CONCEPTUALIZATION OF HUMANITARIAN INTEVERNTION
5. CHAPTER FIVE: CASE STUDIES, DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
5.7. The Effectiveness of Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention is just a brief undertaking with one clear objective, which is to avert the looming or existing humanitarian disaster faced by the people. The effectiveness of humanitarian intervention can only be measured during two periods, which is during the intervention and after the intervention. The former is more concerned with the conduct of the intervening combatants and how they select places to attack. However, it is not only confined to the selection of targets but also the weapons and types of explosives used. Whereas, the latter is more concentrated on the aftermath of the intervention. Yes, scholars like Arbour (2008), agree that humanitarian intervention is meant stop human rights violations and also create peace. However, in the words of Ramsden (2016), the creation of peace does not necessarily mean ‘long lasting peace’. There should be enough peace for the warrying parties to be able sit on a roundtable and iron out their differences. Be that as it may, the fact that humanitarian intervention is the employment of force with aim of saving civilians from humanitarian disaster. (Pharo, 2000) acknowledges that it is inevitable that the use of force to save live entails dramatic implications. As lives of both combatants and non-combatants will be taken. However, the degree to which human rights gets violated is determined by the ability of soldiers to apply the rules of law.
i. During Intervention.
The only tool to gauge the effectiveness of humanitarian intervention is the score of lives it saved vis-à-vis the score of lives that would have been taken in the absence of intervention (Seybolt, 2008). Saving lives during intervention largely rests on a number of factors, inter alia, the conduct of belligerents during the intervention, selection of targets to hit and the proportionality of the force that is used to protect civilians. Properly planned interventions apply the principal precept of medicine, which is the principle of ‘first do no harm’ (Cronin, 2014). That principle applies in humanitarian intervention on the basis that humanitarian intervention is meant rescue civilians who find themselves in the state of being patients of a particular political climate. The purging of the elements, which perpetuate humanitarian disaster is influenced by a number of factors. Among those factors, it is the arrangement of the territory in which intervention takes place.
Be that as it may, during intervention in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya interveners applied an excessive force. The application of an extreme coercion produced a heightened number of civilian causalities
and damaged infrastructure and property belonging to non-combatants. As writers like Thakur (2013), do emphasize that the employment of coercion, inconsequential of, its benevolence, enlightenment and impartiality in intent has dramatic outcomes. The forgoing characterization of humanitarian military intervention got its foundation from the acknowledgement of Bellamy (2004), that collateral damage is forever the part and parcel of humanitarian intervention.
However, in the case of Kosovo interveners did not want to risk their lives as they preferred to launch airstrikes than having more combatants on the ground. This risked more lives of civilians as some airstrikes went astray and hit residential areas. Hence, civilians lost their lives unnecessarily. However, Humanitarian International Law (IHL) does not utterly illegalize the killing of civilians but killing of civilians must come as side-effect. The magnitude of side-effects of humanitarian intervention are to a greater extent influenced by the amount of force applied by the intervening combatants. The NATO operations in Kosovo despite being hailed violated human right in both direct and indirect manner. As civilians were displaced as refugees on the other hand infrastructure was damaged, cutting electricity supplies, which worsened the plight of civilians in their respective areas (Wise, 2013).
Moreover, in Libya and Iraq the mad hunt for the heads of states from their hideouts resulted in bombings of convoys transporting civilians, as those convoys were suspected to be with the heads of states. This behaviour of bombing civilian convoys exposes the failure of the intervening combatants to apply the principle of war under Jus in Bello that prior launching an attack one must properly identify the target. Furthermore, the households that were suspected to be hiding those who were hunted were raided and during those raids people were subjected to physical abuse. As they were physical assaulted and threatened in an attempted to force them to tell the truth. Such unaccepted and unwarranted actions of abuse resulted to the decimation of civilians. On the other hand, the International Law was transgressed in the most disgusting fashion. As in these two countries intervention sought to impose values of liberal democracy. This was done despite the impermissibility of the direct intervention in the internal affairs of another country by the international law. In their efforts to enforce such values interveners were compelled to apply excessive force as they wanted to get rid of any force loyal the regimes of the respective states. In addition, the US-led forces in Iraq did not only bombard military camps but also went to the extent of attacking institutions that were suspected to be reliable to Saddam’s regime. Among others such institutions included factories that produced arms. Interveners chose to ignore the fact that in those
factories there were people (non-combatants) working to support their families. Yes, Pharo (2000), characterize humanitarian intervention as necessary despite being not perfect. However, that should not create a situation where collateral damage comes as the deliberate and intended result.
