MILITARY FORCE AS A FOREIGN POLICY INSTRUMENT TO ARREST HUMANITARIAN CRISIS: WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES CLAIM TO RESOR

"So many people throughout the world look to the United States for a lead on the most crucial issues that face our planet and indeed the lives of our grandchildren. “Truly the burden of the world rests on your shoulders," Prince Charles, November 3, 2005


“The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in times of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” UN Genocide Convention- Article 1. 1948.


“If the horrors of the holocaust taught us anything, it is the high cost of remaining silent and paralyzed in the face of genocide.” Governor Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign.


“…in 1994, Rwanda experienced the most intensive slaughter in this blood-filled century…the international community must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy…” President Clinton, Kigali, March 1998.


INTRODUCTION


The world has seen several momentous events that may appropriately be described as rearranging the structure of international relationships and essentially creating a new world order demanding visionary ideas to promote peace and ensure stability. For instance, the defeat of Germany in the First World War led Woodrow Wilson to call for the creation of a League of Nations in which “power would yield to morality, and force of arms to the dictates of public opinion” (Nye1993, pp. 82-3). Likewise as World War II ended it was clear that new-sprung national relationships were forming. As it became evident that the Allies would defeat the Axis powers, Winston Churchill pressed his American allies to focus on the eastern front power vacuum created by retreating German troops. The results, had the Americans heeded Churchill’s vision, may have been substantially different power arrangements and relationships among states. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War might also be viewed as a colossal change. As a result of the collapse, the United States dominates all aspects of global power – military, economic, diplomatic and some believe – cultural. In what may be viewed as a new world order where the structure of international relationships are being rearranged the United States, as the world’s dominant power, is faced with a huge challenge on a scale similar to what it faced at the end of the World Wars.


This essay will focus on one aspect of the United States’ power in the post-Cold War era: humanitarian interventions and the use of force. The paper is structured as follows, introduction, and rationale of the study, theory and assumptions, definition of concepts, challenges, research design, basis for military, that is; international law, national interests and moral, the application of the Just War concepts to humanitarian interventions and controversies involved in its application, and how the world has changed to oblige regression from the tradition concept of sovereignty.

RATIONALE

As a student of Foreign Policy and International Security Studies, I feel “pumped up” when someone mentions intervention, this is the core of my academic interest---because it involves tough but vital choices. However, military intervention and the issues involved required further academic inquiry, for their serious ideological, national and international law complications involved when an independent state decide unilaterally or multilaterally decide to violate the territorial and political integrity of another sovereign. The study will try to make sense of contradictory concepts that divide policymakers in the United States. Public and international organizations also agree that human rights are universal; at least those enshrined in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Donnelly 2005 pp. 1-2), however, controversy arise in practical application of these rights. At this point, I would outline the theoretical basis of this paper.

Theory and Assumptions

The nature of international politics is characterized by absence of a strong, authoritative and legitimate central government; therefore a hegemony power is obligated to uphold the highest moral standards for all global citizens, not only as a moral imperative, but also as a prudent course of action to solidify her position in the system. The hegemonic power has not only a moral obligation, but also a legal responsibility to employ non-violent and violent measure to restore order and arrest a humanitarian catastrophe. The small, powerless, and helpless nations clearly have no means to intervene. The critical responsibility of a hegemonic state is also grounded in the natural law and international law. The “just war” principles outlined by Augustine in the fourth century provide an appropriate framework to analyze whether the use of force to prevent certain human tragedies is just. Using the just war framework as a guide, the United States should not hesitate to employ its military power and influence to discourage, prevent, or resolve humanitarian crises—Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo just to mention but a few. Values, however universal in principle, will always require muscles and self-interest to enforce.

Research Design

In this section I will outline how this project is actualized. The main variable will be the United States as the sole super power. Instruments will include examination of historical publications, text books and online sources on humanitarian, international law and the state as an independent political entity. Procedures are going to primarily include comparative analysis of competing arguments in favor of and against US military to restore respect for human rights. In general I will rely on qualitative methods. I will show the relationships that the combination of moral considerations, position of United States as the sole super power, US national interest and international law all together, are powerful forces to prompt US forceful (military) humanitarian intervention consistent with international norms enshrined in the Just War Principle, UN Genocide Convention- Article 1. 1948 and the
Operationization of Concepts


The concepts below are not universal; therefore, I will use them in the context of the definitions provided in this essay.

