorism from which notorious terrorist attacks like the September 2013 Westgate Mall attacks in Nairobi (Howden, 2013) and Garissa University College attacks in Kenya were launched from Dearden in 2015. Similar comparisons can be made with respect to other interventions which were undertaken by the USA in Haiti (1994) and NATO in Kosovo (1999). In Haiti, the USA intervention was driven by the desire by President Clinton to gain the support of the black community and his credibility as an effective president and the need to stop the flow of refugees into America (Girard, 2004: 1 - 26). In such a case the motive for the intervention was not to save the lives but to save the American territory from being flooded by refugees. In other words, the intervention was driven by national preservation which is self-interest. In Kosovo, while NATO argued on a moral imperative to save the lives of Albanians who were under attack from the Serbian army, the methods that NATO used raised ethical questions.
151
The aerial bombardments resulted in the death of civilians estimated at between 500 and 1 500 (Cronin, 2014: 2) who were not part of the criminal state with others being the victims. The aerial bombardment strategy was meant to limit the NATO casualties while being effective in destroying their targets and achieve quick victory (Cronin, 2014: 3). This, as argued in the previous cases proves that the interventions did not conform to the definition of altruism that one must be driven by the desire to save those in distress regardless of the harm that might meet him/her in the process (Singer, 1981: 5).
This strict approach to HMI is, however, not in agreement with the ethical principles for HMI with respect to the possibility of harm befalling the intervening forces and states. Grotius (1625: 247) opined that:
It is certain that no one is bound to give assistance or protection, when it will be attended with evident danger. For a man’s own life and property, and a state’s own existence and preservation are either to the individual, or the state, objects of greater value and prior consideration than the welfare and security of other individuals or states.
Borrowing from Grotius, there is therefore, no morality in undertaking an HMI when the probability of defeat is more than that of success. It translates that the ‘tyrant’ may met his/her subjects with worse tyranny attacks and can even follow on to the subjects of the defeated intervener on the pretext of repelling aggression. It would also mean that the leader of the intervening state would have invited tyranny upon his/her subjects by attempting a HMI which he/she lacked the capacity to undertake.
Grotius’ argument was noted by the ICISS (2001, XII) which stipulated in the R2P document as one of its principles for intervention, that, “There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering which has justified the intervention, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction.” What it therefore means, from this practical argument is that while HMI is a moral imperative, it must not be undertaken at the expense of one’s life, which is however ironic given that any military adventure would cost lives, specifically in Grotius’ era.
Grotius’ argument that altruistic actions should be undertaken with caution is supported by Krieg (2013:
49-50) who argued that while human beings have a natural inclination to help others and engage in altruistic behaviour the willingness to do so is situational. According to Krieg, acts that are driven by mere assistance are normally undertaken in low risk situations. In contrast, Krieg (2013: 48 - 50) notes that actions that are motivated by self-interest can be undertaken even in high risk areas because of the anticipated personal benefits. The forgoing argument creates a middle line between the extremist
152
conceptualization of altruism and the extreme other which argues against the existence of altruism. It is only normal that any leader, whose primary duty is to protect those who bequeathed their sovereignty to him/her, does not undertake any external military action that has the capacity to bring untold harm to his/her citizens. However, in HMI, this principle has little application given that in contemporary history, only powerful states with strong military capabilities have undertaken the interventions. These interventions are also undertaken in less powerful states which means that there is no risk of inviting military aggression on the citizens except in the form of terrorism as has been the case with Kenya after being part of the AU intervention in Somalia.
Even societies that have been defined as communitarian whose individuals are seen to be ardent followers of the concept of sacrificing one’s self for others, such acts of pure altruism as put forward by Bar Tal (1986: 5) have been hard to come by. These communities mostly in precolonial Africa which have been based on the concept of ‘Ubuntu’ which stated that ‘umuntu ngomuntu ngabantu’ (which literally means that, you are a human being because of other human being) (Murove, 2005: 132) have not been purely altruistic societies. The theory of Ubuntu, which can be understood as African humanism perceives human beings as part of a single human community that is subject to the spirits and ultimately, the Creator. According to the Ubuntu concept, one is fully human when his/her actions contribute to the societal wellbeing (Murove, 2005: 131). However, this wellbeing is undertaken by one to have a good co- existence with other societal members, hence the goodwill is premised on anticipation of a goodwill in return. The famous Shona saying that, “kandindiro kanoenda kunobva kamwe” (literally meaning; a favour deserve a favour in return) proves that there has never been pure altruism in societal relations, both internally and externally. Outside Africa, in the traditional Scandinavian states, Mauss (1967: 1) states that “In Scandinavian and many other civilizations contracts are fulfilled and exchanges of goods are made by means of gifts. In theory such gifts are voluntary but in fact they are given and repaid under obligation.” From this assertion, while there were practices that appeared on the surface as acts of altruism in the exchange of gifts, in actual fact those gifts always deserved other gifts in return, which was an unwritten rule of the practice. This practice is in line with the practical concepts of Ubuntu.
