The Challenge of Armed Humanitarian Intervention: National Objectives or Philanthropic Military Action?

On September 10^th, President Obama addressed the nation regarding potential military intervention in Syria. While the debate of diplomatically resolving the Syrian Civil War has entered political discourse several time over the over two years, President Obama communicated an urgent to need to apply military power amid allegations of chemical weapons use by the Assad Regime.

Allegedly, the Assad regime employed chemical weapons on August 21^st in the ongoing struggle with rebel opposition. The employment of these weapons violates an international norm codified by the Chemical Weapons Convention 1992, which has been ratified by ninety-eight percent of recognized nations.  Interestingly enough, Syria is one of the minority nations that has not endorsed the stipulations of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The United States has maintained a long concern with the stability of Syria and regional implications - and has actively sought diplomatic means to achieve peace within the Levant.

The challenge presented within the spectrum of international relations is muddied by the appeal used by President Obama.  As he articulated the legal framework that outlined a necessity to intervene, he also used a humanitarian appeal due to the indiscriminate nature of chemical weapons and their affect to non-combatants. By appealing to emotions, the United States could possibly be implying to the international community that a military intervention is warranted as outlined by the United Nations initiative of “Responsibility to Protect”.

This initiative was adopted by the United Nations in 2005 with the intent of establishing an emerging international norm that outlines the requirements of a sovereign nation and the collective responsibility of the international community.  The three principles that the United Nations outlines are:

• A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

• The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.

• If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

      The discussion of Armed Humanitarian Intervention is not new.  Several examples of military intervention along humanitarian lines has been applied by several states and has had mixed success. A NATO led coalition intervened in Kosovo in 1999 to arrest the atrocities committed against civilians by the Serbian Government; The United Nations authorized intervention in East Timor in the same year.  However, there have been other examples of atrocities, such as Darfur, that did not merit intervention from the international community.  The mixed application of humanitarian intervention presents the possibility of problematic criteria that prevents universal agreement on how to address crisis.

     This blog series seeks to explore how nations may use "Armed Humanitarian Intervention" as a mechanism to advance their national security objectives.  By using case studies and independent Non-Government Organizations' observation data, this study seeks to address why the Responsibility to Protect initiative appears challenging in eliciting action from the international community.  As a result, a comparison of interventions, the motivations of nations, and undertaking of intervention actions may expose a pattern that add clarity to this evolving concept.

References:

Obama, Barack H. White House Press Office. 10 September 2013. Address to the Nation. 13 September 2013. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/10/remarks-president-address-nation-syria>.

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. "Chemical Weapons Convention." 03 September 1992. Article II. Definitions and Criteria. 13 September 1992. <http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/>.

United Nations General Assembly. "Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide." 12 January 2009. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. 13 September 2013. <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/677>.

United Nations Security Council. "Security Council Resolutions - 1999." 10 June 1999. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. 13 September 2013. <http://www.undemocracy.com/S-RES-1272(1999).pdf>.

—. "Undemocracy.com." 25 October 1999. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1272. 13 September 2013. <http://www.undemocracy.com/S-RES-1272(1999).pdf>.

United States Government. National Security Strategy. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 2010. 17 June 2013. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf>.