Humanitarian Intervention


This term refers to the use of international military force to stop the massive abuse of human rights in another state (Wheeler 2000, pp51). Such action might be taken unilaterally by a single state without international approval or by a single state or alliance of states with official international sanction from a multi-lateral organisation such as the United Nations. In his important analysis of humanitarian intervention, Nicholas Wheeler examines six instances of sufficiently grave and extensive human rights abuse to qualify for humanitarian intervention. Three of these are from the Cold War era: India’s intervention into Bangladesh in 1971; Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia in 1979, and Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda in 1979. Five of them are from the “new world order” of the 1990s: the UN intervention into Northern Iraq in 1991; the US and UN intervention in Somalia in 1992; the appalling lack of intervention in Rwanda in 1994, and the UN and NATO’s interventions in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999 (Wheeler 2000). There is a consensus that intervention refers to external actions that influence the domestic affairs of another sovereign state. This could take different forms, speeches, broadcasts, economic aid, military advisers, supporting opposition, blockade, limited military action or military invasion (Nye 1999, pp. 23).


Sovereignty


Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. Sovereignty over a nation is generally vested in a government or other political agency, though there are cases where it is held by an individual. A monarch who rules a sovereign country can also be referred to as the sovereign of that country. The concept of sovereignty also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.


For the purposes of this research, note that sovereignty comes with it responsibilities. That is, if you take your life in your own hands you also take upon yourself to act responsibly and with integrity in regards to your own life, your family, your community, your fellow human beings and the planet as a whole. If you fail, Kant eloquently counsel, when we act in a way that we would want without contradiction everyone else to act, then it is a “universal law,” which no government has the right to deny (Kaplan 2002, pp.111). There are moral standards which transcends state boundaries. In the Declaration of Independence: rights that are indisputable because, like the Founders, we wish them without contradiction to be universal (Kaplan 2002, pp. 113). While different moral value systems may coexist, there has never been and there is no and should never be, a universal right to slaughter the innocent human beings. Kant shows that even in the so-called “independent state era,” there are still universal principles worth struggling for-something we know only too well because of the Holocaust (Kaplan 2002, pp.113 & Kant 1785; 1784-1795). Let there be no illusion; sovereignty is not a moral imperative, life is and human life calls for utmost protection and respect, in short, the very principle that distinguish us humans from beasts and savages. Ever since Cicero, statesmen have proclaimed moral principles of a human community that no dictator has the right to annual (Grant 1960, pp. 168).

Hegemony

Let me specify what I mean by hegemony. In discussions of IR theory it tends to have two meanings: one has to do with the distribution of power in a system. Not merely military force, but also technical and financial strength. The other meaning is the dominance of a particular idea or set of assumptions, such as economic liberalism and globalization. I certainly use the term hegemony primarily in the first sense. It is the material condition that enables one great power, or a group of powers, or the great powers in a system acting collectively, to bring such great pressures and inducements to bear that most other states lose some of their freedom of action de facto, though not de jure (Keohane 1980, pp. 296-305 & O'Brien & Armand 2002). I formerly thought of hegemony as that area of the spectrum between multiple absolute independences and a single world government that allows dominant powers to influence the external policies of other states, but not, or only marginally their domestic policies. Now I realize how much the hegemony of the West and especially the U.S. also aims to modify the internal behavior of other states and communities (Keohane 1980, pp. 296-305 & O'Brien & Armand 2002). We will, and should, intervene whenever our national interests intersect with international law and moral considerations.


The Challenge – Recklessness or Visionary Leadership


In urging caution with respect to the use of military force in Bosnia, Secretary of State Madeline Albright chided then Joint Chief’s Chairman Colin Powell by asserting, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”(Chapman1997). The discourse characterizes a fundamental crossroads in approaches to American national security strategy and foreign policy. Her question is frustrating for its apparently foolhardy, almost immature failure to comprehend what it means to use force. The question reminds one of Mark Twain’s quip that to “someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” (Chapman 1997).On the other hand, the question presents a bold and direct challenge. While perhaps not as poetic, it seems to embody a certain JFK resonance. The challenge implicitly recognizes the primacy of American power and a refusal to shrink from the challenges of the world.


