50
coercive (forcible) and non-coercive (non forcible) military intervention, direct and indirect military intervention, and overt and covert military intervention (Carpenter, 1989:130). For the purposes of this research, the definition of military intervention is formulated as coercive joint military action preceded by a political decision of a state or a group of states operating under the banner or name of a sub-regional grouping. This military action includes the deployment of coalition troops at the invitation or request of the government of a member state in order to assist that state militarily pending a political solution to a given crisis. This definition draws upon the definition given by Du Plessis (2000:4-5) and those definitions given by Rosenau (1969:153-156), Geldenhuys, (1998:6); Bull (1984:1); Barrie, 2000:78) Friedman (1971:40) and Ramses (1994:4). Thus, the military intervention under study will be referred to as overt foreign military intervention of a combative and coercive nature in an interstate conflict.
Having discussed and analysed the definitional debate among scholars as to what military intervention entails, it is important to look briefly at how military intervention has actually evolved over time as this would provide a base for the general rationale in terms of justification for governments’ decisions for the deployment of troops in different conflict settings.
51
for going to war and this should be consistent with the principles of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) which will be discussed in the later sections. As Wheeler and Bellamy argue, military intervention is one of the most abused, divisive and contested concepts in International Relations and more specifically International Security Studies (2008:530). The concept is used to justify both humanitarian and military interventions. Thus, it has become clearer that the concept has not been properly comprehended. It is used to justify the interest of the “intervening state rather than the target state” (Wheeler and Bellamy, 2008:530). In fact, military intervention does penetrate the political, military and even ethical context. There are geopolitical prospects and constraints that impact on military intervention. Military intervention does not have ties to any specific international system. It is important at this point to discuss briefly how military intervention has evolved through the pre-Cold War, the Cold War and post-Cold War eras (Jentleson, Levite and Berman, 1992:320).
It is significant to note that military interventions were undertaken even before the modern state system. Military interventions were common from the 17th century. In the 19th century military interventions increased as a result of conflicts and alliance formation by major powers in Europe (Du Plessis, 2000:15). It was during that same period when military intervention began to be recognized as a function of the prevailing multilateral balance of power system and an instrument of statecraft used by major powers to serve their interests (Du Plessis, 2000:15). It was not to be used by these powers among themselves but instead it was meant to control the weaker states not entirely through military means but rather through diplomacy (Levite, 1992:320). Due to the fact that the pre-Cold War period more or less represented the politics of power and dominance, military intervention was therefore viewed from the perspective of international political realism which institutionalised the act (military
52
intervention) as only and it was institutionalized as an inherent right of the super powers which had the capacity to engage in military intervention (Du Plessis, 2000:15). It is prudent then to look at military intervention during the Cold War era.
During the Cold War period, interventions were dominated by the US and the USSR in their respective “spheres of influence” or in disputed zones because of imperialist and ideological reasons. This spilled into the decolonization process, in a systemic bipolar environment that was so unusual that a new pattern of intervention was defined. The USSR’s intervention in Hungary in 1956 and in Afghanistan in 1979 and the American interventions in the Vietnam civil war from 1964 are cases in point (Kramer, 1999:39-76). It should also be realized that the two superpowers exerted political control over most of their satellites states. Kramer also notes that “whenever those states tried to escape from their hegemonic political influence, they were restrained, sometimes by direct armed intervention, but usually through indirect intervention” (Kramer, 1999:39). The two superpowers’ “interventions were also accompanied by indirect interventions using military assistance to local parties or covert actions (Kramer, 1999:39). In the latter stages of this thesis, an overview and analysis on the history of military interventionism in the Congo indicate that the Cold War rival played a part in as far as intervention in that country was concerned during the Cold war period. There was also competition between these two superpowers over those areas that were outside their spheres of influence (particularly fragile states), and this often fuelled conflicts among the local communities. Particular areas where these superpowers were either directly involved in armed conflicts or offered overt support to the belligerent parties include South East Asia, Central America and Sub-Saharan Africa (Ortega, 2001:1).
53
Besides the dominant bipolar structure based on the super powerfulness of the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union or USSR), the central features of the Cold War period included a dominant structural balance based on self- restraint and nuclear deterrence, proxy conflict through surrogates in the peripheral Third World, and the ascendancy of high risk foreign policy options in pursuit of national interests (Du Plessis, 2000:16; See also Carlsnaes 1992:260; Kramer, 1999:39). The strategic impetus of the Cold War made military intervention an extension of the geopolitical interventionism.
