Is ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ Possible?
The concept of “humanitarian intervention” raises critical questions about whether states can act as moral agents. It is helpful to explore states’ historical context and institutional record to evaluate their capacity for benevolent actions. The United States is a potential leader in such interventions.
Main Points:
1. States are dubious moral agents, often acting in the interests of domestic power centers, be it merchants and manufacturers in the past or corporate and financial power centers in modern times.
2. There is a distinct lack of instances where “humanitarian intervention” was carried out effectively.
3. Examining U.S. foreign policy and military actions, such as the invasions of Afghanistan and South Vietnam, demonstrates that self-interest rather than altruistic motives usually drive interventions.
4. The U.S. has a history of disregarding international law and institutions, often acting unilaterally when its interests are at stake.
5. The U.S. applies human rights principles selectively, supporting oppressive regimes and disregarding civilian suffering when it serves its political goals.
6. There is typically a lack of genuine moral concern in U.S. interventions, as in Nicaragua and Panama, where economic interests took precedence over humanitarian considerations.
7. The U.S. shows no sign of undergoing the necessary transformative changes to genuinely undertake “humanitarian interventions” without a hint of hypocrisy or self-interest.
The concept of “humanitarian intervention” faces significant challenges due to the historical behavior of states, particularly the United States, which has a track record of prioritizing self-interest over genuine humanitarian concerns. For actual humanitarian intervention to occur, it would require substantial institutional and cultural transformations within society and its political and intellectual culture.
🔭 This summary was human-edited with AI-assist.
