GO131:
International Relations
Professor Walter Hatch
Colby College
Interventions Old and New
The Westphalian System
But what if an otherwise sovereign
state has “failed?”
Or if genocide results?
Should “we” intervene?
How to Intervene
Suasion
Voice of America
Heavy Coercion
Czechoslovakia
Why Intervene?
“The Old Interventionism”
Security reasons
“The New Interventionism”
Humanitarian reasons
International Law
and
Military Intervention
States should respect sovereignty of other states
"All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security …
are not endangered.” (Article 2.3 of the UN Charter)
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state …” (Article 2.4)
States should work together to repel aggression. Even here,
though, UN’s authority in “collective security” is
circumscribed.
“Nothing in the charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in
matters within the domestic jurisdiction” of states. (Article 2.7)
A Loophole
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations …”
(Article 51)
May justify “Old Interventions”
Review: Cold War
U.S. interventions
Preserving its “sphere of influence”
Containing Communism
Soviet interventions
Preserving its “sphere of influence”
Promoting Communism
Review:
Pre-emption as Gray Area
Israel and the Osirak reactor (1981)
U.S. and the Iraq war (2003)
New (Humanitarian) Intervention
Germany into Czechoslovakia (1939)
Rescuing Germans in the Sudetenland?
India into East Pakistan (1971)
Defending Bengalis fighting for independence?
Vietnam into Cambodia (1978)
Closing the Khmer Rouge “killing fields?”
Tanzania into Uganda (1979)
Protecting citizens against Idi Amin?
International Law Redux
1948 Convention on Genocide
“crime against humanity”
but …. how to stop it?
Intervention only permitted in event of a
“threat to international peace and security”
(UN Charter, Article 39)
Expanding the definition of “threat”
Sovereignty or Human Rights?
Realists
Intervention justified only to maintain order
(balance of power)
Cosmopolitans
Intervention justified to ensure justice (human
rights)
Somalia (1992-3)
Background
Civil strife since 1991, when Siad Barre
regime ousted
Rival warlords contested for power in the south
• Mohamed Farah Aidid vs. Ali Mahdi
War led to famine, humanitarian crisis
Famine in Somalia
Humanitarian intervention
UN spent $675 million
GHW Bush: 25,000 US troops
Clinton: Taking Mogadishu (October 1993)
18 U.S. Rangers killed
Blackhawk Down
Haiti (1994)
Background
Aristide elected president
Populist priest
Ousted in military coup
Violence between army and pro-Aristide
Aristide supporters
Refugees flee Haiti
Floating to U.S.
Humanitarian Intervention
Clinton deploys troops
Aristide restored to power
Troops leave in 1999
Aristide wins new election in 2000
Back to Haiti (2004)
Bosnia (1992-5)
Background
New republics break away from former
Yugoslavia (dominated by Serbs)
Slovenia
Croatia
And, in 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina
• 44% Muslim; 31% Serbian; 17% Croatian
War erupts after Bosnian Muslims and Croats vote
for independent state
“ethnic cleansing” by Serbs
Humanitarian Quasi-Intervention
Srebrenica
Violence Ends the Violence
NATO
Croat-Muslim offensive
Dayton Peace Accord
Kosovo (1999)
“Ethnic Cleansing” Redux
Role of the Media
NATO Strikes Back
NATO airstrikes on Serb targets
NATO ground troops enter Kosovo
Serbian minority flees in face of reprisals
A New Exodus
The Iraq War
New or old intervention?