CHAPTER 8: AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF CONTEMPORARY HUMANITARIAN MILITARY
8.2 The Ethical Challenges in the Pursuit of National Interests in Humanitarian Military
single argument. It critically analyses the ethical challenges and role of self-interests in HMIs. It attempts to answer whether it is possible for powerful countries to undertake HMIs in the affairs of weak countries without anticipating any benefit from the intervention. This critique is done from the perspective of ethical challenges in HMIs.
The chapter begins by interrogating ethical issues in the pursuit of national interests in military interventions; the prevalence of anarchy in international relations; national sovereignty and R2P;
nationalism and the problem of shared moral values; and altruism and HMIs, which is followed by a conclusion. The chapter and its plan are motivated by the need to come up with a concise argument on all the concepts that were subject to interrogation in the previous chapters. The setting allows for a deeper interrogation of the important ethical issues that impact on HMI which allowed the researcher to come up with informed conclusions on the impact of national interests in HMIs by powerful states in the affairs of the weaker states.
The chapter discusses the ethical challenges in the pursuit of national interests in HMI, the prevalence of anarchic international relations, national sovereignty and R2P, nationalism and the problem of shared moral values. It will also look at altruism and HMIs.
8.2 The Ethical Challenges in the Pursuit of National Interests in Humanitarian Military Interventions
The ethical relationship between HMI and the pursuit of national interests is a subject that cannot be given easy conclusions. The subject goes into debates between the Realist school of thought and the Liberalist school of thought in international relations on whether ethics can be a subject of international relations. Scholars are not in agreement on whether international relations can be regulated by ethics.
Coady (2002, 15) notes that a number of realist scholars support the argument that the international
131
system is ruled by the rules of the jungle as expressed in the concept of the Hobbesian state of nature hence ethics have no place in such a world.
The foundation principle of Realism is that power is the currency of international relations (Mearsheimer, 2006: 72) and it is sought by all actors, primarily countries, at all cost (Mearsheimer, 2005: 139).
Morgenthau (2006: 5) notes that, “The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power before separating between politics and ethics as different fields”. Mearsheimer (2006: 74) states that:
“…countries can pursue other goals like ... human rights, but those aims must always take a back seat to survival, because if a state does not survive, it cannot pursue other goals”. This can be traced back to antiquity historian, Thucydides’ notion that the powerful do what they need to while the weak suffer what they must through the exchanges at the Melian dialogue between Athenians and Melians. Given the above discussion, it is therefore argued that, in realism, therefore, ethics have a place which is however, subservient to national interests which is defined as power to guarantee survival (Thucydides, 431 B.C.).
The Realist argument is based on international relations being struggles for power and domination. It goes therefore that there is no way political decisions can be made on moral terms. This Realist notion has moral implications on state behaviour in international relations. As a theory, the Realist doctrine finds readers who are influenced by it to act primarily for the fulfilment of their national self-interest and in some cases the interests of a few in the nation under the guise of pursuing national interest (Maxwell, 1990:
13 & 15). A number of politicians in the USA, which was the post-Cold War Major Power have been influenced by the doctrine with the effect of relegating morality to the backyard in the conduct of international relations. The net effect of such actions is that other states that may have ethically driven foreign policies might be forced to revise their policies upon the realization that acting on moral terms without reciprocity becomes a weakness in the international arena (Maxwell, 1990: 12).
In the conduct of HMI, the concept has had a double impact. The first impact was to drive ambitious powers to undertake military interventions in pursuit of selfish interests of their states without considerations for either the effect of the wars on the international system or the victims in the target state. A number of examples in history bear some testimony to this. For example, the case of Emperor Constantine’s war against Maxentius which Grotius (1625: 247) cites as a historical example of initial cases of HMIs could not be taken as a pure HMI case because the two (Constantine and Maxentius) had been embroiled in a succession crisis (Gearey, 1999) hence Constantine’s war and his courting of
132
Christians could have been political manoeuvers to win support and control and hence pursuit of self- interest. The then Soviet Union undertook HMIs in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century to increase its influence in the Mediterranean region (Jane, 2013: 58-60) which was dominated by Britain while the USA led a military invasion against Saddam Hussein in 2003 to dominate oil resources in the Middle East (Ahmad, 2014) under the pretext of humanitarian war.
