What are the main factors that need to be weighed by the international community in deciding whether to undertake intervention for humanitarian purposes?
The UN, the EU, Italy and
R2P
https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/summary-2023-r2p-debate/
https://www.globalr2p.org/resources/gof-2023-r2p-debate-statement/
https://www.onuitalia.com/2021/05/18/r2p-italia-vota-per-inclusione-annuale-in-agenda-assemblea-generale/
Delivering
Humanitarian Aid – the EU and the UN
Current
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/es/ip_24_678
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147676
https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/global-humanitarian-overview-2024-enarfres
https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/where/europe/ukraine_en
https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/yemen-crisis
https://www.unicef.org/appeals/yemen
perhaps also https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4a8e5b072.pdf
Then: http://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/deliver-humanitarian-aid/ This covers a lot of UN
emergency and longer-term interventions, where natural disasters have occurred
or food resources are insufficient. These programs are usually authorized
and welcomed by the local government if it is unable to respond on its own, and
are not controversial (the same is true foe development and education programs),
except in terms of effectiveness (speed, organization, costs, duration etc.).
See the work of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA):
https://www.unocha.org/our-work/coordination
and the work of the UN Central
Emergency Relief Fund (CERF)
https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/120403_OOM-CERF_eng.pdf
and
https://www.unocha.org/latest/news-and-stories
https://www.unocha.org/our-work/coordination/un-disaster-assessment-and-coordination-undac
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11792/
https://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/humanitarian-aid/disaster_preparedness_en
Where a government is reluctant to authorize a foreign
presence on its territory, this may present a serious challenge for the
international community if that government is unable to deal with the situation
itself, even when we are simply talking about relief in the event of a natural
disaster.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/27/regime-blocked-aid-to-burma-cyclone-victims
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/03/lessons-cyclone-nargis
Peace-keeping and peace-building
missions, like emergency aid, development and educational programs, usually
present the UN with no difficulty in terms of authorizing the mission as they
are requested by or with the consent of
the countries involved. Give a brief examples of some of the most important ones and their
level of success or failure
https://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/en/news/New-data-show-the-effectiveness-of-UN-peacekeeping-missions/6454 (According to Professor
Lise Howard of Georgetown University, in Washington D.C., since the end of the Cold War two thirds of the time, peacekeepers
have been successful at implementing their mandates and departing. The presence
of peacekeepers also usually coincides with successful and long-lasting peace agreements.)
https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/past-peacekeeping-operations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions
and ongoing missions.
But how
should the international community respond if a government is unwilling to
respond to a humanitarian crisis on its territory perhaps because there is a
civil conflict going on? As the Syrian government starts to normalize its
relations with neighbouring countries that till recently condemned its conduct
and human rights violations in the civil war, the flow of humanitarian aid to
Syrian refugees in those countries has continued. The UN and many member states
have also responded to the recent earthquake by providing aid directly to Syria.
The US and EU have, at least
temporarily, eased their sanctions on the Assad regime to do this.
https://reporting.unhcr.org/operational/situations/syria-situation
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15239.doc.htm
https://fts.unocha.org/countries/218/summary/2023
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/10/us-syria-sanctions-exemption-earthquake-relief
recent
past
Syria
https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sc14779.doc.htm
hhttps://hum-insight.info/plan/1044
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/syria_2021_humanitarian_needs_overview.pdf
Yemen:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/09/14/deadly-consequences/obstruction-aid-yemen-during-covid-19
armed intervention
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/missions-and-operations_en
What should the international community do
if that government itself is held to be the cause of, and responsible for, the
humanitarian crisis or if it is a failed or fragile state unable to guarantee
the rule of law and prevent atrocities?
In
international law, the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of
other states includes the prohibition on
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state (Article 2.4 of the Charter). The principle of non-intervention also
signifies that a State should not otherwise intervene in a dictatorial way in
the internal affairs of other states.
Responsibility
to Protect
Some background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Intervention_and_State_Sovereignty
The purpose of the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)
was to arrive at an answer to the question
posed by Kofi Annan: "if humanitarian intervention is,
indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a
Rwanda, to a Srebrenica - to gross and systematic violations of human rights
that affect every precept of our common humanity?"
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ga12323.doc.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
https://www.globalr2p.org/resources/unga-r2p-debate-2021/
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml
https://unric.org/en/unric-library-backgrounder-r2p/
https://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/
https://archive.unric.org/en/responsibility-to-protect/26981-r2p-a-short-history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect (read
carefully)
in
particular: The Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect
Pillar
I: The protection responsibilities of the state. This stresses that states have
the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Pillar
II: International assistance and capacity-building. This addresses the
international community's commitment to help states build capacity to protect
their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes
against humanity, and to help those under stress before crises and conflicts
break out.
Pillar
III: Timely and decisive response. This focuses on the responsibility of
international community to act in a timely and decisive way to prevent and halt
genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when a
state manifestly fails to protect its population.
