The Pros And Cons Of A Humanitarian Intervention

Humans are made up of all the same stuff; therefore, all humans deserve universal rights. This is evident through the social contract theory, which says that there must be mutual respect between the state and people, a balance of powers, and a stable civil society for a government to be legitimate, externally and internally. It is between the trustees (the state) and the trusters (society), the former whose obligation is to protect the rights of the latter. A lack of accountability between the state and civil society creates chaos, and delegitimizes the government in the eyes of its people. When this occurs, often on account of ethnic prejudice, hate and violence, humanitarian intervention is precedented. Therefore a leader killing their own

The focus turns from their “right to intervene” and the debating of sovereignty to the fact that when a government fails its people, it deserves no power. Intervening states will not go in just to end the conflict, but to create an outcome that they will help sustain. That is the difference between helpful and harmful intervention; how the state deals with the aftermath of the conflict. Trust, first, must be developed between the oppressed and the state through external guarantees and a peace accord that declares no victor and leaves none vanquished. Furthermore, DDR (disarmament, demobilization and reintegration) for rebel forces must be enforced by the third-party. Humanitarian intervention, when used correctly, will project a state and its government towards legitimacy and

In March of 1971, after the general elections, Pakistan began a purge of all Awami League members and the Hindu minority (10%) from East Pakistan, and forcefully reimposed its military regime; because the election had given the Awami League the majority, the military and current government decided to eliminate all enemies. This was the beginning of the Bangladesh Liberation War. By the end of the war in December, there were between 300,000 and 3 million deaths, as well as 200,000 to 400,000 genocidal rapes. Politically, the Pakistani military regime wanted no adversaries and complete authority. Socially, they fully engaged in ethnic cleansing; through the murder of Hindu men and the rape and impregnation of Hindu women, they hoped to rid their country of dirty blood. This was a clear precedent for humanitarian intervention. By the end of June, 60,000 refugees a day were flooding into India, and by December, there were 11 million displaced eastern Pakistanis in the country. Overwhelmed by the fleeing population, India officially released a political response to the events, and made an appeal to other world powers. However, they received little support from international actors, who wanted to keep Pakistan together; if India were to attack Pakistan, China would intervene, and in turn the United States refused its support. The people of East Pakistan saw political intervention