The double effect is witnessed in the reaction of other powers either regionally or globally to self-interest manoeuvers disguised as humanitarian. In the case of Russia’s military intervention in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century purportedly to save Greeks and Christians, other European powers, namely, Britain, France, Austria and Prussia joined in the military intervention not as part to a humanitarian mission but to control Russian ambitions and take part in peace settlements and be able to guard their interests in the Mediterranean regions (Jane 2013, 58-60). Thus it can be observed that the practice of HMI is riddled with ethical conflicts.
In contradiction to the Realists’ argument, Liberalism subscribe to the notion that the relationship of countries in international relations should and in most cases is guided by moral rules, primarily the liberal democratic countries. Liberalists argue that liberal democratic countries do not make wars, at least among themselves as they are guided by rules of peace and accountability to their citizens who bear the brunt of war (Newbrander, 2012: 40-41). It could be because of this reason that Teson (2003: 94) is of the notion that only democratic liberal states should undertake HMI because they are regarded as moral countries. Teson’s argument lays burden of HMIs on liberal democratic states. However, this burden is not strictly meant to pursue HMIs but export democracy which is contrary to the ethical principles of HMIs.
The former USA President, Ronald Reagan, in his address to the British parliament in June 1982, stated that governments that are “founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise restraint and peaceful intentions in their foreign policy” (Doyle, 1986: 1151). According to this liberalists’ argument that can be traced to philosophers like Emmanuel Kant, liberal democratic countries are ethical countries because they are either guided by democratic principles or restrained by the same democratic principles.
While liberalists argue that liberal democratic countries rarely make war against each other (Russett and Oneal, 2001: 49), the theory does accept that liberal democratic countries do not make war against non- democratic, autocratic and authoritarian countries (Fischer, 2000: 12-13). It is because of this liberal
133
‘ethic’ that Reagan announced to the British parliament “a crusade for freedom and a campaign for democratic development” (Doyle, 1986: 1151).
In extension to the call to go on military and non-military crusades for the establishment of freedoms and democratic development, cosmopolitanism, a branch of liberalism, propound that human rights are universal and that individuals, and not governments of countries are the subjects of international ethics and rules (Archibugi, 1995). Leaders are guided by a social contract that recognizes no boundaries but individual freedoms. From this opinion, not only governments have a right and duty for HMI, but individuals, in whose collective capacity, their respective governments will undertake HMI.
In the sense of cosmopolitanism, humanity cannot be separated hence in the case of a leader brutalizing his/her citizens, the international community should intervene to save humanity as noted by Fine (2007:
79) that, “The practice of HMI goes to the heart of cosmopolitan aims to defend human rights.” This neo- liberal thinking advances the concept of HMI not only as a right, but a duty to be undertaken by the international community to save others (Evans and Sahnoun, 2002: 101). This is captured by Sangha (2012, 2) who states that, “Ultimately, as premised upon the main tenets of the cosmopolitan ethical perspective, in instances of widespread human suffering caused by the neglect, breakdown, or abuse of sovereign power, it is the moral responsibility of foreign states to respond accordingly.” The ethical problem that arises from this line of thinking in practical terms is that humanity is seen as one, hence there should be a response to every humanitarian catastrophe without selection.