Furthermore, military intervention was regarded as an instrument which had a viable foreign policy utility. Where it became less practical or viable, proxy warfare in the Third World presented an opportunity for new military intervention that was carried out covertly (Otte, 1995:200).
In the post-Cold War period, military intervention has attracted much interest among scholars. This is so because the use of force in most instances was decided and executed by states without the UNSC authorization. As Du Plessis (2000:16) notes, these actions have demonstrated that they have none the less been necessary and acceptable. Unlike during the Cold War era, post-Cold War military intervention has not been an instrument used by powerful states to dominate the weak ones. Instead, military intervention has been used as a means for the attainment of objectives such as the avoidance of humanitarian catastrophes and the reestablishment of international peace and security. This has resulted in the “negative image of intervention that was predominant during the Cold War” (Du Plessis2000:16). The challenge the world faces is to find a precise definition of the circumstances in which armed intervention is acceptable and when it is appropriate for nation-states to intervene.
54
As noted by Du Plessis, the post-Cold War political era reflects a geopolitical transition and a new world order that is characterized by a dramatic increase in state and non-state actors, increasing globalization, and a multi-polar global structure dominated by the US as the sole remaining superpower. The period is also characterized by the internal political, economic and security challenges facing many developing countries, and the prevalence of regional and sub-regional conflicts. In the post-Cold War era, international actors seem to be much occupied with tackling new security challenges and the ways and means of dealing with these challenges can only be done through a global security regime that is a result of compromise among member nations of the global community (Du Plessis, 2000:19; see also Kanter and Brooks, 1994:227-228). Such an environment has had an effect on military intervention.
The new environment has much intervention effort being undertaken for humanitarian purposes. US intervention in Somalia in the 1990s is a case in point. The US has undertaken such interventions through the UN and with the support of NATO countries (Malik and Dorman, 1995:181-182, see also Du Plessis, 2000:18-19). This new intervention has also been expressed in the form of different foreign policy behaviours of respective sub-regional and regional powers. However, criticism has been levelled against this approach because of the “stand-off between the authority to intervene and the lack of resources and political will to do so” (Du Plessis, 2000:19; see also Falk and Mendlovitz, 1973: 150-151). There is also the matter of the unevenness of the decisions on which states are committing violations and which ones at which to direct collective intervention projects.
Besides the quest for collective responsibility and the growing demand for humanitarian intervention, the major powers have become increasingly reluctant to become involved in military interventions that do not have anything to do with their geopolitical and national interests (Du Plessis, 2000:19). Financial and logistical challenges have also affected the
55
undertaking of humanitarian intervention. Even the UN has not been spared this predicament, particularly when one considers the fact that its role in any intervention is determined by the permanent members of the Security Council (Du Plessis, 2000:20). The major powers are neither prepared to accept the undermining of the UN by other states nor to automatically respond to all requests for humanitarian intervention (Malik and Dorman, 1995:181-182; Du Plessis, 2000:20). This has affected the effectiveness of the UN in relation to humanitarian intervention by states at subregional and regional levels.
It is also important to realise that the post-Cold War period has seen the re-emergence of those factors that caused intervention during the Cold War period (Otte, 1995:197-198). This development has resulted in the continuation of military interventions that are driven by geopolitics interests at a regional level. As Dorman puts it, the post-Cold War period is
an environment where the vestiges of former colonial empires remain in the interests of and continue to require the support of former colonial powers, most of whom have had a long history of using military intervention… the internal and external pressures for the use of military intervention have increased in response to the threat posed by ethnic unrest, non-democratic regimes, the proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction (Dorman, 1995:109; see also Du Plessis, 2000:20).
From the above, it can thus be observed that the unstraining post-Cold War global environment has left room for powerful nations to continue engaging undertaking military interventions even without the authorisation of the UNSC (Du Plessis, 2000:21). Whilst an attempt has been made to trace how military intervention has evolved from the pre-Cold War to the post-Cold War era, there is also a need to highlight briefly the international legal dimensions of military intervention as these have an impact on the decisions that nation-states take at sub-regional, regional and international levels.
56