DTIC ADA401123: Failed States: What U.S. Policy on Humanitarian Military Intervention?

41 Pages·0.08 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

Failed States:
What U.S. Policy on Humanitarian Military
Intervention?
"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion
and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by
the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own,
were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve
herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and
intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assumed the
colors and usurped the standards of freedom."1
In June of 1999, in the afterglow of what he viewed as a
successful air campaign in Kosovo, President Clinton stated that
if a state sought to wipe out large numbers of innocent civilians
based on their race, ethnic background or religion, and it was
within our power to stop it, the U.S. would intervene on their
behalf.2 At the time, Clinton was speaking to U.S. troops
stationed in Macedonia – but the rest of the world was listening.

1 Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, speech presented to the citizens of Washington, D.C., July 4th,
1823.
Report Documentation Page
Report Date Report Type Dates Covered (from... to)
2002 N/A -
Title and Subtitle Contract Number
Failed States: What U.S. Policy on Humanitarian
Military Intervention? Grant Number
Program Element Number
Author(s) Project Number
Task Number
Work Unit Number
Performing Organization Name(s) and Address(es) Performing Organization Report Number
Joint Military Operations Department Navy War College
686 Cushing Road Newport, RI 02841-1207
Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s) and Sponsor/Monitor’s Acronym(s)
Address(es)
Sponsor/Monitor’s Report Number(s)
Distribution/Availability Statement
Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
Supplementary Notes
Abstract
The question of whether or not to interene and how to intervene with military force for humanitarian
purposes is a complex issue. Problems have been compounded since the end of the Cold War and the
increase in the number of failed states throughout the world. Failed states often lead to widespread
violence, civil, wars, and mass suffering. The Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, once used as a Litmus test to
justify the use of force, has, as of late, been called into question. The purpose of this study is to determine
whether or no the recent issues and problems regarding U.s. Intervention were a result of
Weinberger-Powell or a more complex problem with the Clinton Administration’s Foreign Policy
objectives.
Subject Terms
Report Classification Classification of this page
unclassified unclassified
Classification of Abstract Limitation of Abstract
unclassified UU
Number of Pages
39
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FORM APPROVED - - - OMB NO. 0704-0188
public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters services, directorate for information operations and reports, 1215 Jefferson davis highway, suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the office of management and
budget, paperwork reduction project (0704-0188) Washington, dc 20503
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LEAVE BLANK) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
STUDENT RESEARCH PAPER
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
FAILED STATES: WHAT U.S. POLICY ON HUMANITARIAN MILITARY
INTERVENTION? N/A
6. AUTHOR(S)
MAJ. MATTHEW H. COOPER, USMC
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
USMC COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE NONE
2076 SOUTH STREET, MCCDC, QUANTICO, VA 22134-5068
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER:
SAME AS #7. NONE
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
NONE
12A. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12B. DISTRIBUTION CODE
NO RESTRICTIONS N/A
13. ABSTRACT (MAXIMUM 200 WORDS)
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO INTERVENE AND HOW TO INTERVENE WITH MILITARY FORCE FOR HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES IS A
COMPLEX ISSUE. PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN COMPOUNDED SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR AND THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF
FAILED STATES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. FAILED STATES OFTEN LEAD TO WIDESPREAD VIOLENCE, CIVIL WARS, AND MASS
SUFFERING. THE WEINBERGER-POWELL DOCTRINE, ONCE USED AS A LITMUS TEST TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF FORCE, HAS, AS OF LATE,
BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY IS TO DETERMINE WHEHTER OR NOT THE RECENT ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
REGARDING U.S. INTERVENTION WERE A RESULT OF WEINBERGER-POWELL OR A MORE COMPEX PROBLEM WITH THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION’S FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES.
14. SUBJECT TERMS (KEY WORDS ON WHICH TO PERFORM SEARCH) 15. NUMBER OF PAGES: 37
FAILED STATES, COLLAPSED STATES, MILITARY INTERVENTION,
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION, WEINBERGER-POWELL,
NATIONAL INTEREST, NATIONAL IDENTITY 16. PRICE CODE: N/A
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF
THIS PAGE: ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
Was this statement a declaration of a new U.S. foreign policy
regarding humanitarian military intervention?
The answer to this question is particularly significant in
light of the increase in human suffering that has occurred
throughout the world over the past few years. This increase in
suffering, oftentimes the result of violent civil wars, is
associated with a post-Cold War concept known as "failed states,"
defined here as "governments that cannot meet a crucial test for
the effective assertion of national sovereignty: the ability to
pacify their national territories and protect the basic security
of the people living within their borders."3 Although the number
of groups using violent tactics dropped modestly during the 1990s
(from 115 to 95), it is still safe to say that the end of the
Cold War has led to an increase in violence, chaos and
suffering.4
The televised images of the results of violence created by
civil wars begs for the type of response promised by President
Clinton. Indeed, a great challenge for any administration is how
to deal with international crisis as they burst forward over CNN.
The answer though, is never as easy as simply sending in the U.S.
military. The history of humanitarian military intervention is
replete with clashes over issues of sovereignty and non-
interference in the internal affairs of other nations.
Compounding these concerns is the perception that the Clinton