The ability of the United States to justify forceful involvement in humanitarian crises has been suspect. The tragedy in Somalia and, most recently Kosovo, come to mind. Consequently, isolationists call for a “survivalist foreign policy” in which a fortified fence is built around America and we retreat behind it (Harris 1999). There is an impulse by many Americans to withdraw from the world, squander our advantages, alienate our friends, diminish our credibility, betray our values, and discredit our example (Harris 1999).


The just war framework would certainly assist in establishing moral certainty and build confidence in U.S. involvement aimed at stemming human catastrophes. The paradox, however, is that in many cases forceful means are necessary to stem human suffering. Many balance of power realists and virtually every isolationist take a narrow view of what constitutes American interests and scoff at challenges such as that posed by Albright. Many argue that before any American lives are risked in a crisis a specific, clear, and definable “interest” is essential.


Narrowly defined interests that limit the ability of the United States to engage the world community could seriously impact the lives of future generations of Americans. The foremost crisis in a new century is that the United States will refuse to lead. One aspect of leadership in the new millennium will be how humanitarian crises are handled. By applying just war principles to proposed forceful interventions to relieve human suffering, the United States will have established the foundation for the moral correctness of its actions. Confident in the moral correctness of a particular future intervention the United States not only will relieve suffering and prevent tragedies, but it also advances its interests and establishes its leadership by actively engaging the world. As one of the great world powers, it is essential that the United States cultivate international cooperation, partnerships, and alliances, build coalitions, and with respect to humanitarian threats and crises – work to “liberalize” worldwide human rights.


Just War Tradition


Broadly, the elements of just war are usually divided into two categories; jus ad bellum – that which is just or right to engage in or resort to war, and jus in bello – that which is just or right within war (Deforrest 1997, pp. 7).While both are relevant in any analysis of the moral and ethical dilemmas of war, the intent of this essay is to focus on whether forceful humanitarian interventions are justified under jus ad bellum.


The central tenets of jus ad bellum consist of three key elements: 1) whether there is a just cause with regard to the use of force, 2) whether the use of force is mandated by a competent authority, and 3) whether force is used with the right intention. If all of these elements are met, then traditionally a nation is morally justified in prosecuting a war.


The notion of “just cause” developed out of the tradition that conquests were morally objectionable. St Augustine maintained that use of force was justified to defend the nation or take back what an unjust aggressor has taken from the nation or its allies. It is essentially a cause that is born out of some measurable or identifiable conduct by another. The concept was further expanded by Thomas Aquinas to justify punishing evildoers or transgressors. In essence, a just cause exists if a basic, fundamental value is “threatened, that is higher on a public good hierarchy than the disvalues involved in taking military action” (LaCroix 1988, pp. 147).


The concept of “competent authority” relates to the evaluation of military force by a legitimate government. If an illegal or unrecognized authority within a nation made a decision to go to war, then the decision would not be just since it would violate basic principles related to the governing of that society (Coll, et al. eds. 1995, pp. 8). The rationale is that only governments, as representatives of the people can determine the morality of engaging in war. The concept has been blurred, as the legitimacy of a ruling body is often difficult to ascertain. Non governmental organizations, guerilla movements (e.g., Irish Republican Army), and alliances (e.g., NATO) are but a few examples of bodies claiming authority and legitimacy in the use of force. The modern test to determine if authority exists to prosecute a war focuses on the ability to limit the use of force and assesses the “depth and breadth of popular support this authority possess” (Johnson 1984, pp. 24)


Finally, the concept of “right intention” has broadly been interpreted to mean – as outlined by Aquinas and Augustine, “the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil” (Kaplan 2002, pp. 109&130). While just cause deals with an objective situation and how it is ethically evaluated, the right intention concept is related to a state of mind and motives. The decision to go to war must be essentially protective. As Augustine pointed out, the goal of war is to obtain a just and durable peace (Johnson 1984 and Kaplan 2002, pp-109&130).


Humanitarian Interventions and the Application of Just War Concepts


While the just war framework has been used as a moral compass in armed conflicts and wars among nations it is equally applicable in the realm of humanitarian interventions involving the use of force. First, in any humanitarian intervention the underlying issue is one of morals and ethics. While “morals and ethics” are certainly, loaded terms, fundamentally the issue in a humanitarian crisis is one of right versus wrong. Similarly, the ultimate goal of a just war assessment is to determine whether it is right or wrong to use force. One might argue that morals and ethics are based on a sliding scale of perceptions and popular norms and thus, just war principles lose credibility and relevance. Some argue that because of the shifting nature of morals and ethics, just war traditions serve no useful purpose other than to justify the actions of each belligerent in a conflict.


