INTERVENTION
Intervention is an external denial of a state's sovereignty.
It is a de facto claim for the existence of a higher authority
or a greater power. In this era, intervention is primarily the
action of one state or a group of states to enforce its will within
the territory or affairs of another state. The state or group
of states is the vehicle through which the intervention occurs,
but as with any such action, the intervention itself can be instigated
by those in control for their own benefit.
The use of military force is not the only means of forcing another
country to submit. Weiss and Chopra observe that, "Foreign
economic and political coercion has often replaced massed armies,
and interventions have been based on request from governments
with questionable legitimacy." 92
The legitimacy of every government is questionable, especially
when the legitimacy is self-imposed, or, for that matter, imposed
from outside. "The explicit objective of the Holy Alliance
established by Prussia, Austria, and Russia in 1815 was to prevent
the rise of republican governments. The members of the alliance
maintained that republican governments were a threat to the peace
and security of Europe and therefore that they had the right to
intervene to prevent such developments." 93
Without question, republican governments were a threat to the
peace and security of certain monarchies. Those monarchs were
willing to turn the continent into a battlefield to preserve their
own peace, wealth, and position.
Though the cast of characters and their titles have changed, modern
rulers also defend a certain type of government. "After the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the Security Council authorized
collective intervention by UN members to restore Kuwait's sovereignty
and to restore peace to the region. On what powers the Security
Council based its action, and how those powers are interpreted,
are matters of some controversy." 94
What was the type of government that contemporary rulers were
willing to defend? The American people were told that their soldiers
were going and dying to restore democracy in Kuwait. Their rulers,
who knew that there had never been any democracy in Kuwait which
could be restored, told them that. There were economic interests
to protect, as well as the position of certain families.
Even more than that, the rulers of some states felt the need to
protect the system of states which made them rulers. Those who
wielded great power and became very wealthy under the status quo,
acted in the same way, for the same purposes as the members of
the Holy Alliance of 1815.
In discussing the use of the U.S. military in the Gulf War, paid
for by other states, Janice Thompson raises the question of whether
or not the U.S. soldiers were mercenaries. "If the U.S. military
was a mercenary force, it was employed by the collectivity of
state rulers in the defense of sovereignty as the institutional
basis for global order. Indeed, the aim of most UN operations
in Third World countries, such as the Congo, Cambodia, Angola,
and Somalia, is to build and consolidate a sovereign state."
95
The UN operations were undertaken to build or support a certain
type of state. Likewise, "The European Parliament on 20 June
[1996] demanded that Albania annul the results of its disputed
elections.... The EU legislators voted to suspend cooperation
with Albania until 'a democracy worthy of the name' is instituted
there." 96
What are the characteristics of "a democracy worthy of the
name," and who says so? Why do states now have to be democracies,
even as they once had to be monarchies? What if the people of
Albania, Roumania, or Bulgaria, want a monarchy? Some people do
prefer a single strong ruler.
Tomorrow, the EU could just as easily say that every state must
be a monarchy, or follow a single world leader they have chosen.
After all, movers and shakers think of themselves as "great
men," and are therefore more susceptible to follow one they
deem to be even greater than themselves. What makes democracy
or monarchy or any one form of government right?
For that matter, who authorized the EU legislators to make such
a demand? And how long will it take to establish such a democracy
in Albania? 5 years? 10 years? 1000 years?
Aristotle considered democracy to be the worst possible form of
government, an invitation to demagogues to manipulate the people.
Granted that western liberal democracies are not really democracies
in the Greek sense, why is whatever they are the favorite form
of government for rulers today?
The overwhelming majority of people in the most liberal democracies
are not at all involved in the major decisions that form the boundaries
of their lives. Having a vote is not at all the same as having
a voice. And having a voice is not at all the same as having a
share of the power, and certainly not an equal share.
Human rights are often the pretext for political, economic, or
military coercion. But what is a human right? How do we recognize
them and where do they come from? Have they been given by God?
If so, which god? Are they transparently engrained in nature?
If so, who is the authorized interpreter of nature? Who has bestowed
these rights on all men? the EU? the UN? the Hague?
The concept of human rights is rooted in Western political thought
with a particular Biblical background. Though often given lipservice,
it is foreign, and occasionally irreconcileable, to many other
systems of thought.
"Despite persisting controversy, human rights have become
viewed as less Western and more universal, particularly when they
are expanded to include not only civil and political rights but
also economic, social, and cultural rights.
"This trend continued with the first summit of the Security
Council in January 1992, which reflected the expanding role of
the United Nations in a variety of tasks - including election
monitoring, promoting human rights, and humanitarian affairs -
that had formerly been considered beyond the competence of the
Security Council." 97 Nothing is now considered to be beyond
its competence, though that competence has not been demonstrated,
and the source of the authority is not clear.
Today, things which most of the world's population does not enjoy,
and has never enjoyed, have been declared to be universal human
rights. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Among a range of rights,
"The International Bill of Human Rights recognizes the rights
to...equal protection of the law, Presumption of innocence, Political
participation...Rest and leisure...Work, under favorable conditions...Self-determination...Protection
of minority culture." 98
Whether we favor these things or not, are they "human rights"?
How do we know? Certainly not everyone would agree that they are.
It's hard to believe that "work under favorable conditions"
is a Natural or God-given right. What percentage of the world's
population would agree that "Rest and leisure" are universal
human rights?
