CHAPTER 9: RESEARCH FINDINGS
9.10 An Ethical Analysis and Critique of Contemporary Humanitarian Military Interventions
The chapter critically discussed and analyzed the pertinent concepts that impact on the morality of HMI by powerful states in the affairs of weaker states. It interrogated how the pursuit of national interest by powerful states impact on the conduct of HMI. It also critically analyzed how the concepts of national sovereignty, nationalism, perceived shared moral values and the prevalence of anarchy in the international community of states impact on the ethical conduct of HMI.
The major question that the chapter attempted to answer was whether it is possible for states to prioritize morality ahead of their national interests. From a Realist position, as was argued in the chapter, power expressed as the pursuit of national interests is the currency of international relations. Every state pursues it at any cost. The adverse effect of not prioritizing the pursuit of national interests, at least from a Realist perspective, is that one’s state would be doomed to death as other states are always seeking to destroy it. Prioritizing ethics and moral rules in the conduct of international relations is seen as a dangerous path towards the extinction of that state. This argument translates into the idea that there cannot be any HMI that is purely guided by humanitarian intentions and motives. In any HMI, the powerful capable states that conduct the HMIs in the developing countries will be seeking to extend their influence and hegemony in international affairs.
The chapter argued that the conduct of HMI in contemporary history has taken place in two distinct eras, namely the pre UN anarchical era and the post anarchical era. It was argued that anarchy put simply refers to a system that has no governing and regulating rules. In the international system anarchy prevailed until European powers with the help of the former USA President, Woodrow Wilson, established
177
the League of Nations. This attempt at creating an international society and community was short lived as it failed to deal with Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Japan’s Hideki Tojo. The battle to establish a community of nations was finally established in 1945 with the creation of the United Nations.
These transformations in the international system had tremendous impacts on the concept of HMI. Prior to the establishment of the UN, the conduct of HMI was undertaken by powerful states in the affairs of weaker states without considering what the other states would say. In the case of the European powers’
intervention in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire, the best the rival powers could do was to join in the intervention and be able to influence the peace terms to safeguard their strategic interests (Hammond, 2006: 9-10). That it was an anarchic situation is further proven by the fact that the reasons that the European power gave for their HMIs in the Ottoman Empire were either similar or less heinous as compared to the crimes the European leaders committed against those who challenged their power in their internal states or in the colonies.
Under the international community created by the UN based system, the international system can no longer be classified as anarchic. However, such a transformation did not tremendously change the nature and conduct of HMI. Powerful states have remained the major players in HMI, with less powerful developing states being the subjects of intervention. However, the conduct of HMIs is no longer explicitly anarchic. Powerful states have now developed a new strategy of exploiting genuine humanitarian concerns in subject states for them to camouflage their pursuit of national interests. The use of genuine humanitarian concerns as was the case in Haiti, East Pakistan, and Sierra Leone when the USA, India and Nigeria undertook their respective military interventions, should not be seen as a turn in international relations from the realist route to an ethical one. These interventions could come up with humanitarian outcomes, but only as by-products of the pursuit of national interests.
The chapter observed that the concept of national sovereignty has been subject to abuse by state leaders. As established in the chapter, sovereignty as noted in the social contract does not translate to the right of the state leaders to inhumanely dominate their citizens. Rather, leaders hold it in custody for the whole nation to the world outside the nation’s physical state boundaries. The Westphalian concept could have been an abuse of the social contract. National sovereignty as noted has faced double abuse, firstly by tyrant leaders seeking to insulate themselves from accountability to their peers on the international arena and from their citizens. Secondly, it is used by major powers when they seek to
178
disregard brutality by leaders in states they do not hold strategic interests or to insulate leaders in states they are protecting from international attention and formal scrutiny. This has been the case with the Russian defence for the Syrian government on different international fora.
The last sections of the chapter were dedicated to the relationship between HMI on one hand and human rights and altruism on the other. It was noted that principles that constitute altruism are contested. In its extreme sense altruism has been understood as assisting others in ways that disadvantages the helper or even bring harm on the helper without expecting any benefits or rewards from the altruistic action.
However, in its lighter form, altruism is seen as a rationale form of assisting others in distress but without necessarily undertaking the altruistic action when the helper is threatened by harm.
In relation the ethics of HMI, the chapter argued that HMI is derived from the concept of altruism given that it is a concept that seek to give relief to people suffering from the tyranny of their leaders or military groups with the consent or abetting from the leadership. The concept of HMI as a use of military force to stop a tyrant from killing his own people is arguably derived from the instincts in human beings to assist fellow human beings in distress. However, as noted in the chapter, while individual human beings may have the moral instincts to help other human beings and animal species for no gain, the concept of the immorality of groups makes it difficult for states to undertake purely HMIs.
The sum of this chapter is that there are a number of ethical principles which gives a military intervention a humanitarian tag. These principles include altruism, protecting the lives of civilians, acting with consistency and being driven by humanitarian intentions and motives. In judging the military interventions that have been declared as humanitarian by the powerful states in the affairs of weaker developing states, the argument is that most of the interventions that were declared as humanitarian fall short ethically. In almost all the interventions, the influence of self-interest was highly visible. This visibility was noted through firstly the comparative response of powerful states to humanitarian cases that deserved HMIs, the internal conduct of the foreign troops and the use of heavy weaponry in civilian populated areas as was the case in Libya, and the lack of a will to restore the socio-political situation to normalcy and peace after the intervention, with Libya and Iraq having been reduced to failing states. The chapter therefore accepts that there are humanitarian cases that deserve an HMI. However, such cases have become subjects to abuse by Major Powers that view these cases as opportunities to extend or protect their hegemony and economic interests in the international arena.
179