The external interference is the process of intervening into the state’s internal and external affairs by other states, usually more powerful. While in past times, larger states typically used their advantages to heavily influence other ones for their benefits, today the practice of sovereignty violation is widely debated and is usually condemned. The UN Security Counsil is appointed to protect states’ sovereignty and decide whether the intervention is necessary. Humanitarian intervention, for example, is one of the common justifications of the interference. If the democratic government or organization, such as EU or NATO, wants to invade authoritarian country to stop atrocities there, it seems right. The beneficial influence is another argument, commonly used by colonial countries in the past: if we will colonize those savages, we will only help them to become civilized. If a biggest country wants to annex the smaller one, it may justify its actions by stating that it will reunite the nation. In that way, while states, in general have a right to be free from interference, there are several arguments in favor of the intervention, which will be discussed thoroughly.
Argument of Humanitarian Intervention
One of the primary arguments which is used to describe the reason of intervention is humanitarian one. John Locke, a 17th century English liberal philosopher, argued that anyone has the moral right to attack those who violate someone’s right to live (Ward, 2006). John Stuard Mill, another English philosopher, living in the 19th century, argued that the thrive to liberty is the only reason to intervene. He showed the European countries intervention in Greece War for Independence as an example: they helped Greece to reach independence from the Ottoman Empire (Mill, 2006). Therefore, this argument seems to be the most viable and moral, despite it can be the mask to hide evil motifs.
Arguments: Stopping the Atrocities
From a first sight, the argument seems right: indeed, there are countries where governments are exceedingly violent, aggressive, and hypocrite. Genocides, while not so widespread as in the 20th century and before, are still happening today. Authoritarian governments pose a danger for their own citizens, as there are often police violence and personal freedoms’ repression. An example is a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, which overthrown Muammar al-Qaddafi, a Libyan dictator who severely suppressed any manifestation against his regiment (Daalder & Stavridis, 2012). The NATO intervention in former Yugoslavia in 1998 – 1999, to protect Kosovo, which wanted the independence, is another example. It was done without the Security Counsil’s mandate and the legality of this action is still under debate today (Owens et al., 2020). There are so-called rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea, which has dictatorial repressive governments and some regional influence. Invasion in these states, in theory, can be justified by the people rights’ protection, despite it in unlikely that it will be conducted without large casualties and humanitarian crises
Counterarguments: Hypocrisy
Nevertheless, the generous desire to help country’s citizens can be only a mask, under which a simple thrive of neo-colonialism is covered. Big country may use force to change the politics of another state if their current politics is not in favor of this country. The NATO actions to protect Kosovo resulted in bombardment of Serbian cities and overthrowing its president Milosevic (Thompson, 2006). Iraqi war (Rodin, 2004). The operation against Qaddafi’s regiment in Libya, while leading to democratic reforms, threw the country into unrests, and several other major countries, such as Russia and China, protested against the operation (Owens et al., 2020). Even Hitler, when invading Czechoslovakia, called it the humanitarian mission to save Germans living there (Bellamy & Wheeler, 2008). Thus, it is important to remember that under the cover of humanitarian intervention, each state will probably follow their own aims, rather than saving the country’s citizens.
Argument of Beneficial Influence
From the John Locke’s times, colonial countries justified their colonial expansion by stating that it will only benefit the less developed nation. This argument, while being similar to the humanitarian intervention, is quite different: rather than simply changing the country’s politics toward its citizens, it means a long-term influence (Swatek-Evenstein, 2021). More developed country or civilization, with higher prosperity level, might say that their interventions in a developing country’s politics is justified by the alleged economic development (Mill, 2006). In past times, it was the justification of colonization, such as UK colonization of India. Locke argued that the civilized nation has the right to colonize uncivilized ones, as it will eventually benefit them (Kelly, 2014). Today, colonization is considered unethical, but the practice of using developing country’s resources for a cheap price is still common (Owens et al., 2020). While it can actually help the country in its development, it is common that the actual motif is a drainage of country’s resources
Counterargument: Resource Drainage
Under the argument of beneficial influence, there is often concealed the plain desire to use the country’s natural resources. It was the true aim of colonial approach of 15th – 19th century, and while it is considered unethical and not in practice today, neocolonialism is still common (Owens et al., 2020). As mentioned, it is a practice when strong governments or transnational corporations use their power to exploit developing country’s workforce and resources for an exceedingly cheap price. It is one of the reasons why African states, for example, are mostly weak, poor, and corrupted: it made their resources much cheaper. If the motif is resource usage, a developed country will barely be interested in the country’s actual development.
Argument of Reunification
Argument: Prosperous Unification
This argument is the perspective of reunification of the nation, which would make it stronger and improve lives of everyone who lives on the territory. There were cases in history when prosperous unification took place: in 19th century, the unification of Germany and Italy created new states which still exist today. In the 20th century, West and East Germanies became a single Germany again, strengthening the nation and solving the artificial tension between two political systems in two Germanies (Owens et al., 2020; Swatek-Evenstein, 2021). Those cases shows that the unification of two states may be beneficial for both if they are able to solve all contradictions between their citizens and governments.
