Yasemin Unal: Humanitarian Intervention

Yasemin Unal

Professor Mark Shirk

GVPT200FC

24 October 2013

            Humanitarian intervention is a unique topic that can have its opponents or  supporters. This diversity is due to the differing objectives and priorities of states and citizens. One would oppose humanitarian intervention based on the realist theory, the issue of sovereignty of states, and to avoid war. However, it is my argument that humanitarian intervention should occur when human rights of citizens in any state are being violated. In my opinion this intervention can occur in any form that positively impacts the citizens within "mass atrocities". Of course, there are unique situations that could need different approaches in humanitarian intervention.

            To begin, if a sovereign state is not successfully implementing any aid to end acts against  humanity within their territory, then intervention by other states is necessary. Thus, humanitarian intervention should be a fundamental priority, especially when it is the government that is violating the human rights of its citizens. Since the institution that is supposed to be acting in the best interest of its citizens is causing the unsettlement, then those citizens need aid from countries to help represent and support them. It is my argument that as the human race we need to support, represent, and sometimes act in the best interests of those who are experiencing brutality. Not applying any type of humanitarian intervention to help people suffering and dying from a lack of protection is a catalyst for mass atrocities.

            Furthermore, humanitarian intervention can occur in a myriad of different forms. Thus, intervention does not need to be substantial to have a positive impact on those who are experiencing brutality. I feel as if when the topic of intervention is presented, the opponents are being restricted in thinking in only terms of war and military assistance. However, intervention could mean providing the essential supplies needed for survival. In most incidences humanitarian intervention is needed in developing countries of former colonies, because there is unsettlement and power struggles within the government. The most prominent examples would be "Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Iraq, Darfur, Libya, Syria". If a state does not want to directly provide military assistance to end mass atrocity, then they could still offer intervention by providing human security to citizens.

            Lastly, there are different circumstances that could require unique forms of intervention. A prime example would be how the United States could have provided humanitarian intervention to the Syrian refugees, while still avoiding war. Since the United States did not want  another costly war right after the end of the prolonged Iraq war, we decided not to directly interfere with the mass atrocities within Syria. However, we could have provided some type of aid, in the form of human security, to Syrian refugees that fled to neighboring states.

            In the final analysis, whether or not implementing humanitarian intervention is a topic that can be debated. Yet, it is my argument that as the human race we need to provide any type of aid we can to stop mass atrocities. This intervention does not need to be linked with war to have a positive impact on citizens experiencing brutality. Therefore, even states facing unique circumstances can still provide some type of intervention in the form of human security.