Humanitarian intervention

Humanitarian intervention(s)

The notion of humanitarian intervention has deeply changed over time. Both for the general public and policy-makers, and for the scholars. The following is an analysis of three papers written by M. Finnemore, M. Mandelbaum and S. Hoffmann respectively on this concept, each one with a specific vision of the concerning issue.

Fundamentally, for Martha Finnemore on Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention, this concept is a practical consequence of the dynamic evolution of norms concerning international military interferences.

The author believes that since realist and liberal approaches to the international system understand that states are bound to its economic and/or geostrategic interests, humanitarian intervention does not fit very well in these two theories. Therefore, as in many historical occasions no obvious national interest was found in the justification of third state interventions (such as it happened in 1989, Somalia, by the United States), Finnemore argues that those acts were due to a change in “normative standards (…) concerning appropriate ends and means of military intervention” (Columbia U.P., 1996, p.155).

In this document it is conceived that norms shape interests and then interests shape action. Justifications of the interventions clearly reflect the normative context, that is, shared values and expectations.

From a historical point of view, in the XIX century and in the first ¾ of the XX, the interventions with some humanitarian justifications were merely unilateral. If in a case the interventions were multilateral was because of an evident strategic interest of the groups of states.

Afterwards, the change into multilateral humanitarian interventions was partly due to the decolonization process that provided the self-determination right together with the sovereign statehood to ex-colonized peoples; that meant that unilateral interventions would be extremely difficult to justify in front of a different normative context (the UN Charter for instance) in respect to these new nations. Therefore, after 1945, the practical translation of Responsibility to Protect, humanitarian intervention, became multilateral in order to legitimize itself. And the United Nations was the best umbrella under which R2P should be carried out, following Finnemore’s thought.

We can see the evolution towards the contemporary concept of humanitarian intervention in the historical examples. First, mainly in the 19^th century, interventions were narrowed into the national interest of the European states that coincided with the normative context of the religious and/or ethnic ties between Western societies and the victims of which states were supposedly responsible: in practice, Christians and populations in the East linked to European peoples. Nevertheless, norms did in a certain way shape the strategic interests of states. Then, the concept of those deserving intervention broadened as the Western conception of humanity universalized including non-Christians and non-Europeans.

In the paper, Finnemore emphasizes that the scholar world should clarify better the sources of change in the normative arena by studying concrete cases. Furthermore, the writer states that the relation between power and norms “may not be so simple” (Ibid., p.185) referring to the Gramscian conception that normative structures are framed by and for the most powerful. She argues that the dynamic origins of norms are for instance public opinion, the media, and international institutions.

In the paper written by Mandelbaum, as stated in its title “Foreign Policy as Social Work”, he understands humanitarian intervention as a prolongation of the policies of the national governments of states. In the case given, the author centers in analyzing US interventions during the Clinton Administrations (Foreign Affairs, January-February 1996, p.16-32).

The initial proposals of President Clinton were playing the role of social work power in the international arena. However, Clinton jeopardized this path of focusing on the humanitarian needs of the periphery by not paying attention to the domestic public support. This is because, as said in the article, Americans tend more to back humanitarian initiatives when they come along with US national interests, such as it happened in the Cold War. Then, when Clinton tried to present his humanitarian interventions to the domestic public, he and his Administrations could not justify in any case the appeal to national interest. Mendelbaum shows this illustrating the issues of Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia: the former two have no strategic interest for the US and even less in the post-Cold War era, and Clinton abandoned his bellicose discourse with Serbia following the Dayton Accords.

To summarize, Mandelbaum’s work conceives humanitarian intervention another branch of domestic politics.

On his behalf, Hoffmann articulates humanitarian intervention as a result of socially constructed norms of what is acceptable or not in the world order (Foreign Affairs, March-April 1996, p.172-175). Also, he does not separate interests and values; criticizing Mendelbaum on his deterministic conception of what is the national security concept, and states that this one is shaped by policymakers.

Moreover, as said, Hoffmann’s conception of humanitarian intervention is rooted in the vast interconnection and interdependence of the new global society. Therefore, he proposes two key causes for humanitarian intervention: (a) important threat for peace and security in the region or the world and/or (b) a massive violation of human rights. Obviously, as constructs, as not self-evident, they are susceptible to change, despite this dynamic factor, the author believes that these two elements are not acceptable according to his values and probably to the ones of many people too. In addition, this clear idea of intervention was not exposed well to the public by President Clinton, and that was a main issue that lead to his foreign policy failure.

In conclusion, we see humanitarian intervention as a practical consequence of the evolution of a norm by Finnemore, as a branch of domestic politics by Mendelbaum, and as a result of socially and globally constructed norms by Hoffmann.

References

1. Mandelbaum, Michael, “Foreign Policy as Social Work”, Foreign Affairs, January-February 1996.

2.Hoffmann, Stanley, “In Defence of Mother Teresa”, Foreign Affairs, March-April 1996.

3.Finnemore, Martha, “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention” in Katzenstein, Peter, The Culture of National Security, New York, Columbia U.P., 1996.