Is humanitarian intervention really humanitarian?
I'm currently working on an academic piece about humanitarian intervention in international relations. And this subject has given substantial food for thought.
‘Humanitarian’ has been defined as ‘concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare.’ (Oxford Dictionary) or ‘involved in or connected with improving people's lives and reducing suffering’ (Cambridge Dictionary). Generally these definitions and dictionaries point us in the direction of ‘human welfare’ or ‘bettering humans’ well-being’.
But exactly whose ‘human welfare’ is promoted?
And who decides that someone’s life needs to be improved or someone’s ‘suffering’ needs to be abated?
Is it up to the helper or the helped to define this and call for help?
And what to do when the perception of neediness of the needy differ significantly?
Is anyone’s life ever to be put at risk in order to ensure others’ safety and well-being?
A striking example of 'successful' humanitarian intervention are the UN mission undertaken by Dutch General Patrick Cammaert in a.o. the Congo, Eritrea and Ethiopia. He however subscribes to the belief that using active force (instead of waiting until you're fired at) against the militants has been and can be very fruitful.
But fruitful in whose eyes?
In our neoliberal pro-America freedom eyes?
Or in the eyes of the family members of soldiers that died in battle?
Or as in the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'?
These claims openly defy all our moral, religious and cultural standards, yet saved the lives of thousands of innocent civilians.
Is losing one finger to keep your arm a proper consideration?
Is killing 10 to save a 100 a proper consideration?
Should safety, dignity and military intervention be dependent on democratic procedures?
Is there any human being that is - or will ever be - in the position to make these calls?
Whether your name is Ban Ki-moon, Barack Obama or Patrick Cammaert: I doubt that these decisions make you sleep better at night.
