Issues of systematic and gross violation of human rights in modern civilizations have shaped the role of developed nations in protecting human rights and dignity. America is largely expected to play a major role in preventing mass atrocities and genocide, and the reputation of the country suffers when it fails to take appropriate actions against humanitarian issues (Weiss 322). The rest of the world sees the United States as a major safeguard for humanitarian welfare because of its position as the most powerful country.
The role of the US in ensuring humanitarian welfare started after the end of the Cold War because it emerged as the most powerful country in the world. Several events leading up to the end of the cold war had led to questions about the role of international community in preventing mass atrocities. For example, the world had failed to provide humanitarian assistance to the Kurds in Iraq between 1987 and 1988 when the Iraqi government used lethal gases against the minority group (Tucker 29). The Cold War tensions between the US and the Soviet Union shifted the attention from the humanitarian issues taking place in Iraq. In 1991, the US started assuming its role as a global leader when it started encouraging a rebellion against the Iraqi government in the First Gulf War. The US, alongside the NATO allies, provided a humanitarian assistance under the “Operation Provide Comfort to Kurds” (Tucker 29). The intervention was necessary but had occurred after many people had died from attacks from the Iraqi government. Also, the US acted without direct authorization by the UN Security Council.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"How Does The Rest Of The World See The United States?".
The second major humanitarian intervention by the US occurred in 1992 when US Marines tried to restore Somalia’s government and prevent a civil war (Tucker 30). Unlike the Iraq intervention, the humanitarian mission escalated into a form of military intervention in attempts to restore the Somali government to power. The mission was largely a failure and ended with a disaster when local insurgents killed 18 members of the US forces. The outcome of the Somali intervention led to a new era of the US involvement humanitarian activities in which the government started focusing on protecting the American forces (Tucker 30). Although the US did not accomplish its mission to restore the Somali government, the response to upcoming humanitarian issues shaped the world’s expectation of its role of intervention.
The US started taking a passive role in humanitarian interventions after the mission in Somalia but other conflicts started emerging. In 1992, a civil war started after the breakup of former Yugoslavia into six provinces. The civil war was characterized by ethnic cleansing in some provinces (Tucker 30). European countries led the peace process but failed to prevent the humanitarian crisis as military forces continued attacking Muslim civilians. The US’s participation was minimal even though the government interpreted the issue as a humanitarian crisis and the civil war continued until 1999 when the US joined other European countries under NATO in a military intervention (Tucker 31). Amid the humanitarian crisis in Yugoslavia, a civil war broke out in Rwanda from 1994. The extremists from the Hutu ethnic group attacked and killed over 800,000 from the Tutsi community in ethnic cleansing. There was no active international intervention in Rwanda and the failure by the US, and other nations was blamed for the high number of deaths.
In total, the 20th century led to calls for international accountability and participation in preventing coordinated and gross violation of human rights. In 2000, the UN started initiatives on international humanitarian response against the boundaries of state sovereignty in what is referred to as “The Responsibility to Protect” (Tucker 32). The primary mission of the initiative is to end human suffering, but it recognizes the use of military intervention as a mean of restoring peace and human dignity.
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (R2P) defined sovereignty as “contingent rather than absolute” in a 2001 report (Weiss 322). This report followed a series of major incidents of crimes of humanity which went on for a long time as nation states avoided interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. The general expectation in the modern world is that acts of mass atrocities should not be tolerated even if it means interfering with the sovereignty of other nations. The US is expected to provide the leadership position in implementing UN resolutions on crimes against humanity. According to Tucker, the world has been critical to the adoption and implementation of the R2P resolution by the US (27).
The US foreign policy has been shaped by various resolutions informed by mass atrocities including the Holocaust and the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia (Weiss 323). The Holocaust and the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are major issues because of the questions directed towards powerful nations for their failure to make timely interventions on issues related to coordinated and gross violations of human rights. The White House views prevention of humanitarian crimes as a moral responsibility and a core national interest (Weiss 323). In 2012, the US government started identifying formal strategies for use in the prevention of crimes against humanity as part of its moral responsibility towards the world.
However, the US has come under criticism for some issues associated with its intervention in certain countries. For example, the US is blamed for political instability in Libya because of its military intervention during the Arab Spring (Weiss 322). The use of military intervention by the US and other states helped the rebels in Libya to topple the government in Libya. According to Weiss, the criticism of military intervention in Libya fails to consider the options faced by the US government at the time (324). The government decided to conduct a preemptive humanitarian intervention to prevent mass atrocities based on the strategy that had been adopted by the Libya’s government against the rebels. The other option was to ignore the issue and deal with the suffering by the civilians after the conflict between the two sides. The lesson learnt from the outcomes of major crimes against humanity, such as in the former Yugoslavia, is that states should not ignore incidents of gross violation of human rights. Additionally, a slow response to crimes against humanity would send the wrong signal to perpetrators if they are allowed to accomplish their missions before a meaningful intervention by the international community (Weiss 323).
In conclusion, the US is expected to play the major role in responding to systematic and gross violations of human rights. The end of the Cold War left the US as the most powerful nation, and this has shaped the world’s view on its role in protecting certain values associated with humanity. The participation of the US in humanitarian issues in the 1990s proved its ability in ending the war through interventions in other countries. Since 2000, the actions taken by the US in the implementation of the R2P are closely watched by the rest of the world because of the expectation of its role. The poor outcomes of recent interventions in Libya have demonstrated how the world views the US in relation to humanitarian issues. There are views that the country has the potential to either restore or worsen a humanitarian situation based on the strategies used.
- Tucker, Malissa M. “Lines in the Sand: Drawing Meaningful Contours for the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (In a World at War).” National Security Law Brief 5.2 (2015): 25-46.
- Weiss, Thomas G. “On R2P, America Takes the Lead.” Current History 111.748 (2012): 322-324.
