Humanitarian initiatives

Humanitarian initiatives are actions taken by organizations, coalitions of nations, or countries to reduce widespread human suffering both inside and beyond the borders of independent states. Increased globalization has resulted in increased international ties, with many countries banding together to defend disadvantaged states unable to avoid mass human rights violations. Governments or political representatives often cause human distress by disregarding the rights of groups of people living within their jurisdictions. The manipulation of the people usually takes the form of the systematic and deliberate ruin of human rights. Some of the human right abuse include genocide as in the case of Rwanda in 1994, ethnic cleansing, and forceful expulsions. Humanitarian intervention can also apply in societies where there is lack of social order or non-effective government existing in the anarchism. The lack of civil order frequently leads to lawlessness and gross desecration of rights accorded to the populace (Dexter 2008, p.31). The humanitarian interventions are often coupled to the uninvited and calculated breach of sovereignty, the nation’s rights in the name of humanity, personal rights. In most cases, humanitarian interventions require the deployment of military forces to suppress the violence or to counter the forces involved in the creation of violence. The military forces are frequently deployed to the nations that face extreme genocidal activities with an aim of reducing the ethnic encounters among the civilians or militia groups. On the other hand, there are cases when the humanitarian interventions do not require the deployment of military forces, sanctions are some of the approaches that can be used to end the human right violations, they can force the government to loosen their stance in negative approaches in governance. The processes of humanitarian interventions have become one of the major topics for discussions among the military forces, governments, think tanks from several academic fields, the international peacemakers, and conflict resolution centers like the United Nations and some of the powerful states such as the United States of America. Although the humanitarian interventions have been successful in most countries, there are several problems associated with the approaches applied by different organizations.
In many cases, the processes of humanitarian interventions involve forceful deployment of the military forces to the sovereign states without approval from the authorities that are in charge of a country. Most countries across the world have the right to self-governance and the use of external forces from different organizations are usually forbidden by the laws of the land. The laws of the international relations stipulate the respects for the autonomy of different states and the external forces are required to operate within the constitutions of diverse states which is not always the case during the humanitarian interventions. As result of criticisms from different countries, the humanitarian organizations such as the United Nations have attempted to align their policies according to the constitutions of different states in order to operate within the laws while safeguarding the civilians from violations. After the Second World War that took place from 1945, the United Nations which is a major peacekeeping organization in the world today formulated policies that required the humanitarian interventions to executed in accordance to the laws of the countries that face the gross violations of human rights (Weiss and Wilkinson 2013, p.19). According to the United Nations and the United States Charter on the humanitarian intervention procedures, the approaches have been revamped from the liberal imperialism approach to a more interactive and social approach capable of withstanding and adhering to the laws of different states. During the Second World War of 1945, the peacekeeping missions disregarded the laws of several states with an intention of ending the war or safeguarding the population from the violent war that led to over 50 million fatalities. The failure to consider the laws of the states involved in the war led to the failure of the humanitarian organization to save the casualties and to stop the war and human rights violations, many children died and also, many people were maimed. In other scenarios, most scholars argue that humanitarian intervention involve imposing ideas and western cultures on the local population, leading to the disappearance and local and valuable cultures. Other humanitarian interventions also involve the implementation of geopolitical policies aimed at strengthening the economic relations between different states, a scenario that spurs the economic exploitation by the powerful states. Whenever there is lack of economic interest, there is always no humanitarian intervention; for instance, the western powers failed to intervene during the genocidal activities in Rwanda where there no palpable political and economic interests at stake.

The humanitarian organizations often disregard less economically and politically powerful states. Under the international human rights, every individual has a right to be protected so long as their country ascribed to the laws of procedures defined by the humanitarian organization. The above situation is not always the case in some countries; in the Middle East, for instance, many children have been killed in the wars characterized by the explosions and mass killing by the militia groups such as al Qaeda and ISIS. The countries in this region have received relatively low support from the International Committees of the Red Cross (ICRC) thereby posing a lot of criticisms from different organizations on the roles that the above organization should play in defending less fortunate humanity. In the aftermath of the Second World War in 1945, The International Committee of the Red Cross adjusted its approaches od dealing with the victims of the war after their failure to protect over 50 million casualties that were affected during the war. In the year 2005, ICRC was given a full mandate to protect the victims of the internal and international wars. The victims may include both armed and unarmed civilians, prisoners, non-combatants and refugees, a situation that was not fully implemented during the World War II. The problem with that ICRC during the Second World War was that it lacked well established and an organized army nursing system capable of protecting causalities from severe injuries, they also lacked centers where they could treat and accommodate the civilians and soldiers wounded in the battlefield. The above problems limited the intervention of the organization to various states involved in the war. After 1945, there was an extensive restructuring of the of the organization’s mandates and operational procedures, improvement of facilities and adherence to the cross-cultural norms are some of the adjustments that were made to reduce the organizational problems.
The humanitarian interventions often fail to apply proportionate forces that do not terminate more human lives. During the world war II that took place between 1939 and 1945, the interventions applied by the powerful states like the United States of America led to the destruction of more properties and human life. The use of powerful military forces failed to control the war, they only fueled the encounters of different forces, a situation that led to the deaths of many people. After the war in the year 1945, the United Nations was formed to help in controlling the humanitarian interventions in order to prevent further destructions of life in the event of any war. There was the formulation of obligations that involved the use of proportionate forces that do not increase casualties during the war. The future humanitarian interventions were undertaken to promote, protect populations after the prevention of atrocities and establishment of relevant structures. The above steps were part of the international relations meant to ensure peace and security among different states. The main aim of constituting the United Nations was to enhance the peaceful coexistence among the member states by detecting and preventing the occurrence of the violence. On the other hand, the above roles do not always seem forthcoming in some states; in the Middle East, for instance, the interventions of the United Nations have failed to end the exploitation of the civilians by the armed militia groups as well as the attacks from other military powers from other states.

