Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention

The subject humanitarian intervention has been a controversial one for a very long time.  There have been dilemmas on the mechanisms used in the course of administering humanitarian aid, the ideal time and extent of suffering that should prompt humanitarian and the legality of intervention among other things thus resulting to heated debates on the subject (UNICEF, 2015). Among the countries that are considered to be leading in offering aid to suffering nations is the United States (US). Research on the subject denotes that US has substantially taken part in acting according to the UN doctrine regarding the “responsibility to protect.” However, there have been many criticisms on the mechanisms that are used by the US to provide humanitarian aid and the outcomes of these interventions. As a result, this particular study explores the subject to identify whether the humanitarian interventions by the United States have attained the primary aim as put by the human rights doctrine and resulted to positive outcomes among affected regions. The countries explored in this paper comprise of Ethiopia, the Dominican Republic, and Syria.

Literature Review

Hypothesis

The foreign aid by the United States of America has positive impacts towards ending infringement of human rights in the economies of developing countries. I have arrived at this hypothesis after conducting a study into humanitarian intervention particularly interventions that have been made by the United States and discovered that there are opposing critics asserting that some of the interventions as unnecessary and not by the primary aim of the “responsibility to protect.” On the other hand, there are other critics in support of the interventions made by the US asserting that the intercessions have been made with the intentions of ending human suffering and have attained their mission. Therefore, I conducted this study in an effort identify whether the United States has produced positive effects in countries that it has exercised humanitarian intervention.

Operationalization

This study employed the use of the qualitative approach to explore the subject and try to answer the research question. The data for the study was gathered through the use of documentation analysis whereby several scholarly papers were sampled basing on their relevance to the subject and the participant countries. Relevant data was then gathered from this study for comparison and analysis. Some of the independent variables in this study comprised of the level of abuse or human suffering in a country, the willingness of a nation to accept humanitarian aid from the United States and finally the UN affiliation state of the nation. These specific variables are of great significance to the study. The level of abuse is relevant in ascertaining the amount of help that the country needed in comparison to the aid that the United States offered. Also, this variable is significant in determining whether the accorded humanitarian aid was necessary. On the other hand, the wiliness of a country is imperative in ascertaining whether the US went against the law to offer humanitarian aid and to defend the hypothesis basing on the reasons underlying the resistance. Finally, membership of a country to UN is integral in validating the intervention of US in those countries. On the other hand, the dependent variable is the outcomes of the humanitarian aid about economic growth and end human suffering. The chosen countries are the most ideal since they possess similarities and differences key in exploring the ongoing debate evoking dilemma in matters pertaining humanitarian aid.

Data Analysis

Ethiopia

Deducing from the kind of problem that Ethiopia suffered, it is evident that it differs from the challenges experienced in both Syria and the Dominican Republic. Ethiopia has recently endured drought followed by hunger in the country. Lack of water and food left a majority of the citizens at risk of starvation and outspread of diseases. Therefore, since the primary intention of humanitarian intervention is “responsibility to protect” the United States provided Ethiopia with more than $450 million worth of the necessities. Ethiopia, a member of UN greatly benefited from this help and was grateful for the support (UNICEF, 2015). Therefore, it is proper to that the humanitarian intervention resulted in a positive outcome to Ethiopia which is a developing country (UNICEF, 2015). Basing on the level of drought and starvation, the need for humanitarian intervention was necessary following the fact that the state was also willing to receive the humanitarian intervention from the US. Therefore, it is proper to claim that the human intervention that the US accorded to Ethiopia is in support of the hypothesis since it followed a moral code and positively impacted Ethiopia economically taking into consideration that it is a developing country.

Dominican Republic

From the analysis table, the level of abuse in the Dominican Republic was high, but the country’s leadership was not willing to receive humanitarian aid. However, the United States forced its way into the Dominican Republic following the fact that the country has signed as a member of the United Nations. Since many people were being affected by the war and the government was unstable, it was necessary  for the US to intervene and alleviate human suffering, eliminate dictatorship and restore government stability in the country according to “responsibility to protect” political commitment. During the intervention, the US managed to reinstate economic growth evidenced by the building of new roads and learning institutions. Even though the US did not fund the nation in any way, it is still correct to assert that the intervention was humanitarian and resulted to positive outcomes mainly basing on the fact that stability was restored and the economy grew unlike during the crisis period (Chrimes, 2017).

Syria

The outcome of the humanitarian intervention that the US offered to Syria resulted to moderate results when analyzing the impact about how beneficial the humanitarian intervention turned out. The aftermath of this particular intervention was significantly contributed by the independent variables. First, Syria was not willing to accept intercession from the United States. Also, despite the fact that Syria was a member of the United Nations, they were not enthusiastic for the involvement and the level of abuse in the country was very high thus making it hard for the positive impact of the United States to be felt. The US humanitarian intervention is thus validated following the fact that there was a civil war in the country in which apart from violent means to control the situation, chemical warfare also was used. The use of chemical warfare is a crime against humanity and thus calls for “political to protect” (Dean, 2015).  Also, the situations saw an approximate of 400,000 deaths which are a crisis that calls for international involvement which the US decided to offer. Despite the fact that the intervention led to undesirable outcomes in which nine lives was lost. Even though the US acted against the UN’s wish, the intervention saved the lives of many Syrian civilians whose lives would have been lost if the U.S would not have intervened. As a result of the intervention, Syria’s economy was improved thus confirming that the hypothesis is valid. Through the $7.7 billion that the US has given to Syria, it is apparent that they have significantly helped the country by positively impacting their economy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the outcome of humanitarian intervention by the United States was significantly affected by the level of abuse, the willingness of the troubled countries to receive aid and their membership in the United Nations. Therefore, it can be asserted that the independent variables significantly affected the dependent variable. The findings of this study are in support of the hypothesis since all of the humanitarian interventions that the US offered to Ethiopia, Syria and the Dominican Republic positively impacted to grow the economies of the countries and ending the suffering.  Future studies ought to conduct statistical analysis of the revenues gained in these countries and the level of appreciated depicted by citizens of these countries after the humanitarian intervention by the United States.

References

ABRATT, D. (2017). U.S. Intervention in Syria: A Legal Responsibility to Protect. Denver Law Review, 95(1), 21-71.

Chrimes, P. (2017). Dollar diplomacy by force: nation-building and resistance in the Dominican Republic. International Affairs, 93(6), 1507-1509.

Dean, S. E. (2015). US Syria Policy: Too, Little, Too Late, or Wise Restraint?. Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly, 5.

ETHIOPIA: Drought Crisis, Cash Shortfall. (December 01, 2017). Africa Research Bulletin: Economic, Financial and Technical Series, 54, 10.)

Gleijeses, P. (2018, February 15). The United States Invasion of the Dominican Republic, 1961–1966. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0071.xml

Humud, C. E., Blanchard, C. M., & Nikitin, M. D. (2018, Feb. & march). Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf

Idris, I. (2016, January). Economic impacts of humanitarian aid. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from http://www.gsdrc.org/publications/economic-impacts-of-humanitarian-aid/

Morello, C. (2017). United States gives Ethiopia $91 million in drought aid for food and medicine. The Washington Post.

UNICEF. (2015). Ethiopia: Drought Crisis. Immediate Needs Overview. Print.