Snyder- Humanitarian Intervention

Caroline Snyder

INST 170

Professor Shirk

22 October 2015

Humanitarian Intervention

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/opinion/opinion-syria-intervention-u-s-politics/index.html

            After learning about humanitarian intervention in class, I was curious about why in some cases the United States does intervene and in others it does not. Humanitarian intervention has a very hopeful connotation. We consider anything with the word “humanitarian” in it to be a positive thing. So why wouldn’t we do something that involves being a “humanitarian”, someone who is concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare? In international relations. It is not that simple, unfortunately. In my opinion, the most important factors that go into deciding whether or not the United States should intervene is the amount of true information that a state has about the offending state, the goal of the intervention and public opinion.

            With the most recent case being Syria, why did the United States choose not to help its citizens? According to the above article, the two main factors that the U.S. takes into consideration when making a decision on whether to involve itself or not, are public opinion and Congressional partisanship. Domestic support is huge in all arenas of foreign policy.

Legislators “who push for more humanitarian missions can increase support for such missions by raising public outcry for action” (Hildebrandt). However, the public’s voice is not always enough in these cases. If there is a divided government with one party in control of the executive branch and the other in control of either the House or Senate or both, it is harder to get things accomplished. “Humanitarian intervention is most likely when the U.S. president enjoys a majority in Congress” (Hildebrandt). Presidents have been able to push humanitarian intervention without the approval of Congress though. As American politics turns more and more into a power struggle between the two parties, the less the United States is able to help other countries. Domestic opinion will have to be the leading force in the fight for humanitarian intervention if this occurs.

            I agree with all of the articles points about domestic support. Since democracy is based around the idea of the “voice of the people”, it is imperative that the government take into account what the people want. Information is also important because it can either lead a state in the right direction that is helpful and humanitarian or pointless and only hurts the country more. Facts are a necessity. It is, however, very hard to get a hold of them in situations when “mass atrocity” is occurring, Facts guarantee that a legitimate plan, that will actually be helpful, can be made and with plans, come goals. Having a goal for a humanitarian intervention are, in my opinion, is the most vital thing to take into consideration. Simply, “we want to make sure that this country’s citizens are safe”, is not enough. There is no way to measure safety. Having a laid out plan that includes specific goals for the humanitarian intervention, that can be measured or results can be shown, helps to gain international support. Goals and plans that are used in cases of humanitarian invention can be evaluated to see what did and did not work. This can be used with future events. I think that when the leaders of states have a goal with humanitarian intervention, it helps to put the worries of the public and international community at ease while gaining support from both areas as well. This also shows that there are good intentions involved which should be the main intent.