In Search Of: Successful Humanitarian Intervention

Back to Main

May 16, 2008

A request to readers:

I am looking for an example of a successful humanitarian intervention.

Successful in the sense that

the sum of positive effects minus negative effects ended up greater than zero
the sum effect would likely not have been achieved with other means

Humanitarian in the sense that

there was a non-artificial humanitarian need
there was no hidden political agenda

Intervention in the sense that

military means were used (not necessarily active fighting)
by one nation state (group) into another state
against the wish of the target state authorities
limited in time, i.e. didn’t end in occupation or permanent termination of the target state

Criticism of the above definition is welcome.

Is there any case that fits in completely?
Are there any cases that nearly fit in?

Posted by b on May 16, 2008 at 14:32 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Tanzanian invasion of Uganda, 1979

Posted by: Bill Anderson | May 16 2008 15:40 utc | 1

the context for #1 though is a war b/w the two nation-states.

In the fall of 1978, Ugandan troops, under orders from dictatorial president-for-life Idi Amin (1925-), invaded northern Tanzania and, after blowing up the only bridge over the Kagera River, occupied about 700 square miles of foreign territory, called the Kagera Salient. In response, President Julius K. Nyerere (1922-) of Tanzania sent an army, reinforced by Ugandan exiles who had fled their homeland to escape Amin’s tyrannical rule, across the border into Uganda (October 1978). Soon the invaders were advancing through southern Uganda after winning some skirmishes. They surrounded the Ugandan capital of Kampala, but were halted briefly by a Libyan force that had come to Amin’s aid. On April 11, 1979, Tanzanian troops and Ugandan exiles and nationalists entered Kampala, whose residents welcomed them as liberators.

not sure if that’s what b was getting at w/ his query

Posted by: b real | May 16 2008 15:59 utc | 2

No hidden political agenda? There’s always hidden political agendas. Ones peeps don’t know about, because they’re … hidden.
I agree with what you seem to be driving at, though.

Posted by: Cloud | May 16 2008 16:35 utc | 3

the Cuban intervention (humanitarian & military) into Angola starting 1975, in support of the MPLA against the apartheid South-African army.
even though cold-war geo-politics played a role, the human and economic sacrifice endured by the Cuban people leaves no doubt about their deeply-felt outrage on the matter of apartheid South-Africa.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | May 16 2008 17:36 utc | 4

Operation Palliser in Sierra Leone – with the caveat that it happened way too late, and so did not immediately quell hostilities. This example bends your criteria in the sense that it assisted the nominal government. But it opposed the defacto regime up-country.

Posted by: …—… | May 16 2008 19:05 utc | 5

The Berlin airlift satisfies most of those qualifications; the political motives were there, but hardly hidden. One might argue that it did result in a permanent occupation, however.

Posted by: Li | May 16 2008 20:08 utc | 6

Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia fits the bill as much as the others listed. There are many obvious issues–there was certainly a very, very obvious political agenda and the whole scheme was not exactly “benevolent” in any meaningful sense…but they were a lot better than the Khmer Rouge, at least in terms of people being killed.

Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | May 16 2008 20:21 utc | 7

i agree with b real & jb cool – less so li & kaohsienchih, i remember that moment as being a very conflicted one where the vietnamese comrades also gave the chinese a “bloody nose”. but then i think that an argument could be made that the ussr intervention in afghanistan was neither imperial or for resources. its geopolitical advantages for them were very thin – even at the beginning. i know i’ll be screamed at but i have never bought into the mythology of russia’s vietnam
i think there have been fraternal assistance but given the wight of us imperialism – any such fraternal acts immediately became exercises for us foreign policy to squash a people
it is clear, for those reason – that the russians were shit scared of the cuban involvement in africa because of that factor. the intervention was done without their approval & was done on the say so of the cuban politburo. in the battles against the south africans it is said that fidel directed the military expertly from a phone in a small room. there is a wonderful documentary on the cubans in africa that i posted here some time ago

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 16 2008 20:38 utc | 8

i think that an argument could be made that the ussr intervention in afghanistan was neither imperial or for resources. its geopolitical advantages for them were very thin – even at the beginning. i know i’ll be screamed at but i have never bought into the mythology of russia’s vietnam
I’m surprised, r’giap, even if you already expect to be screamed at. What was the humanitarian point? That it was not resources, I agree. That the geopolitical advantages were thin, I agree. Imperial, it’s a question. Invading Afghanistan must have been a possibility in Russian/Soviet plans for at least a century, back to Tsarist times. The invasion in 1979 was carried out because of fears of Islamic influence on the colonial territories then within the Soviet Union – Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kirghizistan and Kazakhstan. It was a question of defence of the empire, although in Soviet terms it was not defined as an empire. The Soviet Union was the last of the colonial empires (not really the last, as China continues). There was no possible benefit for the Afghans. Why could they not have been left alone?

Posted by: Alex | May 16 2008 21:06 utc | 9

there is a wonderful documentary on the cubans in africa that i posted here some time ago
i actually just got my hands on a copy no less than 2 hours ago. the english title is cuba: an african odyssey, directed by jihan el-tahri. 190 min, in english, spanish, french, german & portugese. [preview]

Posted by: b real | May 16 2008 21:23 utc | 10

alex
materially, i know you are correct but i think the kind of motives that were behind the political class was entirely different from those of the empire which not only wants geopolitical advantages but also wants to plunder the resources of those soverign nations that falls under its wheels or tanktracks. the soverign afghan govt that demanded soviet help had a great deal more legitimacy than the karzai one has or that of maliki in iraq
it was an ill considered gesture in any case & caused the u s to ‘encercle’ it in a way that had never been possible before but it is also true that the bureacracy in the soviet union by this time had become hopelessly ossified, its economy crippled by a wars tace of which it could not possibly benefit
but i knew i was making a quantitative gesture in calling afghanistan aid – tho there are those who would demonise the heroic efforts of the cubans in africa & indeed was of the excuses used by the senile to illegally invade grenada

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 16 2008 21:28 utc | 11

b real
yes, that is the film. magnificent. & you’re making me jealous to see such quality again. it is remarkably precise film & the care with which the facts are dealt are not accidentally feminine in origin. jihan is a friend of my translator (whose film ‘souvenance’ on haiti might interest you) & is extremely highly respected by other filmmakers.
lucky fellow, you

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 16 2008 21:35 utc | 12

Back to Main