The Paradox of Intervention

Over the last couple of years, the international human rights community has been confronted with several difficult situations. Two of which are the crisis in Darfur and the situation in Myanmar. The true quagmire is how to go about alleviating the internal pressure in Sudan and Myanmar in a diplomatic and peaceful manner.

Whenever these types of situations arise, it is imperative to try and find the most coherent logical solution to the specific scenario. In many cases, choosing just one option is not only difficult, it’s impractical. No matter what solution a diplomat or world leader chooses, it is imperative that they consider not only the end result, but also how they get there.

When intervening in a human rights crisis, it is important to judge how the people in power will react to any action that is essentially against their interests. Above all, the decisions made must ensure that the conditions of the people in the country in question are not made worse as a result of outside intervention.

In the past world leaders have turned to diplomacy to try and alleviate human rights crises. The theory behind this approach is to try and find common ground with those in power in an attempt to halt their actions. This may result in the leaders of the tyrant state demanding resources such as oil or natural gas, or in other cases, monetary incentives to halt their actions.

No matter what the tyrant chooses, the international community would expect to pay the money needed to basically bribe the tyrants. As rare as this may be in our world today, this happened somewhat recently in North Korea, when it was agreed with others in the international community to pay the North Koreans subsidies of oil so they would halt their nuclear production. Although this isn’t within the human rights scope it is a good example of how tyrants use these situations to get what they want.

Another peaceful method of intervention is the use of economic sanctions, a risky topic on its own. Although this is deemed as a very effective way of “stopping” a leader, the practice is just a drain on the economy. This drain, however, affects those with the least money first so, as a result, the situation for the common person, who the international community is trying to protect, worsens. Some people of far left political ideology, such as Noam Chomsky, have dubbed this practice “economic terrorism.”

In hind sight, this practice accomplishes its goals, to derail the tyrannical government. The problem that once again arises is at what cost was this achieved. An example of this is Cuba; the people of Cuba have suffered harsh economic sanctions for nearly fifty years. Today, the Castro regime is still in power, and the people who are suffering the most are those in the middle and lower classes. These Cubans suffer because the Cuban government doesn’t have the necessary materials to fix the transportation system and the utility systems and cannot provide a substantial amount of agricultural goods to the poorer classes in the economy.

Aside from these peaceful manners of intervention, force is the only other option available to a world leader. The most brutal use of force is a direct invasion of the rogue state, which has many negative ramifications. Although it may be the fastest way to solve the problem (only if done correctly and coherently), its negative effects are far and wide.

Whenever a country goes through an armed conflict, there is always a refugee crisis as people try to flee the country and the violence. Additionally, the weapons used by the military and militias often destroy or damage infrastructure and utilities which need to be rebuilt. This forced change, in some instances, opens up the opportunity for guerrilla groups to attempt to seize power thus causing an insurgent effect within the country. Situations such as these can go awry and end in international catastrophe affecting the region around the country and, in rare instances, the global economy.

The other way to use force against a tyrant is in a much more secretive manner. This has been used countless number of times by the United States government over the last sixty years; this is the use of the CIA, or another similar agency, to undermine a regime through what is essentially contra activity. In most cases, this works, it achieves its proposed goal, to oust a leader and implant another. The most notable failure, however, was the attempted overthrow of the Cuban government in 1962 with the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Although this practice may seem to be a positive prospect, many times it results in the insertion of a leader that ends up being a tyrant (such as in Guatemala, 1954).

No matter what road the leaders of the world decide to take on Darfur and Myanmar, it will have its positive results and its outright negative results. This is the paradox of the situation, no matter what action is taken, something negative will come about. The complexity of international relations is something that the average American, sadly, is unaware of. Please, educate yourself.