Arguments Against Humanitarian Intervention

History has shown that liberalists have failed at morally intervening in times of humanitarian crisis. In the case of Kosovo Marxist and Social Constructivist argue that the multilateral intervention was unsuccessful. The question is why humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and not Cambodia or Libya and not Iraq? What made Kosovo the exception? Humanitarian intervention is carried out by an multilateral force under international organizations like the UN (Kouchner, 4). The Kosovo precedent is key in understanding the intent of intervention and its flaws today. The intervention proved that the global community does not tolerate the killing of an entire people. It is undeniable that intervention was necessary in Kosovo. However, the style of …show more content…
Claiming that the bourgeoisie were deceiving the proletariat when defending human rights as a means to intervention. It was only another attempt for the bourgeoisie to advance class. Lenin argues that capitalism in its latest form has taken on imperialism (Lenin, 22). With society separated into two classes; bourgeoisie as the leading minority powers in control, and the proletariat, the majority of the middle class that sell their labor to gain money. In the case of Libya and Kosovo, it is hard to ignore the history of colonialism and exploitation of resources. Capitalism has become extremely a competitive arena with only the top leading elites competing for more revenue and scarce resources. It seems that a good solution to the predicament of scarce resources and maintaining economic growth would be for growing industries in order to advance the bourgeoisie class. Marxists view Libya’s intervention as being just another puppet to maintain control and connections over a large region to access resources. The relationship between natural resources and oil have long been factors in colonialism and intervention. Where colonial powers exploited not only resources but people, without any consideration of the concept of morality and humanitarian intervention. Kosovo was colonialism renewed and was used to justify imperialist actions by liberal states. This clearly can be seen with Libya, where multilateral …show more content…
It is socially constructed. Arguing that the identity of the state is ever-changing. Actors construct identities that associate with a “self” and “other.” From a constructivist perspective, the alliances created between Hezbollah, Assad and Iran; and Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the moderate rebels can be seen as a Sunni-Shia war. Similarly, the contraposition between Russia and the United States can also be understood through history and opposing ideology. With US perceiving itself as the defender of peace and democracy and Russia perceiving itself as the defender of state sovereignty. Alliances created between states continue to associate the self with allies and the other with opponents. This in part is what Said refers to as Orientalism. Where the Orient represents the “other” side, the threatening inferior majority. Thus the west representing the “self,” the superior minority. Then the question must be asked, how does the states view on the Syrian intervention affect the way it has been portraying information the public. The media and the government working to reinforce their views on the public in order to further their agenda in international politics is highly likely to be taking place. There is a symbiotic relationship between the state identity, state policies and the media when it comes to the Syrian conflict. The American media for example has long