It has previously been held that, the States should not interfere with the domestic political affairs of other countries, since all sovereign states should have complete control of their own citizenry, free from outside interference. This is in line with the Policy Agenda of the U. S. Department of State which states that the goals of the foreign policy are “to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community” (Kissinger 2001, p4).
The foreign policy of the United States is the guiding principle for which the United States interacts with foreign nations and sets standards of interaction for its corporations, and even its citizens. However, situations arise such that there is great necessity for the states to get involved. This is for instance in a case whereby the economic and democratic events in the said nations will affect those of the states.
Thus, the question at hand becomes “At what point do the effects of actions inside your country affect others so much that they now should have the right to interfere with how you handle your country? " This was expresses in Yahooanswers. com by an American citizen. The United Nations has a structure that provides direction on how other nations can interfere with others. This is in line with humanitarian intervention in which case there is the use of military force in the first party country (ies). According to chapter 53 of the U.
N. Charter, “The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state... until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
” (Un. org/.. /chapter7. shtml) It is therefore in order when the states interfere with the domestic political situations of other countries, but, what are the real conditions that would trigger such interference? This essay discusses these conditions in light of historical situations such as those that occurred in Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia and even Libya. Former research has been reviewed to provide insight as discussed in the literature review. LITERATURE REVIEW: Conflict.
Conflict is defined as an activity that imposes costs on the individual(s) involved, in contrast with some alternative peaceful pattern of behaviour: (Klintworth 1992, p 249-250) According to (Corbbeta, 2010, 65) one of the most taxing decision that the United States have to make is how and when to intervene or mediate in on-going conflicts in other states, as well as which states they should intervene in and which they should not. In addition in his paper the studies that have been conducted have not covered the intervening spectrum in totality.
They deal with humanitarian intervention more than the possible motivations that lead to such interventions. Conflicts breed wars such as those in Rwanda genocide, in Somalia, Kosovo, Pakistan, and Angola among others. While these wars impose huge costs on the societies involved, costs that last long after the killing has stopped: (Ghobarah et al. , 2003, p25, Kydd). Such effects include terrorism, undermining friendly neighbouring regimes, loss of human life, increasing numbers of refugees to other countries, economic stability, security stability, just to mention a few (Kydd, p102).
Besides the fighting nations, there are third party nations with which the fighting nations have formed alliances with that are also affected. Therefore, the need to put off conflict from arising and solve those that are taking place. Humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention has been defined as when a state or a group of states employs military force within another country’s territory to protect civilians against atrocities and/or the consequences of a humanitarian conflict. (Hrea. org p132). It is in every essence different from humanitarian aid which is provided by non-governmental organizations such as Red Cross.
Humanitarian aid attempts to find a way around political affiliations. For humanitarian intervention, use of military force is a central feature, though it has fundamental values that support it such as justice, state sovereignty, world order and politics. Moreover, the principles that govern humanitarian intervention are just cause, proportionality, last resort, good over harm, right intention and reasonable prospect. However, humanitarian intervention is not the only means by which a nation could get involved in other nations’ politics.
There’s always room for diplomacy. Diplomacy could come in the form of material incentives. These are threats of punishment to non-cooperation, swell as rewards for cooperation. There’s also imposition of third party preferred outcomes. However the challenge with such strategies is that only strong states have the wherewithal to make significant material offers and threats and the parties directly involved in a conflict often care more about its outcome than third-party states care about ending it, so the credibility of such threats and offers is often in doubt.
(Kydd, p104) Such states are inclusive of the United States, which is currently the world’s most powerful nation. Two concepts of sovereignty National Sovereignty is the absolute and uncontrolled power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference: (legal-dictionary. thefreedictionary.com).
In this context the two concepts of sovereignty as discussed by Kofi Annan, the former United Nations Secretary General refers to a situation whereby third party states respect the sovereignty of conflicting nations and do not interfere; a case that would lead to great destruction of the nation in question. Such is the case in Rwanda. The United States were slow in making a decision on whether to interfere or not. Three months later thousands of people had been killed in man slaughter, massive property had been destroyed and the country was in a complete state of anarchy.
No clause in the UN charter rules out recognition that there are rights beyond borders. What the charter does say is that “armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. ” This statement becomes ambiguous in many respects. For instance it does not define what common interest is. Moreover, it is not clear who among all the nations shall decide what common interest is, and who shall define it (yahooanswers. com). Thus as Thomas Jefferson put it, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations --- entangling alliances with none. "
Summary from the literature review Interference in the domestic politics of other nations has various issues to it. Firstly, there is the intention of the United Nations to provide peace to its member countries. Occasionally, conflicts arise within, between or even among nations. These conflicts could have been triggered by certain misunderstandings. However, due to the globalisation that has come in the new world, economic transactions are carried out in a global market, political ties are held among different nations, natural and intellectual resources are being trapped in a world wide spectrum, hence, nations interact vastly.