Note
that:
The
ICISS (International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty) argued that any form of
military intervention is "an exceptional and extraordinary measure",
and, as such, to be justified it must meet certain criteria, including:
· Just
cause: There must be "serious and irreparable harm occurring to human
beings, or imminently likely to occur".
· Right
intention: The main intention of the military action must be to prevent human
suffering.
· Last
resort: Every other measure besides military invention has to have already been
taken into account. (This does not mean that every measurement has to have been
applied and been shown to fail, but that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that only military action would work in that situation.)
· Proportional
means: The military means must not exceed what is necessary "to secure the
defined human protection objective".
· Reasonable
prospects: The chance of success must be reasonably high, and it must be
unlikely that the consequences of the military intervention would be worse than
the consequences without the intervention.
·
Right authority: The military action has to have been
authorized by the Security Council.
Various
experts have highlighted some of the problems that military intervention for
humanitarian purposes may involve:
The mixed-motives problem - The legitimacy of R2P rests upon its altruistic
aim. However, states will often be wary to engage in humanitarian intervention
unless the intervention is partly rooted in self-interest. The appearance that
the intervention is not strictly altruistic consequently leads some to question
its legitimacy.
· The counterfactual problem - When R2P is successful,
there will not be any clear-cut evidence of its success: a mass atrocity that
did not occur but would have occurred without intervention. Defenders of R2P
consequently have to rely on counterfactual arguments.
· The conspicuous harm problem - While the benefits of
the intervention will not be clearly visible, the destructiveness and costs of
the intervention will be visible. This makes it more difficult for proponents
of the intervention to defend the intervention. The destruction caused by the
intervention also makes some question the legitimacy of the intervention due to
the stated purpose of preventing harm.
· The end-state problem - Humanitarian intervention is
prone to expand the mission beyond simply averting mass atrocities. When
successful at averting mass atrocities, the intervenors will often be forced to
take upon themselves more expansive mandates to ensure that threatened populations
will be safe after the intervenors leave.
·
The
inconsistency problem - Due to the aforementioned problems, in addition to the
belief that a particular military action is likely to cause more harm than
good, states may fail to act in situations where mass atrocities loom. The
failure to intervene in any and all situations where there is a risk of mass
atrocities lead to charges of inconsistency.
See
also some praise and criticism of R2P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect#Praise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect#Criticism
and very critical: https://fpif.org/the_crisis_of_humanitarian_intervention/
So in any
discussion about using military force
as part of an attempt at humanitarian intervention in order to prevent genocide
and human rights abuses, there are a series of issues to be examined. First,
there is the question of legitimacy. Is what is happening sufficient cause to
infringe a state's sovereignty under Pillar III? Is there a clear mandate from
the UN Security Council? (In Yemen and Syria there is no mandate for military
intervention.) If there is not, should countries act without it if there is
widespread support in the UN General Assembly? Then there is the bigger
question of effectiveness. Do such missions usually achieve their basic goal of
bringing peace and stability and ending the violence, or do they lead to more
violence? Is the mission welcomed by the local people involved? (Compare for
example: Somalia UNOSOM I and II 1992-5, Afghanistan ISAF 2001-present, and
military intervention in Libya in 2011) Moreover, would the funds used for such
a mission be better spent elsewhere as direct aid on a more concrete problem?
(e.g. on providing food, water, medicine and shelter to an area not requiring a
military presence). There is another important consideration that is often
raised. Many experts argue that since the foundation of the UN, humanitarian
intervention has always been 'politicized'. What exactly the international
community should do in response to the situation in Syria, for example, cannot
be debated 'neutrally', simply as a humanitarian crisis. Each member state on
the UNSC and in the UNGA will inevitably bring to the discussion its own
economic and strategic interests, and its own cultural or ideological perspective.
In international relations this is the normal context in which a diplomatic
discussion of a question like that of Syria or Libya takes place. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/03/libya-escalating-drama-case-liberal-intervention
In order to
respond to a question like:
What are the main factors to be weighed when the
international community is considering military
intervention in response to a humanitarian crisis?
you will probably need to
look at these sources again
and think about the points raised
(concerning the idea that for the international community there is a
responsibility to protect civilians from massive human rights abuses by their
own government which may override the principle of state sovereignty) in relation to past and present humanitarian crises and intervention or non-intervention
by the international community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/reflection-responsibility-protect-2020
https://theglobalobservatory.org/2022/01/revised-agreement-on-african-union-mission-in-somalia/
You should also consider
whether national public opinion is manipulated by a government or the media to
support a proposed intervention or whether it drives media reporting and
government action or inaction by calling for intervention or responding with
indifference to an event.
https://www.cato.org/white-paper/public-opinion-war-terror
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137364401_12
https://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/avoiding-avoidable-tragedy-public-opinion-and-r2p/
You should also look at an article
in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2014, by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan
called: Drop Your weapons.
