Humanitarian Intervention: An Analysis

Not only does the spread of democracy serve the security interests of the United States, it could be argued that the attempt to spread democracy is morally defensible. This relies on the idea the democracy is the morally superior regime. As Janzekovic and Silander (2013, pp. 91), writes “The collective identity of Western community is based on a liberal view of human rights regarding individual freedoms, political rights and civil liberties”. Given this, it could also be said that despite its undesirability, Western democratic states would be in the best position to undertake humanitarian intervention. This is what Fiala (2008, p 48) brands as “American exceptionalism”. It also goes to the very crux of the imperialism argument. However, as …show more content…
Intervention is meant as a last resort, and obvious attempts by Western powers to circumvent other processes in favour of militant action should be treated with caution. However, as depicted in this essay, non-Western states are just as likely to place their national interests above humanitarian concern by vetoing intervention action in the United Nations Security Council. Secondly, the argument that the West has historically demeaned humanitarian interventions credibility by using it to remove regimes and promote social change fails on the basis that it nevertheless has humanitarian aims at its core. There should be no contention where the removal of a head of state results from intervention in the case where it is that very person committing acts that violate the rights of individuals. There will always be some other alternative, but as has been the historical case in many events, large scale killing can occur in short periods of time, it is thus imperative that intervention is not sidelined whilst major powers play off against one another’s