The problem with these arguments is the history of warfare details horrific examples of the consequences of a failure to analyze actions using the just war framework. The desire for quick, decisive victories in many wars led to virtually unlimited forms of warfare – including the use of gas in the World War I, offensive strategic bombing aimed at “the will of the German, Japanese, and British people” and the obliteration of population centers in World War II, the use of the atomic bomb, and indiscriminate uses of other tools of death. Unlimited war is an abomination to the just war tradition. While “morals and ethics” are indeed shaped and developed based on the experiences and perceptions of society, they nevertheless serve to limit and restrain the use of force. The shifting nature of morals and ethics should not be used as an excuse for dismissing the just war concepts. Instead, it is precisely because of the mortality of morals and ethics as well as the changing character and conduct of war that, before a state commits a force in an effort to resolve a conflict (i.e., any type of conflict or forceful operation other than war), the just war balancing criteria be considered as a restraining mechanism.

As the character and conduct of warfare has changed through the centuries since Aquinas and Augustine so to have theories related to just war. Due to the fact that the nature of warfare is constantly being altered, or that traditional “wars” have become more difficult to define does not change the broad underlying moral and ethical questions concerning the use of force. The fact is that debates pertaining to humanitarian interventions are inescapably ethical and thus, would benefit from a rigorous analysis using the just war framework.


Moreover, the introduction of arms to a conflict or other crisis could produce unexpected and undesired results. For instance, a war that assumes “its own momentum” as alluded to by Clausewitz is no longer focused on political objectives or desired results (Clausewitz & Howard and Peter 1976). The just war principles attempt to keep war objectives focused. They force analysis of the justness of a pursued cause or end state and thus seek to keep the war machine on its tracks. They are likewise essential to restrain force, as necessary, in a humanitarian crisis.


The focused and limited use of force, elemental to a just war analysis, is likewise fundamental to any humanitarian intervention demanding a military presence. Implicit in the just war framework is a requirement for an assessment of whether armed conflict is a last resort, the likely degree of success produced by an armed conflict, and the proportionality of the military means in accomplishing objectives. The just war framework attempts to limit war and thus limit suffering. The objective is a “just and durable peace.” Similarly, the broad goal in a humanitarian crisis is to alleviate human suffering and achieve a peace comparable to that contemplated by Augustine.


Finally, the just war framework may appropriately be applied to forceful humanitarian interventions because, while sovereignty is still the basic “organizing principle of political power, political philosophy, and political science,” there are larger global issues and problems that transcend parochial sovereignty concerns. They include environmental issues, international security problems, and concerns related to information technology (Smith 1995). Moreover, and significantly for purposes of this essay, the creep of international laws into the realm of state affairs is largely a byproduct of failures by states to follow the guidelines of just war theories in conducting affairs (Smith 1995) The crises in Serbia, Bosnia, and Kosovo are an example. At the same time it is clear that a nation has a right to be free from interference in its internal affairs.


There are several possibilities for resolving sovereignty and “competent authority” issues related to forceful humanitarian interventions. The possibilities include codifying just war principles, strengthening and clarifying international laws, and possibly creating a body of small nations that would assess the nature of humanitarian crises and authorize interventions (Smith 1995). However, pending a more permanent resolution of the sovereignty issues, the just war tradition remains flexible and adaptive. The “depth and breadth” of an intervening nation or entity’s popular support applies to decisions regarding war as much as it does to decisions regarding forceful humanitarian interventions.



The situation in Kosovo provides an opportunity to assess the appropriateness and applicability of the just war tradition to a humanitarian crisis. The intervention by NATO to stop major human rights violations, ethnically motivated murders, and the possibility of ethnic cleansing certainly presented a just cause. And, given this underlying cause the expressed NATO intent of deterring ethnic cleansing was also proper. Many argue that NATO – traditionally a defensive alliance, was not a competent authority to decide whether to intervene in a nation’s sovereign affairs. However, use of force by NATO arguably represented the collective will of the people of several nations and thus it was, in fact, a competent body under the just war
framework.



