William Chandler
Humanitarian intervention has changed over the years,
but until organizations charged with preventing these atrocities can rely on
hard power as well as soft power, gross violations of human rights will
continue because those with the power to stop these crimes are often not
willing to get involved:
“You’re dirt. We think you’re dirt, Paul… The West. All the
super powers. Everything you believe in, Paul. They think you’re dirt. They
think you’re dumb. You’re worthless… You're black. You're not even a nigger.
You're an African. They’re not going to stay, Paul. They’re not going to stop
this slaughter.”
-UN Peace Keeper Colonel Oliver, Hotel Rwanda
I recently watched “Beats of No Nation” on Netflix. It
follows the life of a child soldier in Africa. It is a very upsetting and disturbing
film. In this film there are horrible violations of human rights at every turn.
From the execution of innocents, to child soldiers, drugs and rape this movie
shows it all. In fact, it occurs so frequently, it gets to the point that the
viewer, as well as the characters become immune to these terrible acts. And
despite all of the institutions in place, including the UN, all of this
persists and continues without really any outside intervention.
This begs the question, why is there so much turmoil,
failed states and violations of human rights in Africa, while, there is often
quick intervention in some regions of the world, such as with “Operation
Provide Comfort”? Why was that humanitarian mission so successful whereas aid
was was found to have saved perhaps no one in Somalia?
The UN has plenty of soft power, but little to no hard
power. While the UN has a plethora of soft power, especially when it comes to
legalizing the actions of states, “The UN has only so much hard power as it can
borrow from its member states.” This is especially difficult when the board is
divided. As long as all members of the Security Council are in agreement, the
UN does have some hard power, but once divided, this all goes away. The UN cannot
successfully intervene unless they have backing from the Security Council. This
backing rarely comes unless it is in the interest of the world’s super powers.
While these interests may range from protecting their own sovereignty, economy
or resources, such as oil, the world super powers are more likely to intervene in
places outside of Africa and as such the majority of terrible atrocities have occurred
there.
Because the UN relies on others to give it the man
power and hard power needed to help those in need and stop the breach of
humanitarian crimes, many atrocities are neglected, because these world powers
do not care for the sufferings of others. The reason for prolonged genocide in
Rwanda is explained by this quote in Hotel Rwanda, “I think that when people turn on their TVs and see this
footage, they'll say, "Oh my God, that's horrible," and then they'll
go back to eating their dinners,” (Hotel Rwanda). While Westerners and other super
powers may see that these atrocities are going on, they are likely not
interested enough to get militarily involved. As such, these issues drag on and
thousands or millions can die as a result.
Humanitarian aid can
help save lives, but it is often times botched, or non-existent. Many times the
aid that is most required is safety. Supplies are stolen, lost or unable to be
used as the area is in turmoil. World powers only care about their interests. Because of this, they do not care about the atrocities committed in places away from their political agenda. And as such these places do not get he humanitarian support they need. The best way to provide for these people is by
giving them protection. Arming the UN for humanitarian interventions is the
solution. While it may lead to more violence between the fighting sides, it
will protect the innocents civilians, and not just those that the super powers
deem worthy enough of investing in. Ultimately is will create stability and
prevent these conflicts from dragging on and destroying generation after
generation of young boys and girls.
"There will be no rescue, no intervention force. We can only save ourselves. Many of you know influential people abroad, you must call these people. You must tell them what will happen to us... say goodbye. But when you say goodbye, say it as though you are reaching through the phone and holding their hand. Let them know that if they let go of that hand, you will die. We must shame them into sending help."
-Paul Rusesabagina, Hotel Rwanda
Will,
ReplyDeleteI most certainly agree in that the UN lacks a significant amount of hard power, and that has worsened genocides such as Rwanda. I found an interesting quote about a week ago regarding the U.S.'s inaction in Rwanda. After events in Somalia, Bill Clinton said the U.S. decided to "stop placing the agenda of the UN before the interests of the US" (Clinton in Melvern 2000: 78). It is unfortunate that the UN's power in a state of genocide is largely determined by superpowers such as the U.S. and that countries have to "qualify" for a peacekeeping mission by the UN. So in that respect, leaders such as Bill Clinton should not be trusted in states of genocide. We have to have leaders that are fully committed to ending the genocide but sometimes we don't know what to expect with our president. Therefore, we should not have to rely on great powers for their hard power in times of genocide or any humanitarian crisis because they can't be trusted. However, great powers are great powers for a reason. The UN needs more power because their purpose is to establish peace in the international community. That being said, they can't do it alone; they will still always need help from other nations. Great world powers have no choice but to intervene in states of genocide. Great powers and the UN have to work together. If great powers consistently decide to ignore genocide and humanitarian crises and act off of their own self-interests, then there is a problem. If this occurs the UN should be given more power.
Basically, I am agreeing with you in that the UN needs more power, but great powers should intervene because that is their international obligation. The UN can't do it alone...unless they are given lots and lots of hard power. Great powers and the UN need to decide what their goals are because they need to be able to work together.
If issues such as Rwanda occur in the future then I think the role of the UN needs to be revamped and they should be given more power.
