Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention can be defined as a states use of force to stop a mass atrocity. The three pillars of the “responsibility to protect” are first, it is the sovereign states responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens. Second, the international community has a responsibility to assist the other states that chose to intervene. Third, the international community must use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes.  

As kind as this form of intervention may seem, states also have ulterior motives. One theory is they only want to spread their own democratic ideals. Although many would believe that is not a harmful goal to have, there are certain consequences that may follow. Diplomatic interventions aggravate anti-American sentiments and encourage terrorist hostility. Terrorist organizations thrive in poverty stricken areas due to the growing dislike of their corrupt governments. When we provide funds to support their governments, we quickly become their next target of hated. It is also hard to take away funds once they are given, even if the leaders use them un-democratically. In a way, American taxpayers are funding a dictatorship.

Another ulterior motive may be that states are only looking to personally gain from assisting foreign countries in need. Of course many underdeveloped countries are in need of our support, but countries that we aid are not just chosen out of a hat. Many are chosen because of their resources such as Bosnia for their minerals and arable land, and Iraq for their petroleum and natural gas. I see humanitarian intervention as the United States way of buying the government’s official support. This backfires on the United States when the government does not share their riches with their citizens.

The essay titled, “Achieving Diplomatic Goals through Humanitarian Means,” by University of Maryland student Michaela Gramzinski created a simple solution to prevent these harmful effects of humanitarian intervention. She says, “To gain popular support of U.S.-funded programs, programs must be centered on community demands, and ultimately must be run by the community.” In other words, funding local programs in poverty stricken areas would achieve more than throwing money at corrupt governments. This policy would also work towards preventing terrorist groups from forming. Aiding local communities “creates a generally positive association between the humanitarian programs and the U.S. as a donor.” Also, there is a possibility that the children whose community was helped would one day grow up and work as a government official who backs the United States. Gaining support of the people through soft power is more effective than any other militaristic or economic action we could take. Community programs that reflect the interests of the common people can start the growth of democracy in foreign states.