This argues
against armed resistance and for civil resistance on a statistical basis,
claiming that the latter is more likely to produce positive change. It is then
argued that this means there is a greater responsibility for the international
community to ‘assist’ (civil protest and civil resistance against a
dictatorship) rather than to embrace the responsibility to protect principle.
For a wider discussion of
this and related issues, see:
The
True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention by Benjamin
A. Valentino
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2011-10-17/true-costs-humanitarian-intervention
Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age by
Jon Western and Joshua S. Goldstein
And Justice for All by Gary Haugen and Victor Boutros
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2010-05-01/and-justice-all
summary https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-haugen/and-justice-for-all-enfor_b_583217.html
Humanitarian Intervention: Iraq,
Afghanistan, Kosovo, Rwanda by Timothy Stacey
http://www.telospress.com/humanitarian-interventioniraq-afghanistan-kosovo-rwanda/
From Libya to Syria: The
Rise and Fall of Humanitarian Intervention by Füsun Türkmen
https://www.academia.edu/24049222/From_Libya_to_Syria_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Humanitarian_Intervention
The Crisis of
Peacekeeping, Why the UN Can’t End
Wars by Séverine Autesserre
file:///C:/Users/Pc/Downloads/FA%20UN%20Peacekeeping%20(2).pdf
The Sahel
The
deployment of the Group of Five Sahel joint force (Force conjointe du G5
Sahel - FC-G5S) and the French Operation Barkhane against terrorist
insurgents with the consent and cooperation of host governments.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc12881.doc.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
and the EU-led Takuba Task Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takuba_Task_Force
More on Libya
https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/libya/
https://reliefweb.int/report/libya/libyan-lessons-bring-back-responsibility-rebuild
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/libya-the-responsibility-_b_841168
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/revisiting-the-humanitari_b_9445270
http://www.jamespattison.org/uploads/1/2/5/1/12518815/libya.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/libya/
https://newrepublic.com/article/121085/libya-no-model-humanitarian-intervention
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/libya-intervention-daalder_n_6809756
More on Syria
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/rybrf6/syria_in_2022_strategic_map_2600_2149/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-law-idUSKCN12O2S3
http://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/11/syria-and-the-crisis-of-humanitarian-intervention/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/vanity-bombing
https://www.lawfareblog.com/uk-legal-position-humanitarian-intervention-syria
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/12/1108462
Central
African Republic (CAR)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/africa/west-and-central-africa/central-african-republic/
https://ecr2p.leeds.ac.uk/the-central-african-republic-and-the-responsibility-to-protect/
https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/central-african-republic/
http://www.auschwitzinstitute.org/blog/r2p-response-to-crisis-in-car-too-little-too-late/
https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/02/24/central-african-republic-what%E2%80%99s-gone-wrong
South Sudan
https://unmiss.unmissions.org/
Somalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_Somalia_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_Somalia_II http://sites.tufts.edu/jha/files/2011/04/a178.pdf http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/readings/lessons.html
current mission and humanitarian situation
https://humanitarianaction.info/plan/1180
https://reliefweb.int/country/som
Rwanda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_international_community_in_the_Rwandan_Genocide https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/02/rwanda-20-years-genocide-fork-road
What lessons does the outcome of the military
intervention in Afghanistan provide for the US, NATO, the UN and the international
community in general?
https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/lessons-wests-long-war-afghanistan-35961
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/afghanistan/report-afghanistan/
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1231633.shtml
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1231633.shtml
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/nato-blames-afghan-government-for-taliban-takeover.html
For many
commentators the fundamental condition remains this one:
·
Reasonable prospects: The chance of
success must be reasonably high, and it must be unlikely that the consequences
of the military intervention would be worse than the consequences without the
intervention.
So the R2P
doctrine does not, in itself, authorize reckless military interventions since
the ‘reasonable prospects’ condition is extremely difficult to meet BEFORE an
intervention. It involves predicting whether or not the intervention will be
supported by the local people.
https://opencanada.org/r2p-is-not-a-license-for-military-recklessness/
the basic question remains – will an intervention be effective?
Would the international community, and the individual
nations that compose it be willing and prepared to send large-scale UN forces
into Syria or Yemen even if this were authorized? Are we sure there are
reasonably high prospects of success or might we make things even worse? Are we
willing to risk our soldiers’ lives for this? Of course, watching the suffering
going on and doing nothing is also tremendously frustrating. The UN in Yemen is
trying to get both sides to stick to a ceasefire but the prospects for
fostering real respect for human rights seem poor.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1110312
https://osesgy.unmissions.org/
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/11/1050711
https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sc14352.doc.htm
https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sc14470.doc.htm
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1087462
But is this really the best the international
community can do in such situations? Is it enough? These are not easy questions
to answer.
https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/64721/node/64721_ko
Saudi Arabia and Iran, the supporters of the two sides
in Yemen, are now promoting peace and reconciliation. Will their efforts be
successful and end the human rights violations?
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento
Nota. Solo i membri di questo blog possono postare un commento.