COURIER ONLINE

THE STANLEY FOUNDATION

Resources
Conference report(s):
"Report of the Fortieth Strategy for Peace, US Foreign Policy Conference"
Acrobat PDF

Common Ground
radio program(s):
"Humanitarian Intervention"
Transcript
RealAudio

Recent military interventions into Kosovo and East Timor underscore the need for the international community to focus more attention on the issues that surround the use of force for humanitarian purposes. But deciding when and how to intervene are difficult questions as participants in a recent Stanley Foundation round table found in their discussions of these issues. The round table titled "The Limits and Possibilities of International Humanitarian Intervention" was part of the foundation's fortieth Strategy for Peace Conference.

How Do You Define Humanitarian Intervention?
Conference participants originally gathered to discuss ways to improve humanitarian efforts that involve military force. However, the group quickly discovered that their individual definitions of the words humanitarian and intervention varied widely.

Some argued that the definition used should focus on motives while others stressed that the focus should be on outcomes. "The ethics of law dictated different approaches from the ethics of consequences. Some actions may be fundamentally humanitarian in nature while others may involve multiple motives. And although motivations may be self-serving or even nefarious, the impact may still be humanitarian. Moreover, decision making was even more complicated because unintended consequences, both positive and negative, are the rule rather than the exception in complex emergencies," said the report issued following the conference.

Participants also struggled with the meaning of intervention. "'Intervention' also has a variety of meanings ranging from telephone calls for persuading parties to coercive military forces for overriding the stated wishes of political authorities." For the purpose of the conference discussion, the group agreed to concentrate on coercion rather than the multitude of other humanitarian intervention options.

The Pros and Cons of Military Humanitarianism
In the past decade, there have been an increasing number of interventions for humanitarian purposes that have centered on military tactics designed to resolve armed conflict or subdue unwanted political authorities. The group agreed "...that responses to humanitarian crises warranting the use of military force thus far had been ad hoc, inconsistent, and selective." Most also agreed that the inconsistency was the result of, "[action] usually taken by a few states as a 'coalition of the willing' that hardly shared the commonality of values that was supposed to constitute a community."

After a spirited debate, the group reached consensus on a definition of military humanitarianism: "...the deployment of outside military forces in an indigenous state for such compelling reasons as halting genocide or other egregious civilian suffering."

More Harm Than Good?
Once participants came to a consensus on the definition of military humanitarianism, they turned their efforts to identifying the advantages and disadvantages of military involvement in international humanitarian crises. Many in the group agreed that the military is skilled at mobilizing and providing initial services before civilian aid agencies arrive on the scene. But the group also stated military action could displace the same aid agencies and increase the cost of the overall mission. Others expressed concern that long-term military intervention may actually increase civilian suffering. "They warned that extreme caution was necessary and that all options other than military should be explored prior to the authorization of forcible coercion," according to the conference report.

Conference participants also noted that soldiers, by nature, are not neutral and that military culture is quite different than civilian life. "...in humanitarian intervention, they [soldiers] are often called upon to work 'with people whom they would otherwise want to arrest.'"

The Use of Regional Organizations as Subcontractors
The concluding report states "According to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, regional arrangements and agencies have an essential role to play in international peace and security." But there are advantages and disadvantages to having regional organizations such as NATO or ECOWAS leading humanitarian missions. "Regional powers often have vested interests in a conflict in their neighborhood and try to push their own agendas and interests. Moreover, regional actors can undermine international standards since they may not subject themselves to the same international oversight and standards as the universal United Nations." At the same time, regional actors have a substantial interest in neighboring armed conflict because "...their economies and countries bare the brunt of such violence, including massive forced migration."

One participant expressed concern at the tendency of outsiders to focus on short-term crises instead of long-term problems, of which underdevelopment is a central issue. But several others argued that development projects are not realistic solutions to humanitarian crises when aid agencies today have difficulty getting adequate resources to meet basic needs around the world.

The participants also focused on the issue of accountability and responsibility. The discussion was heated at times and participant views spanned a wide spectrum. Some argued "...belligerents should not be stopped because 'unless they are willing to settle, they will not settle.'" This member suggested economic sanctions and embargoes might be better options. But the majority of the group "asserted that fighting simply could not be allowed to continue when genocide was taking place, that more imaginative solutions could and should be found," according to the conference report.

External Factors
Participants came to the table with far different views and perceptions of the concept of military intervention for humanitarian purposes, which mirrors the general public's understanding of the issue. Many argued that the public confuses manmade and natural disasters. "The latter exposes victims in need of assistance, and politics is secondary. In manmade disasters, politics, however, is central. Civilian casualties and ethnic cleansing are not collateral damage but war aims. Hence, rather than merely rushing to the rescue, it is necessary for humanitarians of all stripes to reflect [first] rather than merely react automatically."

Participants also noted that the American public is ambivalent about the human and material costs of humanitarian missions, especially as they tend to view "humanitarian intervention as police work" and overlook the national interests at stake in maintaining peace and security. Military actions that pose dangers to US soldiers upset the public because "...police are not supposed to be killed." The group also noted that Americans responded more positively and actively in cases that they perceived, based on media coverage, there was an easily understood and clear humanitarian crisis. Thus "...mass starvation was unacceptable, but genocide was not necessarily a sufficient 'trigger' to go in."

The group concluded that the task of humanitarian intervention ideally should be the responsibility of local communities themselves with assistance from local and international nongovernmental organizations. Participants agreed that the question of when and where to intervene for humanitarian purposes would remain difficult to answer for years to come.