Perhaps some leaders and theorists are confusing, or equating,
their view of how the world ought to be with Natural Law. Personally,
I am not interested in living in someone else's utopia, especially
when the absence of a newly proclaimed human right is a sufficient
basis for violent intervention. The French Reign of Terror came
in the name of Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité.
The causes and rationales for intervention are varied, but they
ultimately can be reduced to either the self-interest of those
intervening or the claim of a higher morality, be it humanitarian,
ecological, or religious. Even as the rulers of a state claim
the right to intervene and impose their order in the lives of
those within the borders of the state, so they occasionally claim
the right to intervene in the lives of those outside the borders
of their state.
Since the joint military attack on Iraq, intervention has become
increasingly common. In certain situations, intervention, or the
expectation of it, has become normative. Whatever may be the nature
of "the New World Order" which George Bush announced,
military intervention was recognized as an essential means of
establishing it.
As Javier Perez de Cuéllar pointed out: "The right
to intervene has been given renewed relevance by recent political
events....We are clearly witnessing what is probably an irresistible
shift in public attitudes towards the belief that the defense
of the oppressed in the name of morality should prevail over frontiers
and legal documents....a new concept, one which marries law and
morality." 99
It is not a good omen when a UN Secretary General announces the
marriage of law and morality to be a new concept. The concept
is not new. Law and morality have always been married. It cannot
be otherwise. The question is, as it has always been, whose morality
will be made into law?
"In 1931, Japan justified its invasion of Manchuria on humanitarian
grounds. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 to protect ethnic
Germans, who he claimed had been denied the right of self-determination
and were suffering mistreatment." 100
Hitler claimed that the Jews were guilty of crimes against humanity
and should therefore be exterminated. In the years his reich lasted,
German laws enforced his view and his morality. When his reich
ended, the Allies rejected his definition and put leading Nazi
officials to death for their crimes against humanity.
The Nuremberg trials are often hailed as a victory for humanity
and morality, but they were not. At the time, "Professor
Hans von Hentig, a German refugee teaching in the United States,
protested to President Truman that every one of the defendants
could be convicted under the laws of Germany or any other nation,
but that the rules of the International Military Tribunal were
similar to those of the French revolutionary tribunals during
the Robespierre terror: 'There is not a professor of constitutional
or criminal law in this country or any other civilized state who
would not ask you urgently to have those rules reconsidered. They
are opposed to all legal standards.' " 101
Summarily execute them. They deserve it. Try them under the laws
of Germany or Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, or France. They
will be found guilty of capital crimes. But do not conduct a show
trial with unjust rules of procedure.
The central charge against the defendants was the conspiracy to
wage aggressive war. Everyone knew that the man with whom Hitler
had conspired to wage aggressive war was sitting as judge over
the defendants. Stalin, who had conspired with Hitler to destroy
Poland, and who had murdered more people than Hitler did, sat
in judgment on his defeated former allies. The rules of the tribunal
forbid the defendants to mention that the conspiracy for which
they were on trial had indeed been made with one of the judges.
Under the International Military Tribunal, the Nazis were condemned
to death by their unrepentant partner in crime. Guilty of equally
horrendous crimes against humanity, Stalin was treated as the
respected ruler of a civilized, sovereign state. What morality
was Stalin defending? What justice was being upheld?
The four major Allies did not share a single common moral standard
or value. They had no common understanding of law, whether Natural,
national, or international. Grotius had long before observed that,
"outside of the sphere of the law of nature, which is also
frequently called the law of nations, there is hardly any law
common to all nations." 102 Among the major powers at the
Nuremberg trials, there was not even agreement on the law of nature.
The international community is not different today. There is no
moral standard or even a single moral value that is shared by
the nations of the world or, perhaps more relevantly, their rulers.
Though there is common lipservice, there is not one civil or moral
law that is honored by even the five most powerful governments
in the world.
"Moreover, there is not yet any compelling evidence that
the politics of the major powers are infused with a full commitment
to democracy and liberalism. The United States and Japan do not
share the same social purpose. Much of the Islamic world utterly
rejects the West. The political trajectory of Russia and the other
republics that were part of the Soviet Union is uncertain. Liberalism's
optimistic assertions that shared values and interdependence will
generate a consensus for constructive interventions are not supported
by the evidence." 103
On what basis can the so-called international community intervene,
or justify its intervention? International or Natural Law? Ecology?
Human rights? Was there intervention in Somalia for humanitarian
reasons or because the UN Secretary General had a personal grudge
against a particular local ruler? Both. The humanitarian reasons
were the manipulative tool to further the personal vendetta.
Why was there intervention in Somalia, but not Tajikistan? in
Kuwait but not in Chechnya? That is not hard to answer. "[T]he
most important determinant of behavior and outcomes is the distribution
of power among states." 104
That is, as the Athenians reminded the Melians: "you know
as well as we do that, when these matters are discussed by practical
people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power
to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power
to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." 105
If you would like to send this article to a friend, please select and copy the text above, and paste into body of email message. Please replace the word "friend" with the email address of your friend . Thank you.
(go back)
What is National Sovereignty?
Where Does Sovereignty Come From?
Hobbes Reconsidered
Realpolitik Morality
Anti-State
Revolt
Intervention
One World, One Sovereign
Notes & Bibliography