The three theories of international relations that we
have discussed so far are all based on an analysis of conflict and purport to
explain conflict. Realism disdains the other two, dismissing them as misguided
and foolishly placing trust in the fragile links of cooperation that shatter
when true conflict is at hand. It scoffs at the notion that humanitarian
intervention, especially in foreign policy, can be related to national
security. Disaster relief by the United States in tsunami stricken Southeast Asia,
or the French coming to the aid of West Africans besieged by radical Islamist
fighters may be portrayed as acts of good will. However, the all-so-omniscient
realism knows better; these and other similar acts are just fronts, carried out
to remind others of military might, in order to secure their national security.
While I do agree with realism that humanitarian
intervention is often an excuse to brandish muscle, for which the end goal is
the continued existence of the state, I do not think that the goals of those
who instigate such actions are so callous. In fact, I would argue that
humanitarian intervention, even though it circumvents the die-hard tenets of
realism that yowl betrayal when economics or human security even approach the
primacy of military power as a factor to be considered, helps dramatically
realism’s goal: state security.
Suppose the US sends disaster relief to Southeast Asia
after an earthquake causes particularly grievous tsunamis. Wikipedia (and
verification with another source, oh-so-watchful-eyes-of-those-grading-this)
tells me that the US, both our government and NGOs, gave $2.9 billion in non-military aid. I could not find any
cost calculations for military aid, but with 12,600 personnel involved, over 20
heavy-lift fixed wing aircraft, an aircraft carrier battle group, an amphibious
assault group, it was likely very expensive. Additionally, since this was a
non-planned expense, it likely cost even more than an operation of similar size
that was already planned and budgeted for, such as an exercise.
So that’s the cost. The benefit, as seen through
rose-colored glasses without any desire or drive to look for a more cynical
reasons, is that the quality of life of those affected by the tsunamis was
better than if there had been no intervention. Their human security was
bettered, something that idealism/IR feminism would applaud. Cynically
speaking, however, the US assistance had three benefits. It was a major PR
boost, bettering how the US is perceived worldwide, making it easier for us to
achieve our foreign policy goals, since logic dictates that the more one is
liked, the more they are gotten along with. It projected the US’s military
might in an area of the world in which it has increasing national interests.
Though a bit before its time, what with the current pivot to Asia to “ensure
security and stability (read: counter China), it neatly addressed a foreign
policy goal of countering China’s rising influence. It was more practice for
military logistics, which will streamline involvement in possible future
conflicts in the region, since “the more on sweats in peace, the less one
bleeds in war.”
Yes, realism, I know, we bettered the lives of people in
a manner that wasn’t directly conducive to building our military might,
preventing absolute gains, and ensuring the existence of the US state. Shhhh,
shhh, it’s ok. Don’t cry. Wanna go bomb the Middle East some more? Would that
make you happy?
In all seriousness, the application of IR feminism
ideals, namely humanitarian intervention, furthered the achievement of
realism’s goals. If the standing of the US improves, if projection of the
military happens, and if the military gets to run around the yard a little, the
national interest of the US is improved. So what if it happened through less
manly manner? If fighting back against China doesn't make realists happy, then
I don't know what will.
**
I wasn't able to contribute to a blog until now, since I hadn't been given permission. I emailed my post so Patrick and Professor Shirk knew I had it done in time. I apologize for the confusion.
Hi Ben:
ReplyDeleteFirst off my apologies for the confusion with the blog this week. As far as your post, I agree humanitarian intervention can boost national security. You brought up the point of the U.S. helping Southeast Asian countries after grievous tsunamis in order to have numerous benefits such as good PR and compete with China for influence in the area. Realist believe that security is the main priority for a state and power is supreme. My question for you is: do you think humanitarian aid can be considered a realist trait if the U.S. helped a random African nation with know real superpower rising around it? I think the example you made about Southeast Asia only applies to that region of the world. China is the main competitor for the U.S. If a random state were to receive humanitarian aid from the U.S. and there were no powerful nations fighting the U.S. for influence then the only benefit would be boosting PR and the joy of helping people which goes down the road to liberalism. Again, I agree with your point, I am just commenting to raise the question of if this would apply when not talking about helping a country in an area with a global power.
No worries about the technical troubles! Thanks for facilitating this blog!
DeleteI appreciate you questioning the cold, hard logic of differentiating between giving aid to more strategic versus less strategic areas of the world. In giving aid to an area without a large national interest, the benefits to the US would be largely limited to improved PR, increasing human security, and logistical practice. A show of force wouldn't have the same benefits for the national interest in, say, the Ebola-stricken parts of West Africa than it would have in the typhoon stricken Philippines. (Note: Philippines is difficult for me to spell. Perhaps I are stupid.)
Nice post Ben! You make a great point that humanitarian aid is part of realism, but could constructivism also explain humanitarian aid? We help other countries because of their identity - their rules, norms, and social structure. When we give humanitarian aid, we are reinforcing the idea of "self" and "other". I agree with you though, that when the military is involved it could be a part of realism.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree; constructivism has its place in analyzing humanitarian aid. There is much overlap in the explanations and examples used in the different IR theories that we've learned about so far. I found it easiest to only focus on how actions largely justified by idealism could also help advance the goals of realism.
DeleteWe are more likely to give aid to countries that share constructed values with us than we are to others; for example, food aid to anybody but North Korea.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, I must say as a feminist that embraces IR feminism I was skeptical about the idea of human intervention. I did tend to view it, as you put it, as "brain washing" a sort of uninvited push. I had not thought about the perspective of improving human security. You have convinced me that realism and IR feminism do have common goals, which is hard to see at first.
Glad I helped you think a bit differently! "Brainwashing" is a good way to put the phenomenon of how humanitarian actions are so often seen as done purely out of altruistic means. Even if there are no possible benefits to an act of charity, there;s always good PR.
ReplyDelete