Common Sense for the Twenty-First Century

Humanitarian Intervention

118 Humanitarian Intervention July 9, 2003 There is a great deal of talk about humanitarian intervention at this time. Let’s consider some of the components: First of all, humanitarian intervention does not have to be military. This is news to the militarists who attempt to run the world, but it is time that they understand other forms of humanitarian intervention. The International Human Rights March planned for Israel and Palestine is a humanitarian intervention as are the actions of the tens of millions of peacemakers throughout the world. Latrines and potable water are a humanitarian intervention. These cheapest of all facilities are the answer to many of the world’s health problems. But is there ever a time that vulnerable populations need to be rescued? Of course there is. Such a situation is no different than the need for fire and police protection in any polity. The objective, however, must not be victory over some presumed evil people and the method must not be to use religion as a cloak for malice. In a humanitarian intervention, where force is necessary, the interveners must be ready to risk their lives in the same way that fire and police do. Humanitarian intervention by force must never be “big power” intervention where selfish interests rule. Apparently our decision makers have no contact with history beyond yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. Nineteenth century colonialism was constantly done in the name of humanitarianism. It was done for the stated reasons of abolishing slavery, it was done in the name of improving public health, it was done in the name of civilizing and Christianizing the white man’s burden. It was a façade in the name of power and resources, and that includes the pious words of President McKinley who prayed before moving on the supposed infidels in the Philippines. Having no reference point in history, George Bush stated, as quoted by Haaretz “God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and He instructed me to strike at 119 Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.” Indeed, this is imitation Bible Speak. In the light of a fraudulent war in Iraq any talk of U.S. intervention on behalf of democracy lacks credibility. What is to be done? The veto power of the Security Council of the UN destroys the effectiveness of the United Nations and its charter. Powerful nations like the United States are free to stop any authentic humanitarian action. The time has come for the General Assembly of the United Nations to assert itself by abolishing the Security Council. This done, humanitarian intervention, even if it requires force, can be accomplished by legitimate international law and not for the benefit of any single nation state. ...