This brings us to the second issue where nations have to get involved in the domestic political issues of other nations if the activities running there will affect them. Sometimes, the third party nations will impose their outcomes on the first and second party nations while at other times, they would not. But the question of why a nation should get involved in the domestic politics of another one is always in question. In such a case, negligence could lead to massive killings, such as the case in Rwanda. Therefore, intervention in this respect needs to be clearly defined to the people. THEORETICAL ARGUMENT:
The above literature review gives information though there is still a lot of blur about what situations would lead to the states, a member of the United Nations as well the world’s super power get involved with the politics of other countries. Such a puzzle is not at all impressive given that either inaction or over assertion lead to loss of human life and disorganized governments, as those discussed under the two concepts of sovereignty. Thus, this essay discusses situations where intervention should occur.
These include: In the case of any intervention, the States should seek council with the United Nations and together they should have a working plan before commencing any intervention, whether there will be the use of military force, nation building mediations, relief food distribution, among others. Humanitarian action should be used against other states for reasons of self defence or when it is authorised by the Security Council necessary. When the personal / national interest in the third party country (United States) are at stake. In which case the states should do whatever is possible to augment their social and economic welfare. The States has formed political ties with other nations.
It owes loyalties to these nations. Therefore, it is in order for them to get involved in their affairs. Being the world’s most powerful nation, the States should make it clear whether they are making intervention in a conflicting nation or not. This will enable the United Nations to have strategic plans to protect the human rights of the people in the nations, as well as allow other nations to make proper interventions. Formerly, the States has done interventions in other countries’ politics. The consequences of these interventions have not always been the same.
This essay takes a look at four nations in which interventions have occurred. These are Rwanda, Kosovo, and Somalia. RESEARCH DESIGN: This part of the essay adopts a qualitative research design and looks into countries in which the States got involved in their domestic politics. While Rwanda provides a case where the State’s intervention was quite delayed and nations went pointing fingers at them, Somalia provides a case where the State’s intervention turned sour. Kosovo on the other hand occurred with a lot of killings while other alternative means of intervention would have been used.
Somalia Famine struck the Republic of Somalia in the early 1990s. This was partly because of poor governance that existed in the nation, which led to citizens fighting for the few resources that were within reach. Somalia is a nation that is centrally geopolitical. It is not landlocked and provides a reliable communication channel for the states and Israel. Given such a situation, the states felt the need to get involved with the wars in Somalia. Under President Bush’s administration 1989-1993, humanitarian intervention took place in Somalia. A military task force was sent to the country.
It was in 1992 and was named Unified Task Force (UNITAF). The United Nations sent it troops took to help in the situation, a task force. It was named United Nation Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM I I) whose mission was nation building. The humanitarian intervention of the US and the nation building mission of the UN were in such contrast that nations across the world felt the two third party principles were negatively interfering with the livelihood of the people in Somalia. Further operations led to speculations that the States had undue dealings with the warlords.
In effect the States due to such interference, the States decided to bail themselves out of the whole system. It was said that the United Nations was up to more than what it could handle. (Clarke and Herbst, 1996, p72-80) Somalia provides an adequate example of a situation whereby lack of proper communication curtailed the possible positive outcomes of humanitarian intervention. The United States were interested in Somalia. This case gives us an appropriate situation that the States were justified in their involvement in another sovereign nation’s politics.
Rwanda In 1994, Rwanda suffered what is now termed as genocide. This occurred right after what had happened in Somalia, where the States had withdrawn its troops after controversial consequences of the humanitarian intervention of the States and the nation building mission of the United Nations. Rwanda went into war. Three days into the war, diplomats reported back to the States about the door to door killings that were taking place (Clarke and Herbst, 1996, p72). However, the States were quite indifferent about what was going on.
There were several debates about whether to call what was going in genocide or not. Yet, there were massive killings, which eventually resulted into the death of 800, 000 Tutsis and Hutus who are modern politically, by Hutu militiamen among other citizens and soldiers. Interestingly, it has been established that the reason the States were that slow in response was partly because of fear of “crossing the Mogadishu line” (Clarke and Herbst, 1996, p74). Due to what happened in Somalia, a year or two before the Rwandan incident.
Staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U. S. policy objective. Other countries came to make intervention; France sent troops to the country that were purportedly meant to ameliorate the genocide. Unfortunately, subsequent investigations reveal that France had an upper hand in the genocide that went on. (Power, 2001, p12-17) The Rwanda case provides an adequate example of inaction on the part of the States that made nations question their eligibility as the world’s most powerful country in the affairs of other nations.
