Global Socioeconomic Perspectives the Issue

Global Socioeconomic Perspectives

The issue of armed intervention in other regions and countries is extremely contentious and has been hotly debated, especially since the Vietnam War. As John Hillen (1996) states, "Deciding when, where, and how to intervene with military force presents a truly perplexing set of questions" ( Hillen, 1996). These questions relate to a number of criteria and consequences of this extreme form of intervention.

My position with regard to this question is that the initiation of armed intervention by a country or nation is only justified in the face of the most extreme threat and only in cases of self-defense and humanitarian assistance. This view is based not only on the cost and the various negative implications of armed intervention per se, but also on the wider ramifications of the use of armed force in an age where technology has created weapons of mass destruction and where the interconnections between nations are becoming more sensitive and complex. In fact it is the complexity of international and global society and alliances that is perhaps one of the central reasons for avoiding the international use of force.

The effect of modern technological and even biological weapons is an obvious reason for avoiding armed conflict on any significant scale. I will argue that the initiation of armed intervention has in many instances been shown to be counter-productive in the long-term and that this stance is strengthened by the interconnected and globalized mature of the world in which we live.

The problematic nature of intervention by force is underlined by the following statement by John F. Kennedy.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. (Kennedy, 1963)

However, there are a number of criteria put forward for going to war or for armed intervention by nations. Those who subscribe to rational choice theory refer to the role of reason in the choice of intervention. This refers to the issue of intervention "…based on maximizing expected gains or minimizing expected losses consistent with the objectives and the interests of the parties making the decision" (Viotti and Kauppi, 2009, chapter 7).

Another reason that is often put forward is that intervention is necessary for the protection of political, economic and security alliances that may be threatened. (Viotti and Kauppi,2009, chapter 7). Other criterion for armed intervention include the defense of national security interests and when "The intervention has precisely defined political and military objectives" ( Hillen, 1996). In 1996, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake suggested the following criteria for the use of military force.

1. To defend against direct attacks on the U.S., its citizens, and its allies;

2. To counter aggression;

3. To defend key economic interests;

4. To preserve, promote, and defend democracy;

5. To prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, international crime, and drug trafficking;

6. To maintain U.S. reliability; and

7. For humanitarian purposes.(Hillen,1996)

This provides a broad overview of the most common criteria involved and also coincides with the United Nations Charter (1945), which specifies that force may be used unilaterally in self-defense conditions and multilaterally when authorized by the UN Security Council "to maintain or restore international peace and security" ( Viotti and Kauppi, 2009, chapter 7).

However, while there may be certain reasons and criteria for using force, I would tend to disagree with many of these as they do not take into account the reality of globalization and more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. One also has to question the 'rationality 'of these criteria in the light of the severity of the possible repercussions and diplomatic fallout.

The most acceptable criterion which could justify the use of force in intervention is when the freedom of the state of the safety of its citizens comes under real and tangible threat. However, what is much more questionable are other criteria which are vague and possibly ethically suspect. For example, the view of theorists like Clausewitz that forceful intervention is a tool used by the states to achieve certain political objectives:"….war was merely one means states might employ to achieve objectives set by political authorities" ( Viotti and Kauppi, 2009, chapter 7).

The above perspective, in my point-of-view, is unacceptable as a true criterion for the intervention by force. The reason for the rejection of this criterion is not only on ethical grounds but also refers to the consequences of armed intervention in the specter of nuclear and other forms of warfare. Therefore, the role of the diplomat has in recent years become more emphasized as an alternative to military intervention in recent years in the international global arena. Recent history provides us with some clear examples of intervention for principles other than immediate threat; such as the Vietnam War, which proved to have negative consequences for the country in the long-term.