Is humanitarian intervention valid?

In recent days, the role of international organisations in global politics became very important. There are more than 300 registered intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) in global politics and they are acting as the major players in international politics. United Nations (UN) is one of the most famous IGOs and humanitarian intervention is one of its most famous role. However, is humanitarian intervention working properly? If not, is it just a tool for powerful states in global politics? The opinion is very different depending on who answers that question. The blog post will discuss two different types of theories regarding humanitarian intervention.

Realism theorists argue that the humanitarian intervention is not valid and it is a tool for powerful states. One of the basic pillars of realism theory is anarchic international society. Thus, there is no such international government so only powerful states rule the world. It shows that realist thinkers claim UN as non powerful organisation. Two good examples that UN failed to fulfill its roles were Yugoslavia war and Rwanda crisis.
Yugoslavia war is 10 years long civil war that happened in Yugoslavia. During the war, more than 140 thousand people died or lost. It is also known as one of the most cruel war in modern society. One of the major roles of UN is war prevention and peace keeping. They also have the roles to control the conflict if the war breaks out. However, during Yugoslavia war, UN could not prevent the war and stop the conflict.
Rwanda crisis is another example of the failure of UN. Rwanda crisis was ethnic conflict that caused around 800 thousand to 1 million death. However, UN also failed to stop the massacre in Rwanda as well. Even though they sent military troops in humanitarian reason, the troops could not play efficient role.
The case of Iraq war was a perfect example that shows humanitarian intervention is a powerful tool for powerful states. The United States declared the war against Iraq in the name of peace keeping. The United States argued that there is a mass killing weapon in Iraq so it sent its troop to Iraq. However, there was no mass killing weapon in Iraq and the United States got economic benefit with oil in Iraq. It clearly shows that the United States used humanitarian intervention for its own purpose.

However, idealism theorists have different opinion on humanitarian intervention. Idealists argue that humanitarian intervention is a result of human cooperation. Thus, humanitarian intervention is necessary and it is only used for peace keeping. In idealists perspective, all the failures that mentioned above can also be the case of successful intervention.
In case of Yugoslavia, even though UN could not stop the peace keeping and war prevention, NATO played a key role of end of war. According to idealists, NATO is highly institutionalised military alliances so their intervention was justified.
The Rwanda case was worse than Yugoslavia but still, UN sent its peacekeeping troops to Rwanda. Actually, its reaction was very late but it still saved many lives.
Intervention of the United States in Iraq can be also explained by democratic peace theory of idealism. Since Saddam Hussein was a dictator of Iraq and his government harmed democracy, intervention can be justified.

Realism and idealism are two main schools of international relations but they are very different. Eventually, two theories have different perspective on humanitarian intervention but both theories can be used to explain the humanitarian intervention. Of course, realists argue that humanitarian intervention was failed and idealists argue that humanitarian intervention is valid. Thus, the most important thing is the opinion of ourselves. To understand and make own argument, having a sufficient background knowledge on global issue is very important.

Fortunately, we are living in technologically developed society and there are many good films that are dealing with global issues. To help the understand of Yugoslavia war, Rwanda crisis and Iraq war, here are the recommended film and the trailers of them.

The film Harrison's flower is dealing with Yugoslavia war. The main character of the film is wife of dead war correspondent. The main character is an unique point of the film. Normally, main characters of the war films are soldiers or victims but it was very fresh approach to war film.

The film Hotel Rwanda is about Rwanda crisis. The main character of the film is the host manager of hotel in Rwanda. Because of the war, he loses his job and faces cruel reality.

The film Green Zone is about Iraq war. The main character is American soldier who was sent to Iraq. However, he finds out that the war is not only for humanitarian purpose.

South China Sea, rise of new bipolar system

South China Sea conflict cartoon
(Credit for image: The Citizen Daily)

Balkans used to be known as a 'Powder Keg of Europe' before the outbreak of World War 1. It literally means that there was always a potential of war in that region. In fact, the ethnic and religious conflict  in Balkans became one of the main reasons of the outbreak of World War 1. Just like a powder keg of Europe, there is a 'Powder Keg of Asia' these days. South China is a new powder keg of Asia and there is always a potential of war. South China Sea is under territory conflict and 7 countries are directly involved in this conflict. As just mentioned, 7 countries are directly involved but the major players in international politics including the United States are also indirectly related to the conflict as well. Why do they have a territory conflict in there? Why indirect players such as the United States are also involved in this territory conflict?

Before discuss about the main part of this post, here is a brief summary of current situation of South China Sea.

Territory dispute in South China Sea
(Credit for image: Slim)

• It has more than 40 years of history
• About 20% of oil trade through the sea crosses the South China Sea
• Rich mine of natural gas and oil
• China claims that the whole territory of South China Sea belongs to China
• UNCLOS set 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
• All the involved countries also declared the ownership of the islands
• The arms race started
• South Asian countries are requesting a military support from the United States

Through the brief summary, we can see that one of the main reasons for territory dispute is economic benefit from South China Sea. If China occupies whole South China Sea, it gains significant resources and the resources will play an important role for it. Thus, the other nations which involved in territory dispute do not easily let China to occupy South China Sea.

China vs US
(Credit for image: Topinfopost)

Since the territory conflict got much serious than before, China decided to send its military troops to South China Sea. After China sent its military troops, the other nations increased their military budget to contain China. However, China is larger economic unit than all the other nations that involved in South China Sea conflict. Thus, eventually, their military power is much stronger than the other nations and South Asian countries cannot handle China without the support from the other countries. Therefore, most of them decided to sign the military agreement with the United States and the conflict in South China Sea is now became one of the most famous global issue.

