 |
1. Direct Causes of War
- Intervention as a Trigger: Foreign intervention can directly trigger war, especially when a powerful country intervenes in a way that threatens the sovereignty, security, or vital interests of another state. For example, NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999 led to direct military conflict with Serbia.
- Escalation of Existing Tensions: Interventionism can escalate existing tensions into full-blown war. For instance, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam began as an effort to support the South Vietnamese government, but gradually escalated into a major war due to increased military intervention.
2. Proxy Wars
- Cold War Context: During the Cold War, interventionism by superpowers often led to proxy wars. The Soviet and U.S. interventions in various countries (like Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua) transformed local conflicts into larger wars by providing arms, funding, and military support to opposing sides.
- Modern Examples: In more recent times, the Syrian Civil War became a proxy war involving multiple foreign interventions, with countries like the U.S., Russia, Iran, and Turkey backing different factions, thereby prolonging and intensifying the conflict.
3. Preemptive and Preventive Wars
- Preemptive Interventions: Some wars are initiated as preemptive strikes against perceived imminent threats, often following or in anticipation of foreign intervention. Israel's 1967 Six-Day War, for instance, was partly a response to the perceived threat of Arab military build-up, which was influenced by external powers.
- Preventive Wars: A state might initiate war to prevent another country from
gaining a strategic advantage through intervention. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 [can be seen][was presented at the time by Bush and Blair (my correction)] as a preventive war aimed at stopping Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction, which was feared could lead to future threats.
4. Humanitarian Interventions and Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
- Humanitarian Justifications: Humanitarian interventions, while aimed at preventing atrocities, can also lead to war, particularly when they are perceived as violating sovereignty. The NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, justified on humanitarian grounds, led to the toppling of the Gaddafi regime but also resulted in long-term instability and conflict.
- Contested Interventions: When interventions are contested or seen as illegitimate by certain global or regional powers, they can spark wider conflicts. For example, Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its intervention in Eastern Ukraine have led to ongoing conflict and international tensions.
5. Intervention in Civil Wars
- Prolongation of Conflict: Foreign intervention in civil wars can prolong the conflict and increase the likelihood of it expanding into a regional or even global war. The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) saw foreign intervention from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union, contributing to its intensity and laying the groundwork for World War II.
- Regional Spillovers: Interventions can also lead to spillovers where conflicts spread across borders, drawing in neighboring countries. The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 and subsequent intervention led to the Congo Wars, involving multiple African states.
6. Economic and Political Interventionism
- Economic Sanctions and Blockades: Non-military forms of intervention, such as economic sanctions or blockades, can also lead to war. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was partly motivated by U.S. oil embargoes, which Japan saw as an existential threat.
- Political Meddling: Political interventions, such as supporting coups or meddling in elections, can lead to instability and conflict, which might escalate into war. The U.S. involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup, for instance, led to long-term tensions that contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and subsequent conflicts in the region.
Conclusion
Foreign interventionism is a significant and often decisive cause of war, but it usually interacts with other factors such as ethnic tensions, ideological conflicts, economic interests, and power struggles. While interventionism can sometimes be justified on humanitarian or strategic grounds, it often increases the risk of war, especially when it disrupts existing power balances, challenges national sovereignty, or provokes retaliatory actions from other states. Thus, while not the sole cause, interventionism is an important and frequent contributor to the outbreak of war.
Next, I asked whether foreign interventions have a record of success. Here is ChatGTP’s answer:
Interventionism, where a country intervenes in the affairs of another state—militarily, economically, or politically—has a mixed track record in achieving the aims of the intervening country. The success of such interventions depends on a range of factors, including the clarity of objectives, the methods used, the local context, international support, and the duration of the intervention. Here's a breakdown of how interventionism has succeeded or failed in various cases:
1. Clarity and Realism of Objectives
- Success: When a country has clear, realistic, and limited objectives, interventions can be more successful. For instance, the U.S.-led intervention in Kosovo in 1999 had a clear aim to stop ethnic cleansing, which it achieved relatively quickly.
- Failure: Vague or overly ambitious objectives often lead to failure. The U.S. intervention in Vietnam aimed at containing communism but lacked clear strategic goals, resulting in a prolonged conflict without achieving its aims.
2. Methods and Execution
- Success: Interventions with well-planned and executed strategies are more likely to succeed. The NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 effectively helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi with minimal loss of life among the intervening forces.
- Failure: Poor planning and execution can lead to failure. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, though successful in toppling Saddam Hussein, led to prolonged instability and conflict, failing to achieve broader goals of stability and democratization.
3. Local Context and Resistance
- Success: Interventions are more successful when they align with local dynamics or have significant local support. For example, U.S. support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s was effective in countering Soviet influence, largely because it aligned with local resistance to Soviet occupation.
- Failure: Without local support or understanding, interventions often fail. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s faced strong local resistance and ultimately failed to establish a communist government.
4. International Support and Legitimacy
- Success: Interventions that garner broad international support and are seen as legitimate are more likely to succeed. The first Gulf War in 1991 had wide international backing, which helped in the quick and decisive expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
- Failure: Interventions that lack international legitimacy often face criticism and resistance, undermining their success. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 faced significant global opposition, which complicated efforts to stabilize the country post-invasion.
5. Duration and Sustainability
- Success: Short, decisive interventions with a clear exit strategy are generally more successful. The NATO intervention in Bosnia in the mid-1990s was relatively short and helped bring about the Dayton Agreement, which stabilized the region.
- Failure: Prolonged interventions often lose public and political support, both domestically and internationally. The ongoing U.S. involvement in Afghanistan (2001-2021) faced diminishing returns over time, with the eventual Taliban resurgence marking a significant failure.
6. Economic Interventions
- Success: Economic sanctions or aid can be effective if they are targeted and part of a broader strategy. For example, economic sanctions on Iran have been partially successful in curbing its nuclear ambitions, though results are mixed.
- Failure: Overly broad or poorly targeted economic interventions can harm civilians without achieving strategic goals. The U.S. embargo on Cuba, for instance, has failed to bring about significant political change while causing widespread hardship.
Conclusion
Interventionism can be successful in achieving a country's aims, but the likelihood of success depends on multiple factors. Clear objectives, effective execution, understanding of the local context, international support, and a sustainable approach are crucial. However, even with these factors in place, interventions are inherently risky and can lead to unintended consequences, making success uncertain and often partial at best.
I hope readers do not think I have cheated in using CharGTP. I find it concise, and mostly accurate, though wrong on occasion (see above on the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein).
In conclusion, intervention needs to be very carefully thought through. The USA needs to reconsider its appointed role as world policeman, the UK needs to untie its foreign policy from the US’ apron strings, and we need to hand authority to the UN, especially with regard to Responsibility to Protect, the UN doctrine of intervention in cases of genocide and the like. And here, the index of human rights should be the main instrument, rather than violent intervention by the UN.
Next, we will look at crime as a cause of war.
No comments:
Post a Comment