Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations
Effects of western values
Argument against humanitarian intervention
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Why does this man not know how to fish? What does he need in order to learn? Why does the analogy assume that the person telling it knows how to fish the correct way? The old adage about giving a man a fish becomes increasingly complex in the Geopolitical world that we live in now. Humanitarian intervention is just that, giving people fish rather than creating lasting infrastructure that teaches them how to fish. The saying falls flat in one area in particular, it assumes that person does not know how to fish, and also doesn’t have the ability to learn. Humanitarian aid makes the same assumption that countries are unable to create their own …show more content…
It is harmful if it is within state actors, because state actors rarely act unbiasedly. States exist for the sole purpose of their own promotion and empowerment, so they are not equipped to intervene on behalf of someone else’s empowerment. Humanitarian aid is also done through the private sector with religious and service projects. However, humanitarian intervention on the state level is able to be regulated in ways that the private sector intervention simply cannot be. It is also important to note that most intervention is financial in nature. Humanitarian intervention is based on the premise that one country should give something to …show more content…
Through humanitarian intervention, foreign governments rely on other governments as a crutch, and the Institutional problems of infrastructure never truly get addressed. A system of bad government and poor institutions is perpetuated by this aid. The international community relies on the strength of each nation for world stability. If there is a decrease in political infrastructure in any one nation that will lead to a decrease of stability in the world at large. Every nation that gives aid is motivated by perpetuating their own believes. For example, if the US gives money to build schools in another country they will be funding schools that operate under western ideals. Humanitarian intervention at it’s worse is disguised colonialism. Giving aid to underdeveloped countries overshadows the local ideas and beliefs that are held within those countries. Such intervention assumes that the ones giving the aid are right, and everyone else is wrong. On an international level colonization decreases culture, and increases hegemony of the world
...t by rearranging its content to instigate a higher dominance. Colonization is a continuing process but with the help of critical thinking it could mean a change in understanding cultural differences and history that is expressed in history textbooks.
In some cases this intervention in other countries could cause the situation to become far worse. In Darfur two rebel movements took up arms against the Sudanese government over a lack of protection from invading nomads and the marginalization of the area. “Saddam responded to the domestic uprisings with extreme brutality, killing perhaps 20,000 Kurds and 30,000-60,000 Shiites, many of them civilians” (Valentino). An intervention of Saddam’s brutality was attempted and after 100 hours the US withdrew forces. The intervention was entirely unsuccessful, even with foreign aid. And in retribution Saddam brutally killed tens of thousands of people, many of which were
The colony is not only a possibility in the geographical; it is a mental dominance that can imperialize the entire self. Entire continents have be domineered, resources completely dried, and at colonialism’s usual worst, the mental devastation of the indigenous culture has left a people hollow. Indigenous culture is no longer that. In the globalized world, no culture is autonomous; culture cannot breathe without new ideas and new perspectives, perspectives that have traditionally come from the people who have lived within the culture. But, the imposition of dominant cultures has certainly benefited from culture’s own vulnerability, as global similarities now exist throughout most different, yet not separate cultures. Postcolonialism is imperialism with a mask on, nothing less. As Franz Fanon puts it “that imperialism which today is fighting against a s true liberation of mankind leaves in its wake here and there tinctures of decay which we must search out and mercilessly expel from our land and our spirits.”
Césaire states that “colonization works to decline the colonizer, to brutalize him in the truest sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to covetousness, violence, race hatred and moral relativism” (Césaire, 173). This can be seen
A state doesn’t wage war for humanitarian reasons; the single purpose of any war is to placate the hysterical appetite for new income and to appease supporters of the state. Though, world powers continue to weep over humanitarian crises They can’t seem to figure out why so many people are dying of hunger, diseases etc. in these war ravaged countries. Actually, its not that they can’t figure it out, its more that in dealing with the root of the problem, they would indirectly be taking responsibility for the deaths involved, the wealth gap and the fact that they are being bought off while simultaneously cutting into their own green filled pockets.
The concept of humanitarian intervention is highly contested but it is defined by Wise to be the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or a group of states) aimed at preventing widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.
Given the title of his book, David Rieff’s main idea claims that humanitarianism is in a state of crisis because humanitarian efforts are inadequate. Rieff argues that humanitarianism, despite its moral intentions, negatively transformed into an ineffective movement that fails to carry out its mission of providing relief aid. The author
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
Somalia was supposed to be a strictly humanitarian effort, but it turned out to be a. military effort when the US had to fight against all sides. When every aspect of foreign aid is looked at, a decision about who is. right or wrong by each individual on their own. Foreign aid is most likely a necessary evil for a superpower such as the United States. The US, just because.
Moreover, as explicated by (Tan, 2016), culture was historically linked to the processes of colonization which is used by European anthropologists to describe the ways of life of others characterizing non-European societies as less civilized, barbaric, and primitive, thus lacking “culture.” In fact, this prompted the supposition that European culture is better than other culture and utilized as a support for colonization. From that point on, a polarity grew to stratify social orders into high and low
Said, Edward W. “Culture and Imperialism.” Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 2nd ed. Ed. Leitch, Vincent B. and William E. Cain, eds. New York: Norton, 2010. 651-655. Print.
There is no static or perfect definition that can encapsulate all that may fall under the theme of humanitarian intervention. Philosophically speaking, humanitarian intervention is the idea that individuals have the duty to prevent human rights violations from occurring. Furthermore, the legal basis of humanitarian intervention is derived from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Lecture 11/15/16). As decided by the UN in 1948, all nations have a responsibility to protect, or to prevent crimes against humanity, and while it was an important milestone for the recognition of human rights, not all those experiencing the crimes of genocide
Humanitarian Intervention Hypothesis: That despite the incidents where humanitarian interventions have proved seemingly unsuccessful, they are, nonetheless, a vital tool in alleviating the human suffering that so plagues contemporary society. The post-Cold war world is one that has been riddled with conflict, suffering and war. In the face of such times, the issue of humanitarian intervention and about who, when and how it should be employed, has become hotly debated. While some critics declare this kind of intervention to be a violation of national sovereignty, others believe that relief efforts aimed at ending human suffering are perfectly justifiable. 7.
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
...ment and well-being. It is clear that without the ongoing presence and work of international organisations, the international system would be in a far worse and more chaotic state, with a far greater chance for a civil war to breakout. They also are a major player in helping develop states political and economical systems.