Counterargument: Annexation and Dissolution
Arguments that favor reunification may be simple a mask to hide the imperialistic aims of the state, wanting to spread its reign over the world. A bright example is the Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria in 1938, called Anschluss, which was justified by Hitler as the reunification of the German nation (Goodman, 2006). It was the preface to World War II, the most large-scale and deadly war in the human history, unleashed by Hitler in 1939. A bright current example is the war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, which started in 2022, despite the first stage was the Crimea’s annexation in 2014. Russian government justifies the war as the reunification of Russian lands and the defense of Russian-speaking people, whose rights are allegedly oppressed in Ukraine (Mankoff, 2022). There are similarities, as both Nazi Germany in the 1930s – 1940s and the modern-day Russian Federation, which justify their imperialistic ambitions by the reunification of German or Russian nations respectively.
Right to Defense and Invasion Punishment
Each country has the right to fight against the invasion, especially in case it is directed against its people. However, there is a discussion about the morality of the self-defense in case of, for example, humanitarian interference, as the state forces may start to fire in peacekeepers. There is a necessity to consider states not as the super-personalities which communicate with each other, but as complex systems, paying attention to the state-citizen relation (Rodin, 2004). The contradictory results of the NATO bombardments of Yugoslavia and U.S.-Iraqi war shows that no matter what the reason of introduction is, there will always be conflicts, tensions and even casualties (Bellamy & Wheeler, 2008). According to John Locke, while everybody has the right to defend themselves, those who respect human lives can use violence toward those who does not (Ward, 2006). Based on all arguments, the measure of the country actions’ morality may be an answer to the question whether the country use force to protect people for violence or, vice versa, cause more violence. In first case, actions are considered moral, while in second, a country should be punished for invasion.
Summary
Two mentioned arguments are the primary reasons and justifications of external interference to other states: restoring the order and peace or establishing a beneficial influence. Restoring the order may include the organized deployment of peacekeeper forces or direct invasion to overthrow the violent government. The measure of the morality is whether it is done to reduce violence or not. Beneficial influence can be justified if there is an actual economic and social development of the country. Reunification can be a good deal if it is voluntary and all parties’ interests are considered. In all those cases, the intervention follows the fundamental goal to preserve the life on Earth and, thus, can be justified.
Those causes, however, often conceals the actual motives which are not moral at all. Humanitarian intervention may hide the aim to change country’s uncomfortable government, such as in cases of invasions to Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya. The beneficial influence often means neocolonial ambitions to use weaker country’s resources and workforces. The idea of reunification is, similarly, very ambiguous: while it can be indeed beneficial to unite the country, it can be simply a cover to hide imperial ambitions, such as the current war in Ukraine.
Conclusion
States’ freedom and independence is the fundamental right of the modern international politics; however, various states often violate it under various guises. While each country follows its own interests, there are moral categories which may help to decide whether the intervention can be justified or the interventionist country should be punished by sanctions. Three arguments, mostly used for the justification, are humanitarian intervention, beneficial influence, and reunification. In addition, each country has the right to defend itself if there are any danger to its citizens: country’s defensive actions may be judged based on the country’s care for its citizens’ lives. As one can see, however, governments can cover their own egoistic aims under those seemingly moral arguments. Humanitarian intervention may mask the desire to change government to the more loyal one, beneficial influence can hide the goal to drain country’s resources, and reunification may actually be the annexation. In that way, the primary moral factor that should be considered when judging the intervention is whether the citizens’ rights are respected.
References
Bellamy, A., & Wheeler, N. (2008). Humanitarian intervention in world politics. Web.
Daalder, I., & Stavridis, J. (2012). NATO’s victory in Libya: The right way to run an intervention. Web.
Goodman, R. (2006). Humanitarian intervention and pretexts for war. The American Journal of International Law, 100(1), 107. Web.
Kelly, P. (2014). Armitage on Locke on international theory: The two treatises of government and the right of intervention. History of European Ideas, 41(1), 49–61. Web.
Mankoff, J. (2022). Russia’s war in Ukraine: Identity, history, and conflict. Center for Strategic & International Studies. Web.
Mill, J. S. (2006). A few words on non-intervention. New England Review (1990-), 27(3), 252–264. Web.
Owens, P., Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (2020). Globalization of world politics. (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Rodin, D. (2004). War and self-defense. Ethics & International Affairs, 18(01), 63–68. Web.
Swatek-Evenstein, M. (2021). History of humanitarian intervention. Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, H. (2006). The case for external sovereignty. European Journal of International Relations, 12(2), 251–274. Web.
Ward, L. (2006). Locke on the moral basis of international relations. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 691–705. Web.