Preston Culbertson - America's Burden, and the Morality of Armed Intervention

As I was speaking with Virginia earlier today, she reminded me of an incredibly insightful quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

Hate begets hate; violence begets violence...

I've come to realize this an incredibly relevant and poignant lens through which to view military intervention.

I think it is important to first point out that the chief moral and respected authority on both international relations and human rights is the United Nations (UN). This is the main point of the organization - to ensure common relations between states, and to protect the rights of all men. That said, due to a fundamental principle of the organization intended to promote unanimity of the world "superpowers," the Security Council veto, the UN is often unable to reach a consensus on how to intervene in a international crisis.

Despite this inefficacy, I have to question how NATO has the moral authority, or even the legal basis, to intervene unilaterally in a conflict. On one hand, it is hard for a western state to stand by and merely endure such tragedies such as the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the systematic oppression of people in Iraq and Libya, or the use of chemical weapons in Syria. But without acting with the full support of the international community, NATO's actions can serve to propagate more violence and misunderstanding.

The United States in particular has a long and sordid history in not respecting the rights of sovereign nations. Throughout the 20th century, much of our foreign policy involved protecting US business and defense interests at any costs necessary (see US intervention in Guatemala, Chile, Iran, and even Yugoslavia, to name a few). This willingness to topple regimes, support dangerous (but pro-US) rebel groups, and dismantle economies, combined with the "burden" of its superpower status, has led to the US intervening in affairs around the globe. This effectively kills any "moral authority" that the US, or any self-interested state may claim - since every state acts to shore up their own regional interests, I posit that it's effectively impossible to act solely on moral grounds.

I reject that the United States, or even NATO, has the right to intervene militarily where they see fit. Military interventions, like the NATO bombing of Serbia, can lead to generations of international tension, and I feel sets up a dangerous precedent on which future international relations will be based. In a world where NATO, or Russia, or China, or any superpower can act unilaterally to enforce international law (or to protect their interests underneath this guise), creates an international community once again based on force instead of principle. This undermines not only the work of the United Nations, but also seriously jeopardizes decades worth of work towards nuclear non-proliferation. In a world where states can aggress unilaterally, the only insurance of  safety is to become a tacit superpower by holding nuclear arms.

Due to the destabilizing effect of military intervention, I think it should only be used in cases where the entire international community supports it as a last resort to diplomacy, sanctions, and the international judicial system. Since every state is primarily self-interested, they cannot claim moral authority, and thus must act with international approval to ensure the end of imperialist/meddling foreign policy. In future blog posts, I hope to plumb the actual morality of these interventions, and the historical results of conflicts resolved militarily.