However, as it is now understood the States under Washington’s administration were incapable of having Rwanda’s case on their plate due to what had occurred in Mogadishu. They had little interest In Rwanda. The killings that took place however, were not impressive; The States should have invested its resources in Rwanda to ameliorate the fighting as a means to giving to the global community. This is in light of the fact that the world looked up to the States to intervene in the genocide while unfortunately little was done by the most powerful nation.
Kosovo is a disputed territory following the collapse of Yugoslavia. The Kosovo war in the late 1990s during the Kosovo-crisis. It occurred between the army and police of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo Liberation Army. The Kosovo war was considered the first humanitarian intervention, the states liaised with the United Nation to send military in order to combat the crisis that took lots of Serbian soldiers’ lives. A total of 12, 000 deaths in total population occurred during the ethnic cleansing (Twentieth Century Atlas). The States’ intervention was considered real though lots of deaths occurred.
The Kosovo case is used in contrast with the two earlier cases in Rwanda and Somalia, though other interventions would have been used such as peaceful diplomacy. (Cobbert, 2010, p83) TEST YOUR CASES: In view of whether the qualitative cases support or contradict the earlier theoretical arguments; Rwanda’s case provides a case where the States were not clear were not clear on whether they were making intervention or not. If their case was clear from the beginning, then President Clinton would not have to make an apologetic speech after the genocide.
It appears that the States did not have any personal interest in the politics of Rwanda. Secondly, in Somalia, it is quite clear that there was no clear cut outline on how the international intervention would take place. Conflict between the two main principles, the States and the United Nations led to a state of anarchy in the first principle nation, Somalia. Here, the States had to see to it that Somalia, a centrally geopolitical nation was safe. However, their humanitarian action on the nation had been authorized by the United Nations’ Security Council, in accordance with the council’s policies.
CONCLUSIONS: This essay’s results indicated that there’re a lot of irregularities in the way in which third party nations get involved in the domestic political politic s of other nations. As seen in the case of Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo, at times the States’ interventions work out right. However, since as in the cases there had been conflicts, some of their directives didn’t actually work out right. The hypothesis made did not fall in perfectly with the case studies under analysis in this essay.
As Cobbert puts it, intervention should not just be seen as the use of military force on other nations, but intervention has a lot more like diplomatic interventions. The theoretical implications that arise are such as: the States being the super power has a choice on whether to get involved in the domestic political situations of other nations. It is not tied down at all. The United Nations, the governing body does not have any impositions on the states. Moreover, the States needs to redefine its policies on intervention ort rather involvement in the domestic politics of other nations.
It currently states that it should respect the sovereignty of other nations and not necessarily interferes. However, with the world getting closer and closer and socio-economic and political ties being made across borders, interventions and involvements are in many senses inevitable. ? REFERENCES Chesterman, S. , Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 pg 45-73 Clarke, W. , and Herbst, J. , Somalia and the Future of Humanitarian: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75, No.
2 (Mar. - Apr., 1996), Council on Foreign Relations Stable URL: http://www. jstor. org/stable/20047489 Accessed: 15/10/2009 05:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's, pp. 70-85 Corbetta, R. , Determinants of Third Parties’ Intervention and Alignment Choices in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-2001, Foreign Policy Analysis (2010) 6, University of Alabama at Birmingham, pp 62-85 Hrea. org 132. Accessed on 2011-05-04 11:15 Independent International Commission on Kosovo. (2000). Kosovo Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p 5-12 Kissinger, H., Does America Need a New Foreign Policy?
New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001, p 4-7 Klintworth, G. , The Right to Intervene in the Domestic Affairs of States, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 46(2) November 1992, pp 248-266 Kydd, H. , Rationalist Approaches to Conflict Prevention and Resolution, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706; pp. 101-105, 109, 117.
Legal-dictionary. thefreedictionary. com Accessed on 2011-05-04 12:18 Power, S. , Bystanders to Genocide, The Atlantic Online, September 2001, http://www. theatlantic.com/doc/print/200109/power-genocide pp 1-24. Shawcross, W. , Deliver Us from Evil: Warlords and Peacekeepers In a World Of Endless Conflict, Bloomsbury, London, 2000, Pp. 15-23 Simma, B. , NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects, The European Journal of International Law 1999 pgs 1-22 Kofi A. Annan (1999). Two Concepts of Sovereignty. The Economist, 18th Sept. 1999. globalsecurity. org. (2011). The World at War. Accessed on 2011-15-03. Twentieth Century Atlas, Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides, from users. erols. com. Accessed on 2011-03-28.