The issue with regard to Kosovo is that while on the surface the intervention appears to be wholly supportable under the just war tradition, there does not appear to be a plan in place to produce what Augustine referred to as a “just and durable peace” which is the ultimate goal of any use of force (Kaplan 2002). It is the bedrock of what makes certain war is just. Many believe the U.S.-led NATO forces were hugely effective and successful in its application of military power. Yet, the crisis seems far from being resolved. Instead of trumpeting Milosevic’s military defeat the just war tradition would have seemingly call for U.S. engagement through diplomacy, partnering with Europeans as well as the Russians, involvement of U.N. peacekeeping forces which would be protected from both Serbian and Kosavar forces by NATO or U.N. troops, and, with respect to the war crime indictments against Milosevic, consideration of plea bargaining.



What Prompt U.S. Action?

Clearly, this analysis supports the conclusion that the just war framework is a proper tool for evaluating the appropriateness and correctness of forceful interventions in humanitarian causes. Given the availability of this moral compass the question remains what will prompt involvement in, and resolution of, humanitarian emergencies. The United States seems disjointed and confused in articulating a coherent policy of what will prompt it to act. The military being asked to “do more with less,” the denial of increased spending on foreign aid and State Department operations and failure to resolve payments of United States debts to the U.N. illustrate the confusion.


The incoherent policies and an apparent trend toward isolationism may have served to contribute indirectly to the alarming number of armed conflicts in the world. The numbers alone should prompt action. From January 1990 through December 1996 the world saw 96 armed conflicts, while in 2004 alone the world absorbed 19 major conflicts (SIPRI Yearbook 2005). A conservative estimate of the death toll in these wars is around 5.5 million people over 75 percent of those were civilians (Smith 1995). Certainly, as President Clinton stated, the United States cannot become involved in every problem we care about. On the other hand, with the just war framework as a guide, the timing as Ms. Albright recognized has never been better to engage the world by preventing or resolving humanitarian tragedies that we can do something about. By doing so the United States promotes its interest in expanding democratic principles and bolstering economic prosperity thereby enhancing our overall security.

First, the United States should, and must act with force, if necessary, whenever another nation or some other entity denies fundamental unchanging and universally accepted rights of man (Rice 1995, pp. 24). The denial of fundamental and universally unchanging rights demands the same kind of attention that a nation would devote toward the pursuit of a vital national interest. These are rights that belong to man, not because he is a citizen of a particular state, but rather because he is a human being. Such rights transcend nations, cultures, and religion. Certainly the atrocities committed by the Nazis represented a denial of fundamental and universal rights of Jews and many others. The elimination of a particular ethnic race (e.g., in Rwanda) might be another. Actions or inaction, with respect to this category of human rights affect the moral credibility and leadership of the United States as a world power.


In addition, humanitarian crises provide an opportunity for United States to not only alleviate suffering but to promote its values. Such crises may present cost effective means of pursuing other national interests. New weapons technology, air power, precision guided munitions as well as advances in information collection and distribution systems permit a cost effective employment of limited and proportional force, at least when measured against human resources. The employment of such force to ameliorate and possibly prevent human suffering is consistent with just war principles. As a quid pro quo for such actions the United States should seek to foster closer ties, promote the enlargement of democracy, and enhance the stability of the state or region.


Important still, the United States should act because it won the Cold War. Consequently, activism in world affairs -- particularly to avert and possibly resolve a humanitarian crisis, is appropriate. The absence of Cold War politics should be viewed as a super highway to a new world order. Certainly the former Secretary of State perceived the dominance of U.S. power; particularly military power. She realized that the Cold War precepts, which resulted in a Cold War victory, no longer work and are not relevant in the current international environment. As the sole super power the timing is right to engage the world, cultivate partnerships and alliances, and promote our values. Promoting our values may mean using force to prevent humanitarian catastrophes. And given the absence of Cold War politics the United States has much more latitude to act, to influence actions, and thereby promote vital, important, or other third tier interests. The United States should aggressively undertake action to prevent certain humanitarian catastrophes consistent with the “just war” tradition. Ms. Albright’s challenge – as tempered by the above analysis related to just war, ought to be embraced.


In a final analysis, its from this background that I thus propose, that, a responsible foreign policy requires that the U.S. never capitulate to gross human rights violations, U.S. troops should have been patrolling not only in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, but also in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Kashmir, Rwanda, Burundi, Northeastern Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and many other places. The U.S. as a universal superpower must behave like so, else a global constabulary force would be necessary with unwanted ramifications.