Singer (1981:16-18), however, does not accept that the practice of expecting a return after a good gesture or assisting others in anticipation of reciprocal assistance is self-interest. Singer (1981: 16-18) forwards that such kind of behaviour should be termed “reciprocal altruism”. Hence, from Singer’s argument offering a good gesture for a return as exemplified in the Ubuntu concept or in the pre-historic
153
Scandinavian society resembles help that assisted in nurturing group growth. While these arguments can be traced in individuals and even in animals from a sociobiological perspective, in larger groups like states it has not been easy to establish these kinds of behaviour. Maxwell (1990: 23) established what she termed “the immorality of groups” in international relations. She notes that the concept of the immorality of groups holds that, “a group of persons does not act ethically, as a body in a way that reflects the typical behaviour of its individual members. Rather, there are certain characteristics of group behaviour which lead to a lower moral standard for the group.”
HMI is developed from the concept of humanitarianism, which is a philanthropically derivation. As previously defined in the thesis, HMI refers to the use of force to protect the lives “of persons situated within a particular state and not necessarily nationals of the intervening state” (Shaw, 2003, 1045). The definitions of HMI denote that it is military assistance rendered to citizens who are facing brutality at the hands of their leaders who would have digressed from their sworn mandate to protect the citizens. In such a case, the intervention is driven by the moral imperative to save lives and humanity. When an intervention loses its altruistic traits, it falls of the conceptualization of being an HMI. While there could be traits of altruism in individual state leaders, it does not translate that the aggregate decision of the leaders is driven by the morality of the individuals but rather by the immorality of the group. In the conduct of military activities outside national borders, major powers like the USA have not shown an ethical empathy to civilians’ deaths which it constantly refers to as collateral damage (Kiernan, 2003). In reference to this assertion, more than 65 000 civilians are estimated to have been killed in the Iraq war (Encyclopedia Britannica, online), while currently Russia has been accused of killing civilians in a war it claims to be targeting terrorists in Syria (Mullen, 2015) (http,//edition.cnn.com/2015/10/25/middleeast/syria-russia-airstrikes-hrw/). NATO forces were also accused of killing innocent civilians in the intervention in Kosovo (Cronin, 2014: 2).
While HMI is a moral concept, the practice has always been marred by allegations of the pursuit of national self-interest. The concept of HMI is prone to abuse by ambitious powers that may use the concept to justify missions that are meant to pursue national interests. The fact that HMI is susceptible to abuse is proven on the ground by the actions of ambitious powerful state. The concept which was initially promulgated to protect civilians facing brutality amounting to mass organized torture and killing was used to justify the wars in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 which did not comply with the ethical principles of HMI. This desire to stretch the doctrine from being an exercise of last resort in extreme
154
cases to embrace general human rights as defined by the powerful states is one reason in the 21st Century that has seen the doctrine being denounced by weaker developing countries as an imperialist tool by the former colonial masters to install puppet leaders in weaker states. This was witnessed in the case of Zimbabwe in 2008 when Britain planned a military intervention as revealed by former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, whom Blair wanted to rope in the military intervention (Smith, 2013) as well as the joint sponsoring of a draft UNSC resolution (S/2008/447) that was double vetoed by Russia and China, which sought to have the case of Zimbabwe to be categorized as a Chapter VII issue that threatened international peace and security. While there were humanitarian issues in Zimbabwe which included political violence that was perpetrated by both the ruling party, Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) and the main opposition, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters (Asuelime and Simura, 2014) and specifically the crumbling economy that led to economic emigration into other regional countries, the situation was not catastrophic to be compared with cases of genocide or mass killing that are classified as extreme cases that warrant HMI. The desires for an HMI was a pure exhibit of the pursuit of self-interest given the fallout between New Labour government led by Blair and ZANU PF led by Robert Mugabe, specifically on the land issue.