This house would use force to protect human rights abroad

It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq.[1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions.

Where possible as little force as possible should be used. In Libya NATO only committed airpower and supplied weapons so keeping the conflict as much a domestic affair as possible. Slowly as it becomes accepted that interventions will happen the threat will become enough. Sudan may well in part have accepted the secession of South Sudan due to the US backing of the peace deal in 2005.

[1] Little, Allan, ‘The brigadier who saved Sierra Leone’, BBC Radio 4, 15 May 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8682505.stm

improve this

Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust[1]. No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention.

[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/>.

improve this

States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state.

States derive their rights of control and on the monopoly of violence through what is called the ‘social contract.’ A state gains its right to rule over a population by the people of that state submitting to it their rights to unlimited liberty and the use of force on others in society to the state in return for protection by that state[1]. The individual is sovereign and submits his rights to the state who derives sovereignty from the accumulation of an entire population’s sovereignty. This is where the legitimacy and right to control a population by force comes from. When a state is no longer protecting its people, but rather is systematically removing the security and eroding away the most basic rights and life of those citizens, they no longer are fulfilling the contract and it is void, thus removing their right to sovereignty and immunity from intervention.

The necessity of intervention in such a case comes from the desperation of the situation. Regimes that use the machinery of the state and their enriched elite against their populations hold all the wealth, power and military might in the country. There is no hope for self-protection for individuals facing a powerful, organized, and well-funded national army. In such a case, the sovereignty of the individuals need to be protected from the state that abuses them.

Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create.

Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it.

improve this

It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq.[1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions.

Where possible as little force as possible should be used. In Libya NATO only committed airpower and supplied weapons so keeping the conflict as much a domestic affair as possible. Slowly as it becomes accepted that interventions will happen the threat will become enough. Sudan may well in part have accepted the secession of South Sudan due to the US backing of the peace deal in 2005.

[1] Little, Allan, ‘The brigadier who saved Sierra Leone’, BBC Radio 4, 15 May 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8682505.stm

improve this

Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust[1]. No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention.

[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/>.

improve this

States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state.

States derive their rights of control and on the monopoly of violence through what is called the ‘social contract.’ A state gains its right to rule over a population by the people of that state submitting to it their rights to unlimited liberty and the use of force on others in society to the state in return for protection by that state[1]. The individual is sovereign and submits his rights to the state who derives sovereignty from the accumulation of an entire population’s sovereignty. This is where the legitimacy and right to control a population by force comes from. When a state is no longer protecting its people, but rather is systematically removing the security and eroding away the most basic rights and life of those citizens, they no longer are fulfilling the contract and it is void, thus removing their right to sovereignty and immunity from intervention.

The necessity of intervention in such a case comes from the desperation of the situation. Regimes that use the machinery of the state and their enriched elite against their populations hold all the wealth, power and military might in the country. There is no hope for self-protection for individuals facing a powerful, organized, and well-funded national army. In such a case, the sovereignty of the individuals need to be protected from the state that abuses them.

Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create.

Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it.

improve this

The use of force by foreign agents fragments conflicts which perpetuates the war.
The countries who are likely to and historically have participated in humanitarian intervention are developed Western nations such as the US, UK, Canada and France either unilaterally or under organisational banners such as NATO. In the vast majority of the world, the West is not well-liked and the education systems, media and local history have created negative perceptions of the West as "imperialists" and colonialists. Intervention can often be seen as "neo-colonialism" and the West trying to assert power to change regimes inside other countries around the world. This, combined with the inevitable human cost of the use of force, turns local populations against the intervening forces and allows government forces to cast any resistance movements that cooperate with the intervening forces as traitors to their country.

This is both bad in terms of causing large military opposition from both sides of the conflict against the troops who are intervening, but also fragments the conflict. Resistance movements splinter into those cooperating with the intervening forces and those who aren't. This fractures the resistance movements, reducing their chances of success and reducing the possibility of ceasefires by fragmenting the sides of the conflict making it hard to determine who effectively represents who at the negotiating table.

A good example of this can be seen by the fragmentation of Sunni and Shi'a factions in Iraq post-intervention and the further entrenchment of Sunni opposition to the Shi'a after the Western forces specifically enriched the Shi'a through power and wealth for their cooperation¹.

¹"Iraq in Transition: Vortex or Catalyst?" Chatham House 04.-2 n. pag. Web. 7 Jun 2011.

improve this

This is unlikely to happen in the majority of cases as not all countries have an anti-Western bias and not all intervening forces have to be Western or identifiably Western. Moreover, the best way to gain the support of a population is to tangibly impact their lives and demonstrate the commitment to their protection and their cause. The best solution for anti-intervention force bias comes with the intervening force itself when real people see troops fighting in a real way to protect them and their rights. There is no more powerful way to build trust than to save a member of someone's family or community in front of their eyes. Thus, this is a self-correcting issue. Although there may be initial issues with backlash from the region, most people will welcome those who are risking their lives to save them and their families.

improve this

The use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect.

Military intervention inevitably leads to further casualties and loss of civilian life. All warfare has civilian costs due to imperfect strategic information, the use of human shields and the simple fact that more bombs, troops and guns leads to more violence and thus more death of those caught in the crossfire. Adding to this the propensity of forces to hide among civilian populations and, often, the lack of identifiable military uniforms, leads to further human costs and prolonged guerrilla warfare.

Adding to human cost is the infrastructural costs of prolonged warfare, particularly seen in interventions including bombing campaigns, leads to prolonged and sustained damage caused by the use of force both during war and in reconstruction.

For example, the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1998 led to 1,200-5,000 civilian deaths[1].

If we are aimed at protecting the human rights of individuals, the massive loss of human life, and sustained damage to basic infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the state means the use of forces furthers human rights abuses, not stops them.

[1] "Kosovo: Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign." Human Rights Watch. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a86b0,0.html>.

improve this

Although there are some subjective elements of rights, there is generally a consensus amongst most people that fundamental human rights, such as being alive, are universally good. Although we should not impede sovereignty for subjective things, genocide, ethnic cleansing and other systematic abuses of human rights are things that are universal and thus should be protected for all people around the world.

improve this

Human rights are a social construct that are derived from the idea that individuals have created on the subject. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore legitimate practice of any state[1].

The imposition of one state’s conception of what rights should or should not be protected is in no way morally justifiable or universally applicable. Different religions and cultures create different constructs of human dignity and humanity and thus believe in different fundamental tenets and “rights” each person should or should not have.

It is not legitimate to impede upon another state’s sovereignty due to subjective consideration imposed upon the less powerful by the superpowers of the global system.

[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/>.

improve this

Most human rights abuses are motivated by ideological factors that are not rationally calculated through a "cost-benefit-analysis." Much of the world's human rights abuses are committed along ethnic or religious lines and thus are not open to incentives and disincentives but are rather absolutist obligations they think they have from their religion or ethno-cultural beliefs.

Moreover, most interventions are costly, damaging for the intervening forces and are generally unappealing to domestic populations in the states that are intervening. As such, the political will for intervention is usually quite low and not feasible. Most regimes will know this and thus take this "message" from the international community with a grain of salt and therefore have no impact on their actions.

improve this