Should We Save Strangers?

I beg to differ. The time of colonies, slavery, and bloody “civilizing burdens” under deliberated sovereignty orders came to an end hundreds of years ago with the settlement of human rights protecting endangered people. These latter, guaranteed by the solidary international society and its right for humanitarian intervention during the post-Cold War era, must prevail over the previously almighty state sovereignty as a step forward upon humanity’s welfare.

States failing to fulfill the condition of citizen protection not only are morally guilty but also lose their legal sovereign privileges. The Responsibility to Protect consensus has consequently been established in 2005, legalizing external action against states previously immunized over humanitarian scandals. Intervention ceasing or anticipating massive killing against defenseless as well as preventing future diplomatic “hemorrhages”, is therefore — when constitutionally applied — necessary to build a stable basis within the intervened country for the sake of the world’s well-being.

Yet, American use of force in Somalia in 1992, or in Libya during the recent “Arab Spring”, lacked of contextual and ethical pragmatism, lengthening conflicts and worsening short term consequences. This cannot be. Any intervention must, hence, first be subjected to a rigorous forecasting and analysis of political, economic and military complexities to surpass, primordial to the prevention of any failure on the peace maintenance process which might deteriorate the benevolent objective of relieving people. Therefore, in certain cases, I believe not intervening is the right humanitarian decision.

Furthermore, the lack of genuine morality and humanitarianism in recent cases has created skepticism among international society over intervention. Social pressures and politico-economic benefits being clearly recognized as leading undertaken actions, they divert them from objective helping purposes. The American subjective “war on terror” resulting from the 2001 attack to the World Trade Center ended in unethical intervention and “Taliban hunt” in Afghanistan within which humanitarian aid purposes were left to the background.

Finally, Saddam Hussein’s illegal removal as a front to American control of Iraqi oil, as well as polemic allegations that UN resolutions over actions in Libya were based on unproven testimonies, question military intervention as covering new forms of hegemony. Although I say YES to saving others’ lives, this cannot be at any price. Such imperialistic imposition of powerful international actors’ values under humanitarian alibis ultimately raises skepticism over the noble action of helping strangers.