Lack of proper coordination among the humanitarian interventions organization is another problem often faced in the assisting the civilians. The involvement of more than one intervention groups has caused the severity of the wars. The United States of America’s involvement in the Middle East has interrupted the operation of the United Nation in the region. The presence of American military in the Islamic States has been perceived as a process of establishing humanitarian assistance yet they have a hidden agenda of exploiting the economic resources in the region. The powerful states involved in the humanitarian assistance often abuse the privilege by taking it to their advantage. These states also have influence in the decisions making the process at the United Nations. According to the United Nation’s charter, the interventions should, where possible, try to end the civilians or the government from engaging in atrocities but should, at the same time reduce the destabilizing effects to the state’s political and economic interest. In accordance with Article two, paragraph seven of the United Nations charter, the interventions that involve the control of the domestic affairs of the independent’s states are prohibited. The states involved in the provision of the humanitarian interventions should, therefore, adhere to the UN’s regulations. Regardless of the above direction on humanitarian intervention, the United Nation got involved in the electoral process in Ivory Coast and also became part of the regime change in Libya during the assassination of president Gadhafi under the auspices humanitarian intervention. Regrettably, by going beyond their mandates in the humanitarian activities and taking part in the political processes that led to the regime change, the United Nation organization undermined its integrity in carrying out trustworthy humanitarian intervention in the future(Wheeler and Bellamy 2005, p.21).
Various humanitarian intervention organizations have undergone a lot of transformations that make them suitable for downsizing the effects of human rights violations in the event of wars. These organizations, on the other hand, have failed to pursue their roles and instead, they have taken approaches that do not protect the social rights but the economic interest of the powerful states that seems to have control over their decision-making processes (Donnelly and Whelan 2017, p. 23). Since its formation, the United Nations has been involved in various humanitarian interventions starting from its action in Israeli-Arab conflict, the Korean war that took place from 1950 to 1953, the DRC crisis, the Balkan crisis and the eviction crisis from Kuwait Donnelly and Whelan 2017, p. 29). Consequently, it failed to take part in a genocidal crisis that took place in Rwanda in the year 1994, a case that required serious humanitarian intervention. The Rwandan genocide led to the death of over eight hundred thousand civilians. Even after the failure to intervene in Rwanda’s genocidal attacks, the United Nations has continually failed to live up to their mandates partly due to the conflicting interest of the perpetual members in the security council who often refuse to act robustly in cases that require urgent humanitarian assistance. These permanent members of the security usually paralyze the decision-making processes thereby undermining quick response to intervention processes in the critical situations. The resolution reached after the end of the second world war have not been implemented in some cases of wars between nations and civilians. The increase in the international relations has also led to the development of various economic and political interest, a situation that has enabled many leaders to exploit the humanitarian organizations with an aim of achieving self-interest. The common examples of the humanitarian interventions include the US involvement in the Middle East, the United Nations involvement in Libya and in Japan.
In conclusion, the humanitarian organizations have failed to adhere to the mandates established during their formation. The operation of the United Nations, for instance, have not been conducted in accordance to the sovereignty of the states, most of their actions have not been undertaken in line with the constitutions of various states that ascribed to their mandates. In some other cases, the United Nations have failed to provide support to the deadly encounters such as the genocidal attacks in Rwanda in the year 1994 that claimed the lives of over eight hundred thousand civilians.

Reference List

Dexter, H., 2008. The ’new war’on terror, cosmopolitanism and the ’just war’revival. Government and Opposition, 43(1), pp.55-78.
Donnelly, J. and Whelan, D.J., 2017. International human rights. Hachette UK.
Weiss, T.G., and Wilkinson, R. eds., 2013. International Organization and global governance. Routledge.
Wheeler, N.J. and Bellamy, A.J., 2005. Humanitarian intervention in world politics.