Aubri Paredes
Professor Mark Shirk
GVPT200
At a glance, to some individuals the idea of humanitarian
intervention sounds agreeable. It is very satisfying to see human beings
deliberately going out of their way and putting their nations at risk in order
to help others who are being denied their rights. This concept of selfless aid
would be splendid if that is what it truly was. Unfortunately, some actions
performed under a “humanitarian intervention” undeniably null or even discredit
the purpose of such an intervention.
I am for humanitarian intervention when the reasons
behind it are selfless and the people, in whom you want to help, actually
seek the guidance. I understand that sometimes there might be situations where
there are incontestable crimes against humanity occurring, but the people of
that nation do not vigilantly seek guidance. In this dilemma it would be wrong
to invade the nation and call that “humanitarian intervention”, because you are
no longer engrossed in the interests of those individuals but more so in your
best interests.
Adding on to my point above, humanitarian intervention
is not always so humane. There was this instance in the Dominican Republic in
1965 in where the U.S invaded the country. The country had just been liberated
of their dictator of 30 years, Rafael Trujillo. During their first democratic
election in roughly 38 years, the people chose to elect presidential candidate
Juan Bosch. Bosch was a liberal and a social democrat. His plan was to instill
new social reforms. The U.S.A saw Bosch as a threat. They feared there being “another
Cuba”. In reference to this, former President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, “The
American nation cannot, must not, and will not permit the establishment of
another communist government in the western hemisphere”. The problem with this
was while the US viewed Bosch as an aspiring communist, most of the citizens of
the Dominican Republic saw him as their only hope for their democratic dreams. Unfortunately,
these concerns led to a military coup d'état which eventually led to the US invasion
of the Dominican Republic.
It was wrong for the US to intervene in the Juan
Bosch presidency. They intervened because of their fear that he would entrust strong
communist regimes upon the nation. After the military coup d'état, the United
States government then proceeded to schedule new elections in the Dominican
Republic. It did not matter if the people voted or not because the actions of
the U.S government told them that their vote was irrelevant. Inevitably, the
president of the Dominican Republic will be an individual that the U.S has to approve
of. This was extremely detrimental to the Dominican Republic because it
completely discredited the voice of the people.
Although it was years later, being born and raised
in the Dominican Republic I could still see and feel the impact of that inimical
loss. Nevertheless, the actions of the U.S government utterly destroyed the progression
of the nation at that time and the country is still struggling to recover from
that loss.
In conclusion, the idea of humanitarian
intervention, in its raw state, fundamentally has a just grasp behind it.
However, it is when certain individuals start to modify and drift away from the
initial concept of humanitarian intervention that the actions performed are no
longer for the best interests of that country that needs help. The unjust and
selfish invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 can attest to this argument.
Nevertheless, if you are going to invade a country under the justification of “humanitarian
intervention”, you must be assured that the intervention is in fact just that.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/25/harvest_of_empire_new_film_recounts
minutes 24:57 to 29:09 for video
http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/1965_United_States_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/25/harvest_of_empire_new_film_recounts
minutes 24:57 to 29:09 for video
http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/1965_United_States_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic
While I agree with your point and your use of the example of the DR, I do not believe that the United States would try to claim their intervention was for humanitarian purposes. The US saw tension at an all time high during this communist/USSR fear period, and they were intervening to protect themselves from communism and the spread of the red. I agree their actions were wrong, but would argue their intentions were not humanitarian but rather protective of their people.
ReplyDeleteIntervention is often a chosen course of action not to defend injustices but to defend or spread ideologies and increase power and influence. A nation can disguise their power seeking motives by claiming their reasons for intervention are completely humanitarian. I agree with you that nations should approach intervention with more hesitation, especially if it may be unwanted. I believe that only if majority of the people are suffering and desire the help and intervention of another state, should a country decide to take action and intervene.
ReplyDeleteNations should approach, not just humanitarian intervention, but intervention in general, with full assurance and the right mindset. The US, in this case, deemed the presidency of Bosch inappropriate thus invading DR. The problem that I see is the decrease of credibility in the power the US had in this situation due to a lack of a justifiable reasons to invade. However, it can be argued that the US was trying to show the power they had as an imperial nation by exerting it on another nation. However, I stand by your point, that humanitarian interventions should have the best interest of other nations and have unselfish reason behind any possible intervention, which in this case, the US did not, as it only set DR miles behind.
ReplyDelete