Given the abundant use of the term Humanitarian intervention in the domain of world politics I decided to deal with it.
Humanitarian intervention is a controversial concept in the international relations which contradicts the principles of sovereignty and non-interference. The term created after the Second world war is being abused in world’s political arena.
Related to the military doctrine of USA and NATO, it is typical oxymoron.
Does “humanitarian ” go with the intervention using guns, fire arms, bombs ect.
No it does not, It is just an attempt to justify to the world audience those intervention that is going to be taken .
How they can be humanitarian and what hidden main purposes are…
It reminded me of a former colonialism and expansionism which was first known as a purpose of enlightening uncivilized ethnicities but actually known as exploitation of natural resources and land. Later forbid by the UN Declaration of giving independency 1961.
The same thing is happening today with humanitarian intervention.
It had to be justified all those NATO military troops in Middle East, Balkan, Bosnia,Kosovo as well as bombing one of the european capital as Belgrade is.
Just to remind about the Article V of NATO org. states, in full:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the (U.N.) Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.)”
So, NATO came into existence in the beginning of the cold war era as only DEFENSIVE
organization in order to defend its member countries by possible attacks of the eastern block countries, especially Soviet Union and to suppress communism .
But in 1989 big changes occurred in those countries.
Political, economical and cultural liberalization,which has changed international relations and not only that, we have entered a new era, so called post American era. Warsaw pact that was soviet bloc military response to NATO, fell too and therewith
the threat and fight for the influence in the world .
New European and world architecture of relations has begun .
NATO has faced new challenge in what to do after.
The main function and purpose vanished, which was especially bad solution for the American national interest.
They need their strong presence in Europe
Humanitarian intervention was the ticket.
In the idea of Humanitarian intervention lies so-called Volfovich doctrine developed 1992, about policy of American unilateralism in international relations and advocates preventive military actions in order to prevent any other state to reach status of super power state and to endanger American access to oil or other resources.
NATO countries could have achieved agreement in Bosnia without war.
NATO’s mission in Bosnia (Yugoslavia) has not been undertaken to respond to or prevent an attack on an ally (like said in article 5 and Republic of Yugoslavia was not a member of any bloc )……
It was civil war which could had been prevented by peaceful settlement of disputes.
Why is not being prevented or cut at the beginning ?
American administration needed reason to be present in Europe.
In order to get this presence, American had blocked negotiations Vens –Owen(1) plan for Bosnia, so the result was that Europeans are not capable to solve their own problems in the region so America will assist to help them.
And then Kosovo problem .
Rambouillet (Rambuje –France) conference for Kosovo,which is the main example of the Alibi diplomacy(2) was another political game.
The Kosovo war was perfect use for the reaffirmation the role of NATO after the cold war and enter ticket for the Americans to be present in Europe …close to the golden oil resources, Caspian sea and Middle East.
Those NATO geostrategic reasons, before than any -Humanitarian – seems to be the main purpose of that war.
NATO, meaning America mostly, has shown credibility as the only super military power in the world.
Zbigniew Brzezinski said: ”NATO failure could have faded American leadership in the world.”
So far, non of the humanitarian intervention did show any success
but just have guaranteed American presence on this geographically and geostrategically important part in the world .
(1) Vens-Owen plan was the EU proposal map of post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 1993.
(2) Alibi diplomacy –negotiation process known also as Proximity talks is simulated in Rambouillet, in order to get public attention for the future bombing.
Leaders of negotiations (USA Richard Holbrooke) give impossible conditions which none could accept for the purpose of not to be accepted.
Parisian Figaro quoted one unnamed diplomat who says about Holbrooke :he lays he humiliates people, he is a cruel schizophrenic Mazarin.