Understanding global security - Peter Hough

SOCIAL IDENTITY AS A THREAT TO SECURITY
doctrine. Although abuses did occur under the Ottomans they were no more despotic
rulers than some of the interveners and it is hard to escape the conclusion that the
interventions really represented clashes of the civilizations, with Europeans rallying
to the cause of Christians under the yoke of Muslim rule. 5 More recently, the
willingness of NATO to act in defence of the Kosovar Albanians and the UN’s ‘Safe
Havens’ initiative in Iraq stood in stark contrast to the lack of repsonse to the far
greater horrors which occurred in Rwanda’s genocidal implosion of 1994. Central
Africa in the post-Cold War landscape was ‘a far away place of which we know
little’ 6 lacking the strategic importance to the major powers of the Middle East or
Eastern Europe. Equally, humanitarian intervention is always more likely to be
considered an option where the target state is not going to be too tough a military
opponent. Power politics dictates that Chinese genocide in Tibet or Russian aggression
in Chechenya were/are never likely to be awarded the same response as Serb
or Iraqi atrocities. Selective justice undermines the principle of humanitarian
intervention, many claim.
Cultural relativism
A core argument against humanitarian intervention is that rights and cultures vary
so significantly from state to state that judging a country as being a danger to its
own citizens is likely to be prejudicial. Such judgements are likely to be made by the
dominant power of the day and so, in effect, represent a hegemonic imposition of
a particular ideology. Nearly all (if not all) states have seriously violated their citizens’
rights at some time. Leading on from this would it follow that an invasion of just about
any country by any other country could be legitimized?
May worsen the situation
Additionally, even where a clear case of tyranny can be established there is the
concern that intervention may not be the answer to the problem in that it can only
enflame the situation. Is the use of violence an appropriate response to the use of
violence? Many critics contended that NATO’s action in defence of the Kosovar
Albanians led to an escalation of the Serb campaign against them.
Counter-arguments
It is clear that humanitaran intervention can probably never be a perfect method
for combating tyranny. Inconsistent application of the principle is inevitable given
that it might not be practical to intervene in some cases since the target state may
fight back, which could lead to more bloodshed than might have been the case if no
action had been taken. However, does this mean that no action should ever be taken
and the world should sit on its hands while avoidable slaughters are being carried
out? Should the realism of doing something to avert catastrophe when it is clearly
achievable be subsumed by the Realism of doing nothing unless the interests of the
intervener are at stake? If an individual walking through a city witnesses two assaults,
120