The ethics and legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is often questioned, with a nation’s real intentions often being unknown, and this has led to beliefs that it may be used as a façade to disguise neocolonialism occurring. The idea of humanitarian intervention was publicised and reworked by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) name, as now used by the UN. Within the released report The Responsibility to protect, humanitarian intervention was discussed, looking at “the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive - and in particular military - action, against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state.” (ICISS, 2001). The R2P doctrine now exists as an endorsed obligation by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly following the 2005 World Summit (UN, 2005). Humanitarian intervention and humanitarian aid are linked by some to colonialism due to the economic influence of some nations upon states in need of humanitarian support following the period of instability. Historically, the colonial project was seen to act in two ways: direct military control or imperialism, and indirect political control with ideological hegemony being pressed upon nations. This definition has now changed greatly to involve the passive use of globalisation, cultural hegemony and capitalism to engage and influence a developing country. It is in this context, as well as looking at remnants of historical colonialism, that this essay shall identify if the colonial project is still ongoing through humanitarian intervention as its medium. This will aim to break down the moral justification of humanitarian intervention through the R2P doctrine to see if this is still truthful and legitimately being employed. To this aim, within the essay examination of any unjust deployments of humanitarian intervention and their justifications will occur as well as looking at if the implementation of the R2P doctrine within the neo-liberal global climate has improved or exacerbated any national or regional crises as an unintended consequence and how this may result in human rights impacts. Secondly, the essay will look at the main actors involved in humanitarian aid and how it is often implemented by these actors, looking at the Just War Theory (IEP) as a guideline. This can then be used to compare historical colonialism and neocolonialism as some scholars argue is now taking place. This can be analysed to see if these key actors are putting the domestic affairs of the country and its citizens first in returning the conflicted nation to a state of peace. The conclusion will suggest that due to globalisation, colonialism cannot be defined as it historically has been in the past with the existence of imperial nations. As a result, those who believe that the spread of cultural hegemony is a form of neocolonialism may argue that the colonial project is ongoing. The project as imagined however with many international colonies forming part of an imperial nation cannot be seen to be realistic anymore and so this may suggest that the question should not be regarding a colonial project and the historical discourse related to this, but looking at the new forms of colonialism and national hegemony which international superpowers may wish to achieve.
Humanitarian intervention has been justified for decades as a responsibility to protect and as a result it has become an international norm for large international actors with the ability to reduce suffering to act. This can be traced to the increasing importance in human rights and appropriate governance as advocated by the UN. Conflict has arisen over the R2P and humanitarian intervention due to the principle of non-intervention which has legally been described as ‘essential for the maintenance of international peace and security’ and how this can be ignored by the subjective opinions of culturally different nations. Non-intervention has historically been a key principle for liberal political philosophers. Liberal thinkers such as Kant and Mill believed that without the security of their national borders and absolute sovereignty, the people of a nation would not be able to govern themselves as truly free individuals as was historically denied to people in colonised countries. This however has also been the definitive justification used by states when considering humanitarian intervention due to the inability of some states to safely and responsibly provide security to its citizens. This acceptance of a non-intervention policy however can lead to atrocities occurring, such as in Rwanda in 1994. Refusal to engage in any humanitarian intervention in Rwanda resulted in the murder of approximately 800,000 Tutsi citizens by the Hutu-led government. Further contention also occurs over the R2P doctrine and the use of humanitarian intervention over legal legitimacy. A key example of such is the humanitarian intervention which occurred in Kosovo by NATO forces. The campaign was described as illegal due to its lack of approval from the UN security council, yet held legitimacy due to the exhaustion of diplomatic means of resolution, as well as being the only way to stop the crimes taking place. This legitimate intervention caused no moral issues regarding its justification and was never seen to be an extension of neocolonialism occurring due to the collective deployment of NATO forces without any political agenda following the troop deployment.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Humanitarian Intervention has also been used to enable other objectives whilst allowing a nation’s true intentions to remain hidden. A key example of such an intervention as seen by many globally is the invasion of Iraq, with the war not being primarily about stopping atrocities, with a failure to try to implement non-military options before invasions. The main rationale for the invasion of Iraq in 2001, as announced by President Bush, was to disarm the nuclear threat to the world and America which existed through Saddam Hussein’s possession of chemical and biological weapons. This clearly does not fulfil the criteria for the use of humanitarian intervention, as whilst their may have been an underlying threat to individuals within Iraq, the main justification was the global threat due to the possession of such weapons. The Chilcot Inquiry found that the UK and the USA had undermined the authority of the UN Security Council with a lack of legal basis for the intervention, resulting in the war being unnecessary with unsatisfactory evidence of the existence of the chemical and biological weapons. The report represents an effort to provide accountability following the intervention, with criticisms of the government of the time being made, and as a result it may make future intervention a much more appropriate use of the R2P doctrine otherwise governments are aware that even they may be held personally accountable for their actions. Furthermore this is significant due to the R2P doctrine being unentrenched at the time of the Iraq invasion and so was inherently illegal, as declared by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Whilst the USA may not have been a historical colonial superpower, as some European nations may be classified as, it still held colonies in the Americas such as Haiti and Puerto Rico and as such there is a degree of colonial history. The invasion of Iraq may have been a continuation of this imperialism through ideological methods, with Bush wishing to impose the US ideologies of ‘democratic, liberal free trading, and human rights’. This hegemonic belief in their own values was demonstrated in the National Security Strategy of 2002 with the statement ‘American values are universal values’.
The war in Afghanistan may not be seen as humanitarian intervention outright however it may provide justifications due to the military intervention having humanitarian objectives. Such an intervention questions the definition of humanitarian intervention as can a military intervention be classified as humanitarian if it holds strong humanitarian objectives within its character? Colonial projects have never involved humanitarian objectives historically from an onlooking perspective and this may make the separation between modern intervention and historical colonialism and imperialism. Looking at the Afghanistan conflict as purely humanitarian however does cause contention. Issues arise due to how the international community only looked to Afghanistan as an area of military deployment following the 9/11 attacks yet no humanitarian aid or intervention had been considered to help the Afghani people prior to this. Afghanistan may represent a new dimension to the colonial project which may continue to grow throughout the 21st century through the dependence on the United States by Karzai and his government.
Stuck on your essay?
