Humanitarian intervention is a moral necessity

Opinion by Mutsa Murenje

My interest in international matters continues to grow with each passing day. And with each passing day, I am gradually gravitated towards having a further postgraduate (doctoral) study. 

For, at present, I boast of having a Master of Science in Humanitarian and Refugee Studies from the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Ibadan. The course demonstrated a mastery or high-order overview of humanitarian and refugee issues.

Consequently, as graduates, we are posited to possess advanced knowledge of a specialised body of theoretical and applied topics; high order skills in analysis, critical evaluation or professional application; and the ability to solve complex problems and think rigorously and independently.

Following global events on my part is therefore something expected. I strongly feel that I should be able to contribute to international discourse and of course as a leading scholar in the field of Conflict Studies and/or International Relations.

I see myself playing a stupendous and Herculean role in these matters. I pray that this dream will one day come to pass. And yet, this piece isn’t at all about my dream! It is rather a discourse on what some have come to regard as an ‘obscene oxymoron.’

I am making yet another contribution on the Syrian crisis with emphasis on the need for humanitarian military intervention. J. N. Aboudha is of the opinion that “Saying “humanitarian intervention” in a room full of philosophers, legal scholars, and political scientists is little bit like crying “fire” in a crowded theatre”.

He believes that it can create a clear and present danger to everyone within earshot since arguments are said to be burning fiercely on the subject with some regarding it as an obscene oxymoron as earlier mentioned.

It is of paramount importance that I make even an ordinary man understand the concept of humanitarian intervention. I didn’t just meet the concept as it is; it was my full course in the aforesaid studies. Brian Lepard defines humanitarian intervention as “the use of military force to protect the victims of human rights violations.”

Military force is used by a nation or group of nations to stop or prevent widespread, systematic human rights abuses within the sovereign territory of another nation.

For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) took action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and also in recent times, against Muammar Gaddafi who was butchering innocent civilians who were tired of his dictatorial rule.

The claimed rationale behind such an intervention is the belief, embodied in international customary law, in a duty under certain circumstances to disregard a state’s sovereignty to preserve common humanity.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December 10, 2009, United States President Barack Obama supported some of the operations justified under the doctrine: “I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war.

Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace”.

From a more analytical point of view, one may argue that humanitarian intervention refers to armed interference in one state by another state(s) with the objective of ending or reducing the suffering of the population within the first state.

The suffering may result from civil war, humanitarian crisis, or crimes committed by the occupied nation (such as genocide). The goal of humanitarian intervention is neither annexation nor interference with territorial integrity but minimisation of the suffering of civilians in that state.

There can be no doubt that humanitarian intervention is a moral necessity, fraught with complexity but better than doing nothing all the same. I believe action must be taken when human rights crises explode.

Syria is strongly believed to have used chemical weapons against innocent civilians and Alfred Adler, the famous Viennese psychologist, seems to have been vindicated. He wrote in his book entitled ‘What Should Life Mean To You’ that “It is the individual who is not interested in his fellow men who has the greatest difficulties in life and provides the greatest injury to others.

It is from such individuals that all human failures spring.” The results are there for all of us to see what Assad has done to his people in Syria hence the necessity to intervene.

The use of chemical weapons is therefore a threat to global peace and security as United States President Barack Obama rightly pointed at the G20 Summit in St Petersburg, Russia. There is a growing concern that rogue nations will escalate the use of such weapons of mass destruction if action isn’t taken to stop and defeat Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

I further agree with French President Francois Hollande that nations need to come together to respond to the Syrian crisis should the United Nations Security Council fail to authorise the use of force in Syria. I am actually surprised that Iran, Russia and China are suggesting a political solution to the Syrian uprising and yet the conflict has been going on for close to three (3) years.

What have they been waiting for all these years? Could it be that they are the very nations that are bolstering the Syrian regime? I won’t be surprised because Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to be suggesting that they will be against any nation or group of nations that will consider military action against Syria.

I have come to see Iran, Russia and China as immoral nations that only think in terms of economic terms at the expense of precious lives. The Chinese have already argued against military intervention on purely economic grounds that the global economy will be affected. If they do have a political solution to end the Syrian crisis why don’t they just implement it?

I need to remind the world today that what we have witnessed in the Arab world is exactly what the late civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr spoke about. He said thus; “When people are voiceless, they will have temper tantrums like a child who has never been paid attention to.

And riots are massive temper tantrums from a neglected and voiceless people.” The Assad family has treated the Syrian state as a personal fiefdom and normal people are bound to challenge that.

The world has failed to prevent conflict in Syria. Sophia Clement defines conflict prevention as a set of instruments used to prevent or solve disputes before they have developed into active conflicts. We are now left with conflict management and conflict resolution.

Fred Tanner considers conflict management to be a theoretical concept focusing on the limitation, mitigation, and/or containment of a conflict without necessarily solving. I am tempted to believe that President Obama and all other progressive nations behind him are attempting to manage the Syrian crisis by stopping Assad and defeating him eventually so that normalcy returns to Syria.

Peter Wallensteen associates conflict resolution with measures attempting to resolve the underlying incompatibilities of a conflict, including attempts to get the parties to mutually accept each other’s existence.

Conflict resolution occurs when a suitable solution to a conflict can be found, and both parties are happy with that solution. However, conflict resolution is not always possible in every case, and so conflict management will have to occur to minimise the negative effects of that conflict.

Let’s all rally behind those managing the Syrian conflict and we hope the outcome will serve as an inspiration even to the Egyptians whose nation is clearly in turmoil.

In conclusion, I believe no state claiming legitimacy can justifiably quarrel with the commitment to protect all its citizens against human rights abuse.

Effective sovereignty implies a system of law and order that is responsive to the needs of the national population for justice and general welfare. Sovereignty shouldn’t therefore be used as a shield for crimes against humanity. I rest my case!