Interestingly, current situation in South China Sea can be explained by the realism theory of international relations. Actually, South China Sea conflict perfectly fits in with realism theory. Here is the main point of realism theory that applies to South China Sea conflict.

1.      Every nations act for their benefit

l  To monopolise the rich resources and economic benefit through trading route, all the nations claim the sovereignty of the islands

2.      International organisation and law do not work

l  Even though UNLCOS set the sea border lines, nation states do not listen

3.      Arms raced emerged because of the security dilemma

l  China sent military troops to South China Sea and Asian nations felt threat to military force. They increased their military budget and security dilemma is already there.

4.      Emergence of bipolar system

l  According to neorealists, bipolar system is very stable form of global politics. Just like USSR and US had cold war, new type of bipolar system between China and US was emerged

China vs US 2
(Credit for image: Socio-Economics History Blog)

The intervention of indirect players such as the United States is also can be explained with the realism theory as well. China is rising very rapidly and many scholars are predicting the hegemon war between them. The case of South China Sea is definitely a hegemon war between them. As mentioned above, bipolar system is one of the pillars of neorealism theory so hegemon war is very natural phenomenon under realism explanation.

Free For All
(Credit for image: TIMnovate)

The case of South China Sea is very similar but also different to the past bipolar system between USSR and US. The United States is supporting South Asian countries to contain the expansion of China. It is very similar to the financial aid by the United States and USSR to third world countries. However, it is also different because it is not just a simple conflict between two different ideologies. Every nations that involved in South China Sea conflict has different interest so it is a power game between individual players. There is no such concept of 'team' in South China Sea!

Syrian refugee crisis: The era of realism

Hungarian police is shooting a water gun towards Syrian refugees

(Credit for image: Newsis)

Mass migration and refugees in European region was always one of the main problems of EU's policy making. However, the number of refugees from Syria was increased significantly because of the worsen civil war status in Syria. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are more than 3 million refugees who left Syria in last 4 years. Most of them moved to neighbour countries including Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. However, because of the economic size and GDP of those countries, they are not eligible to accept all the refugees from Syria. Neighbour countries are not rich enough to provide all the food and resettlement services for Syrian refugees. Thus, refugees are forced to head to richer European countries and EU is facing a big challenge.

Resettled 120,000 refugees
(Credit for image: Statista)

To solve the refugee crisis, EU suggested a new policy model called refugee quota system. A new model is based on the distribution of the refugees by economic circumstances such as GDP, population and unemployment rate. The first country that argued refugee quota system was Germany and France is also an ardent supporter of a new system. However, because of this new system, the conflicts between EU countries were emerged and it is getting much serious after the outbreak of the crisis. Since Eastern Europe countries are under relatively poorer economic circumstances than Western European countries, they are not happy with a new quota system. However, not only Eastern European countries are not happy with this new model. The United Kingdom also expressed its negative opinion on refugee quota system.

European Union
(Credit for image: Euvataction)

European Union and its member states are known as the icon of the human rights and democracy. However, many of EU states are not happy with accept of refugees even though the refugee crisis is serious human rights problem. Why don't they accept the refugees if they really concern the human rights? Why do they act like the hypocrites?






The answer is in the international states itself. According to the realist international relations scholars, there is no global government and international state is anarchy. It means that all the states only act for their national benefit so it is very natural that many EU states are not happy with acceptance of the refugees from Syria. The refugees harm the national economy and the benefits that they bring are very small.

Realism
(Credit for image: E-International Relations)

The crisis also shows that international government and law are not working efficiently because all the nation states are only considering on their own benefits. Under the UN charter, there is convention relating to the status of refugees. All the EU states already signed with the convention and they have the duty to accept refugees under humanitarian crisis. However, most of them expressed that they will not accept the increased number of the refugees. It clearly shows that the international government and law do not have a power.
The crisis is a strong evidence of realism theory and the use of Dublin regulation as a tool clearly shows it. Many EU states reject the responsibility on refugees and they address Dublin regulation as the reason for their rejection. According to Dublin regulation, "the first Member State where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged is responsible for a person's asylum claim." Hungary is the first EU states that refugees encounter if they use the inland route. Thus, the EU states argue that Hungary has a duty to solve the Syrian refugee crisis. It clearly shows that EU states use Dublin regulation as a tool and it is often argued by realist scholars. The scholars argue that international organisation and law are only the tools of nation states and the case of Syrian refugee crisis proves it.

Some people would argue that Germany is an exception of the realism theory because it suggested a new model of refugee quota system and it accepts the largest number of the refugees from Syria among EU states. However, Germany accepts Syrian refugees for its reputation in international politics and maintenance of EU. Germany is the biggest economic unit among European Union member states so it is a key state of EU. If Germany also rejects the acceptance of Syrian refugees, the other EU states will also easily reject the refugees and the refugee crisis will be worse. If the refugee crisis gets worse, not only global economy will get influenced. The refugee crisis has a potential to harm global peace and security as well. Worsen situation will break the unity of EU and Germany does not want such situation happens. Germany is one of the countries that is getting the largest benefits from EU. Thus, it is accepting large number of refugees and it is for its own national benefit as well.

Refugee crisis is getting worse and worse. However, the nations are getting split rather than united. The era of realism has come.