As bombing of institutions where you know that there are civilians is synonymous to deliberately taking lives that are innocent and could be saved. Such actions render humanitarian intervention as an ineffective tool in shielding human rights. Therefore, an effective intervention should protect civilians and the interveners should not embark into any action that directly or indirectly pose threat to human rights. Moreover, the actions of the intervener must always seek to shield human rights and take out the dangers, which is identified as posing threats to them.
ii. After intervention.
Interveners are anticipated to stop crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are the primary condition that required them to intervene in the first place. Moreover, stopping of the ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity allows the negotiations to continue under a pacific climate.
The creation of the pacific climate is tantamount to the cessation of human rights violations. Hence, according to Western and Goldstein (2011) it is ideal to have negotiations while the principal concern is resolved. The principal concern is the humanitarian disaster that is generated through violent conflict. Human rights violations are anticipated to be stopped by the intervention. In succinct words, humanitarian military intervention ought to stop the main cause of human rights defilements. Moreover, create a favorable atmosphere for negotiated settlements that will allow the previously human right abuser to engage in processes of rehabilitation. Moreover, that favorable atmosphere allows the victims to get on with their daily activities without any interruptions.
However, in the case of Iraq and Libya conflict continued even after the interveners have withdrawn their ground troops. According to Thakur (2013), the precariousness and violence continue to cast a long shadow over post-Gaddafi Libya. As the attempts to enforce liberal democracy in a post-Gaddafi Libya did not resolve the question of rebels, as they continued to pose threat to civilians. Moreover, the introduction of democracy converted Libya to a safe haven for terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda and Al-Shabaab. Human rights that were violated by the forces loyal to Gaddafi continued to be violated by the terrorist group that are currently operating in Libya. Moreover, the intervention in Libya for humanitarian reasons left the country in a
predicament with no central strong government, but with different groups having control over different towns. Hence, according to Kuperman (2015), the intervention in Libya did not only fail to introduce liberal democracy, but degenerated Libya to be a failed state. He further adds that intervention magnified the death toll as a result of human right violations that increased in several folds (2015).
On the other hand, the dislodging of Saddam’s administration in Iraq left the country in a volatile situation. Violence did not end as the intervention intended to end it. Despite the presence of foreign forces in Iraq, violence occurred and posing more danger to the lives of the civilians. The country became the hiding place for terrorists as it is the case in Libya. Moreover, Iraq remained as another failed product (state) of attempts to introduce liberal democracy (Parker, 2012). In addition, such attempts exposed people to traumatizing situations as children are exposed to violence. The failure of the western countries led by the US to democratize Iraq created a scenario in which paramilitary groups gained a direct access to state resources. The rampant looting of state resources in Iraq pose more threat to civilians as they fail to access other necessary services.
Moreover, the rule of law that humanitarian intervention seeks to achieve ended as a pipe dream for the Iraqis as the country turned to a battle field for paramilitary groups.
The NATO intervention in Kosovo is qualified by many essayists as the perfect example of humanitarian intervention. Such praises of the NATO intervention in Kosovo seemed to be accepted despite the fact that it did not have the UNSC stamp on it (Solana, 2000). The unlawful operations of NATO in Kosovo accomplished the intended liberation of the Kosovars from the unfriendly treatment of Milosevic. Moreover, NATO delivered the independence of Kosovo as it freed it from the wing and control of Yugoslavia. Among other things, NATO created an atmosphere where thousands of refugees were able to go back home. As the humanitarian disaster that they faced was now averted and their country declared its independence. After NATO’s withdrawal of its belligerents from Kosovo there were no signals that there could be the reemergence of human rights violations. Hence, NATO intervention in that region is said by many to have brought peace and saved human rights. Moreover, the airstrike of NATO did not end by obliterating the maltreatment displayed by Milosevic through the policies he adopted but saw Kosovo gaining its autonomy from the Yugoslavia. In the post-intervention era in Kosovo the rule of law was established.