Is humanitarian intervention justifiable? Essay

The view that humanistic incumbrance is justifiable is debatable. This is payable to the circumstance that in many cases at that place atomic number 18 two sides to a judgement, the side of the republic or countries interpose and the side of the country that is be subjected to encumbrance. An mannequin is the Iraq war in which the regular army and Great Britain intervened, the US and UK whitethorn have viewed discourse as inevitable and necessary while the Iraqis had many former(a) views and in hindsight many see disturbance as a way of worsening matters. Furthermore the nous that humanitarian handling is justifiable could indeed always depend on the situation and to what extent is intervention needed.Intervention can be justified by the idea of common humanity, this is the idea that object lesson responsibilities cannot be limited to a countrys own people and country but basic eachy to the whole of humanity. This can likewise be called indivisible humanity due to the claim that we argon all humans no matter where we are on the planet. For example the Syrians may be different in geography and language to citizens of the western countries however this doesnt mean that they should be subjected to mass murder. As a result in that location seems to be a necessity for able countries to intervene, able in reference to resources and bills and therefore humanitarian intervention can be viewed to be justifiableHowever, this can be argued against by the possibility of countries intervening for themselves and to pursue their own national interests rather than the country which they are supposedly fling help to. There is an argument that states that countries wouldnt deploy a great amount of soldiers overseas if there wasnt a possibility or even a certain(prenominal)ty of personal gain and as well as it is argued that on the subject of whether to intervene or not, some countries calculate national interest and finalise and then to carry out the int ervention or not.A possible example of this occurring is when the US sent legions to Iraq and there was a general view that this happened due to the possibility of gaining oil. This therefore shows political untruthfulness due to the position that nations are using humanitarian intervention as a cover for their personal interest. Additionally, there is also a view that the citizens and the issues of a certain country are of that countys business only and out of doors intervention is unnecessary. thus, this shows that humanitarian intervention isnt justifiableMoreover, the idea of humanitarian intervention can be justified by the item that in some cases countries act out of a need to forestall a conflict occurring in another country that could have an effect on the countrys own citizens. This is related to the idea of global interconnectedness, currently there are several countries that depend on another for a key reason, for example the exporting and importing of salutarys. A s a result this leads to these countries output with each other in matters of hardship for either one of them. Also the idea of global interdependence is important because it sheds light to the other side of self-interest enlightened self-interest. An example of this is Operation Provide relief (1991) which is when the US intervened in Iraq to defend Kurds that were fleeing their homes in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war.On the other hand, the issue of double standards arises that argues against the plea of humanitarian intervention. This is when there is clearly a pressing humanitarian emergency but certain countries decide not to intervene and go to the extent of ruling intervention out completely. For example, the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the USA had just come out of a terrible peacekeeping mission in Somalia and vowed never to draw a bead on involved in a conflict between clans and tribes where there was no national interest. This shows that although the Rwandan genocide was such(prenominal) a pressing situation as there was no national interest in acquiring involved the US avoided it showing that they had double standards as years later they involved themselves in Iraq where there was a possibility of personal gain and national interest in the form of oil.Additionally, humanitarian intervention can be justified due to the concept of regional stability. This means that when one country is being affected to the extent of there being a need for intervention it will have a certain effect on the countries surrounding it. As a result many neighbouring countries of an affected country will support humanitarian intervention in fear of the effect that regional instability may have on them. If there is severe unrest then this may call for intervention from study powers such as the USA in order to prevent a possible regional war. For example, the humanitarian crisis in Syria is posing a threat to regional stability due to the rivalry between Iran and Saudi -Arabian Arabia. The two countries are in dispute because Iran is adamantly backing the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad while Saudi Arabia is strongly anti-Assad.This is causing regional instability due to the fact that several Middle Eastern countries are now forming two sides pro-Assad and anti-Assad, for example the highly influential spiritual group Hezbollah are on Assads side as they sided with Iran on the matter. Furthermore this issue is severe due to its highly religious nature. This is shown in the fact that Shiite Iran and Hezbollah are supporting the Alawite Assad while Saudi Arabia a Sunni country are against him. Religion is a hugely influential and motivating constituent for war and dispute and this issue is emphasising this further. Therefore the need for regional stability is key, and it justifies the need for humanitarian intervention as it seems like it is an important factor in preventing regional unrest and possible wars.On the other hand, it can be argued th at humanitarian intervention isnt justifiable due to the matter of simplistic politics. This is when conflicts have been simplified to a basic good versus bad concept in which complexities of potential intervention and its consequences are ignored or belittled and certain aspects have been exaggerated such as the amount of atrocities committed or murders that have occurred. This then results in a distorted view of humanitarian intervention which leads to devastation once it happens as things are underestimated or overestimated. Distortion has a key role in the argument against humanitarian intervention being justifiable.This is because of the fact that the west have a false view of human rights in other parts of the world, for example the USA may have a different set of human rights to those of a middle east country and this distorted view can have many disastrous consequences as humanitarian intervention may occur due to a misinterpretation of the human rights of the countries inv olved. This shows that humanitarian intervention isnt justifiable because of the different political systems around the world.In conclusion, the evidence shows that whether humanitarian intervention is justifiable depends mostly on the situation. There are views that support intervention as it is viewed as an act for the greater good and must happen to prevent mass murder occurring, while others view it negatively as a sow in of double standards and national interest as shown in Rwanda in 1994 where the US didnt intervene due to no personal gain being offered in return. As a result humanitarian intervention is justifiable according to the situation.Is humanitarian intervention justifiable?