In Rwanda If Romeo Dallaire had more troops and more power, who knows what he could've done. So maybe the UN can flourish without great powers if given the hard power. It remains to be seen, in my opinion. But the reality is, great powers should intervene because that is their "responsibility in cases of mass atrocities" - from Lecture 14.
DeleteThe system is messy and needs work.
It's just unfortunate how the UN has to have permission from countries such as the U.S. to launch a peacekeeping mission. The UN should be able to launch missions on their own but they do not have the hard power to do so.
DeleteThanks a lot Bensley, I'm not entirely sure how to respond, because I think we agree on a lot of aspects of this. However, I think, that you assume that great powers are responsible to step in and intervene, and this is not automatically true. Think about the real world, bystanders have the ability to intervene and stop bad things from happening all the time but do not. Usually it's because they don't want to, or it's not in their interest, even if they have the ability to stop it. The same thing is in real politics, just because bad things are happening to others, it's often easier for powers to stand by and watch, or claim ignorance then to intervene every time.
DeleteI have been meaning to check out Beats of No Nation but haven't quite felt in the mood yet...
ReplyDeleteYou say that the UN needs hard power. How can it get hard power? Should it have hard power? And why can't other organizations or 'coalitions of the willing' stop human rights abuses?
It was really upsetting, and kind of a downer, but I found it really interesting, and kinda accurate based on books I have read.
DeleteI think that "coalitions of the willing" usually have some corruption, but their biggest issue is that they don't have the power or size to always help in the most effective way. If a bunch of smaller groups go in, it's not as effective as one force working together.I think that the best solution is to turn all of those profits, man power, capital and resources to the UN, who can then lead a much more effective and united cause. However, I do think that this is dangerous. It's impossible to have a "good" army. And Army is an army, and this army that the UN would have would be quite well provided for. So while I believe that giving the UN hard power would be effective, it's very dangerous too.
Hi Will, awesome job on the post! This is such a good subject because, as an issue of people being forgotten, it needs to be talked about more. I agree with your observation that states only seem to intervene when it suits their own interest. However, how would your suggestion that the U.N. be given hard power of its own, independent of member states' forces, be different? Someone would still be in charge of this force and would decide when and where to intervene. Do you think this person would make decisions as selfishly as individual states? As a central system, I am sure there would be instances where intervention would strengthen or weaken its position, so I am curious if you think the U.N. would intervene based on self-interest or not.
ReplyDeleteI believe that theoretically, the UN includes almost of the nations in the world. So it would not act as selfishly, because it would be protecting its self. Since, the nation effected would be part of the UN, it would not have the ability to sit back and claim neutrality, since, it would then be involved.
DeleteHey Will, I really like the point you bring up the different types of power the UN is capable of. It's sad that sometimes hard power is necessary from an institution that in my mind embodies the elegance and strength behind soft power. But you, and the quotes you brought to this, are right; there are many injustices in this world that go ignored and really shouldn't be. And it is almost a crime that the five core countries varied interests, and therefore split votes, can leave people in terrible situations. Should these countries be allowed such power? Why should the disputes between these countries prevent fellow human beings from being given basic rights like safety, food, water, etc. Very strong post, thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteHey Will, I really like the point you bring up the different types of power the UN is capable of. It's sad that sometimes hard power is necessary from an institution that in my mind embodies the elegance and strength behind soft power. But you, and the quotes you brought to this, are right; there are many injustices in this world that go ignored and really shouldn't be. And it is almost a crime that the five core countries varied interests, and therefore split votes, can leave people in terrible situations. Should these countries be allowed such power? Why should the disputes between these countries prevent fellow human beings from being given basic rights like safety, food, water, etc. Very strong post, thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteI agree, that the disputes and petty competition between nations can often lead to suffering for many individuals that have no connection to these political enemies. However, I also think that the security council and veto power are essential, because it prevents super powers from being forced into actions that they do not wish. Realistically, they do not have to comply, and then the whole system is null and voided, so while I think that it is a tragedy that this goes on, its an evil that must be suffered.
DeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteI think this post is incredibly well done; your points are very clearly illustrated and your incorporation of movies definitely enhances your post. In your post you say: “Westerners and other super powers see these atrocities going on and they likely not interested enough to get militarily involved.” I agree to an extent, but I would argue that American people do care, they just don’t think that it’s their problem to fix or they don't think that it’s their responsibility to take action. Because these genocides or mass atrocities are occurring on another country’s soil, it’s easy for us, (Americans) to say that it’s not our problem because we don’t have to deal with it every day. I think that most people do wish there was something that they could do to help save innocent lives but they’re unsure whether it is their place to act on these feelings. That is why I agree with your conclusion of arming the UN for humanitarian interventions. This way, no one country has to question whether it is their responsibility to intervene; it is the job of the UN.
You are right the American people do care. In my psych class HS, my teacher talked a lot about the ebola crisis. Almost everyone in the class found it a terrible subject that needed to be addressed, we were all legit afraid at the time. He then asked, so what have you all done to make a difference on this matter you all consider so important, and no one had done anything. Just because people do care, and are concerned does not promise action. especially when it seems so far away. However we all take it much more seriously when it's within our own borders, because at that point it is our problem and responsibility to address it. And we did. So I think that's a great point. Arming the UN, would remove the bystander effect because it would make it their responsibility.
Delete