2 Congressional Quarterly Weekly, Vol 58, no. 4 (January 22, 2000): 114.
3 John G. Mason , "Failing Nations: What U.S. response?" Great Decisions, (1996): 52.
2
administration's policy on humanitarian military intervention has
been a crapshoot at best and a selective process based on U.S.
self-interest at worst. For the purposes of this study,
humanitarian military intervention is defined as the use or the
threat of the use of military force for the purposes of
establishing or reinforcing human rights in another state. As
such, the use of the U.S. military in support of disaster relief
(non-forced), or other events that lead a state to invite U.S.
military assistance will not be considered. Of concern instead,
is the issue of employing military force in a threatening posture
to end some type of suffering under the auspices of humanitarian
objectives.
The purpose of this study is to examine the current U.S.
policy regarding military intervention into humanitarian crisis.
Specifically, in a world defined by the rise of globalization and
characterized by an increase in violence and chaos, does the U.S.
have a viable policy that justifies and governs unilateral or
lead-nation military intervention in the name of human rights?
If so, is it properly employed? To answer these questions, it
is first necessary to look at the concept of the failed state -
its causes and consequences and how it drives the need for a
humanitarian intervention policy. The study will then look at
the negative aspects of intervention associated with an activist
policy. Next, the evolution of modern U.S. intervention doctrine
that has led us to our current policy will be examined. Finally,

4 Ted Robert Gurr, "Ethnic Warfare on the Wane - A New Way to Manage Nationalist Passions," Foreign
3
the study will address the issue of U.S. intervention policy
specifically as it applies to humanitarian intervention - does
such a policy exist and is it properly utilized? The study will
conclude with the observation that the U.S. is lacking not
policy, but a national identity.
THE FAILED STATE
Contrary to what many scholars and policy-makers expected,
the end of the Cold War did not ring in the anticipated era of
peace, stability and global harmony. Instead, with the collapse
of the Soviet Union and the bipolar world order, we have seen a
marked increase in wars between "political and ethnic factions
that once belonged to common national communities."5 The phrase
'common national community', as used here, is synonymous to the
term state. The most widely accepted definition of a state comes
from the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of
States which affords:
The State as a person of international law should possess the following
qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c)
government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other States." 6
Additionally, other requirements for statehood have often been
pushed, to include that a certain degree of civilization

Affairs, 79, no. 3 (May/June 2000): 54.
5 Mason, 52.
4
necessary to maintain international relations be allowed.7
Hence, the breakdown in civilization that accompanies civil war
leads to the failed state.
The concept of the failed state is extremely complex. The
generally recognized result of a failed state is a "retreat to
ethnic nationalism"8 and tribal loyalties by people who once co-
existed under one sovereign authority. This gravitation of
people toward historical ties, as it gains momentum, often
results in some form of violence and/or civil war. The unknown
variables in the process are the forces that lead a state to
collapse. These factors, if identified, could give the signal
that a civil war is imminent.
Factors of Failed States
Perhaps the recent failures by the U.S. to recognize the
impending collapse of certain states was a result of an inability
to understand that state failures do not always stem from the
same causal factors. One argument is that stresses associated
with overpopulation and negative economic growth are the primary
causes of state collapse. In places like Africa, where social
divisions already exist, a rapid birthrate can create
unmanageable problems that lead to catastrophic failures as the

6 Signed 26 Dec. 1933, 165 L.N.T.S. 19.
7 Charles C. Hyde, 1 International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States (Boston:
Little, Brown, 2 vols. 1922): 17.
5
internal balance of power within a state is upset. The process
is compounded and accelerated by the global movement towards open
market systems that has bypassed and marginalized many of these
countries.
The theory of overpopulation does not however, explain
other failures, most notably those that have occurred in Eastern
Europe. In the former Yugoslavia, the primary cause of violence
is "the result of consciously planned strategies by political and
military elites rather than irrational outbursts of ancient or
tribal hatreds."9 Over the past decade, Slovene and Croatian
leaders, along with Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, have
fueled a competing nationalism among their peoples that has
ripped apart the former Yugoslavia.
Looked at from another perspective, it appears that
governments fail and states collapse for one of two reasons: The
government was the wrong institution to lead the state or the
government turned into an evil dictatorship which in turn led to
a popular uprising. The African model, in which post-colonial
governments were built along Western ideals without regard for
tribal loyalties or territorial control, is more closely
associated with the former. Milosevic's reign of terror over
ethnic Albanians is a clear example of the latter.

8 I. William Zartman, "Introduction: Posing the Problem of State Collapse," in Collapsed States, the
Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority, ed. I William Zartman (Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, 1995), 1.
6