Practically, selectivity, inconsistency and double standards have been the major definers of HMIs. While there were speedy responses by NATO in Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011), by France in Ivory Coast in 2011, and effective USA intervention in Haiti in 1994, there was a neglect in the 1994 Rwandan case and the 2003-5 Darfur crisis. There were massacres in Cambodia, that were noted by Kiernan (2004) as genocide and brutality in Uganda under Idi Amin (Sempangi, 1975, Nayenga, 1979, Carson, 2005: 2-4) and the only responses from the regional neighbours of these two countries, Vietnam and Tanzania, respectively, came after their territorial sovereignty had been threatened or attacked. Even when Vietnam and Tanzania intervened for their national security interests and achieved humanitarian by-products, the Security Council condemned the military intervention by Vietnam as being an invasion and was silent on Tanzania’s intervention (Hathaway, et al, 2013: 512). Kuperman (2001: 23) pointed out that Rwanda was part of a region that was regarded as “a low priority” to the USA interest. This lack of direct self-interest
134
can be seen as the reason why the USA never took the Rwandan genocide as a subject of HMI, a case that disapproves the cosmopolitan moralist argument for HMI.
The second question on the justification of HMIs based on the cosmopolitan intervention theory is that how does a leader come up to conclude that the actions which he/she is undertaking are the aggregate desires of the majority of the citizens. The moral problem here is that leaders of powerful states abuse their sovereign representative role for their people to advance narrow self-interests of a few powerful individuals in their states. Maxwell (1990, 15) that, “American foreign policy is often made for the benefit of narrow economic interests rather than for, and sometimes contrary to, the interests of the nation as a whole... the phrase ‘national interest’ is merely a device to rally loyalty”. It is therefore unethical to claim that a HMI has been undertaken because the majority have asked for it while in actual fact there would not have been a referendum to ascertain the response of the nation to atrocities being committed on citizens in faraway places.
The thesis questions the liberalists’ arguments on HMI from an ethical development perspective.
Questions begging for attention are: If HMIs were purely humanitarian, why has it been that in some cases intervening forces have left the subject states in more appalling conditions than they were under the alleged brutal or rogue leader? Why has there been allegations of humanitarian abuse by the intervening forces that have not been prosecuted. In illustration, Metz (1995: 68) argues that, “An action is good if it preserves the totality, fullness, and the harmonious life of a human person; an action is bad if it has a more or less decided tendency to break into and narrow the totality and fullness of humanism and its contents.” From this quotation it can be observed that after the USA/British led military intervention in Iraq in 2003, Iraq has become one of the most unsafe nations in the world and arguably a breeding ground for terrorism (Blair, 2009: 6, Blair, 2015). One of the leading architects of the intervention, former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair accepted that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein than it is now and that they acted on false intelligence.18 The situation was also replicated in Libya where after having
18 In an interview with Cable News Network (CNN)’s Fareed Zakaria, Tony Blair accepted that the role of the Coalition of the willing had played a part in creating a space for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant to breed and grow. He apologised for his role in the intervention and noted that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a safer place than it is now. He however argued that the birth of ISIL could have also been partly aided by the Arab Spring and argued that its major bases were in Syria (Fareed Zakaria GPS; 25 October 2015; 1300hrs – 14oohrs Central African Time), which argument raises moral questions for the Western powers who declared Bashar al Assad, the Syrian President an illegitimate President and supported the opposition forces, some of whose, like Al Nusra Front pledged allegiance to ISIL. Some of the weapons the Americans air dropped for the Syrian rebels and Kurdish fighters
135
supported the NTC with air cover in its fight against Gadhafi, NATO pulled out of Libya after the assassination of Gadhafi leaving Libya as a failing state with different militia groups fighting for power and two major governments claiming legitimacy, one based in Tobruk and the other in Tripoli (Laessing, 2015). Because of these practical historical cases, one can safely argue that HMI is a tool for the powerful states to pursue their selfish interests in the affairs of weaker states with a moral face. It has been established that in both Iraq and Libya, Western powers’ HMIs were a cover for the pursuit of oil resources and to forcefully remove state leaders who were seen as unpredictable in relation to western interests.
Hence, the military interventions were not humanitarian but abuse of the concept to pursue selfish interests without regard for the wellbeing of Iraqis and Libyans who now suffer under semi-stateless states. The social humanitarian situation of the Iraqis and Libyans is now generally worse than they were under their deposed leaders. It can be argued that western intervention did not solve humanitarian cases but created humanitarian catastrophes. Hence, Sekeramayi noted that it is now that Libya needs a HMI.19