10.3.3 Direct & Indirect Military Intervention | Edexcel A Level Geography Revision Notes 2018

Military Interventions & Human Rights

Military interventions are often justified by nations claiming they are defending human rights
In some examples the case for this is strong, such as the NATO intervention in Bosnia:

In 1995, an attack on Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serbs led to 8,000 deaths
This led to a NATO operation, involving an air and bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs
There was a strong human rights justification (genocide, torture), which led to war crimes arrests among Bosnian Serb military leaders

Radovan Karadžić, the former Bosnian Serb leader, was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity by an international criminal tribunal

The UK intervention in Sierra Leone, in 2000, was also viewed as successful after it helped bring an end to the civil war

British soldiers helped disarm the rebel group trying to overthrow the government
They trained the Sierra Leone Army
A ceasefire was agreed and upheld

However, these interventions can be more about wider global strategic interests, such as the need to protect:

Important resources e.g. the intervention in Iraq, by the US led coalition, to safeguard the oil supply from the Middle East
Shipping routes (e.g. The Suez and Panama Canals) from becoming controlled by hostile countries, which could lead to global economic consequences

After the Six Day War in 1967, Egypt closed the Suez Canal for 8 years
This disrupted the flow of oil from the Middle East to Europe, which added to the 1970s energy and oil crises

Military Aid & Human Rights

Military aid, such as training and weapons sales, can support countries who have questionable human rights records
Donor countries argue that:

A strong military could help enforce human rights within a nation
Attaching conditions to the aid may force recipient countries to stop human rights abuses
Stopping aid could threaten national interests, such as access to valuable resources

Critics claim that:

Further human rights abuses may be committed using the weapons provided
Supporting a government that represses its people undermines the main principle of human rights
Ignoring human rights violations condones it

UK military aid to Saudi Arabia

The UK and Saudi Arabia have been close allies since 1915
In 1985, both parties made a military agreement which meant the UK would supply Saudi Arabia with fighter planes
Critics say the UK should not be selling warplanes and military equipment to an undemocratic regime, with a poor human rights record against women e.g. fathers are the default guardians of their children
The Saudi government has used UK supplied weapons in the military intervention in Yemen. The intervention:

Supports the Yemen government in the fight against rebel groups
Started in 2015, since this date the UK has supplied Saudi Arabia with $23 billion in weapons
Has led to serious human rights violations, such as bomb attacks on civilians
Has led to the deaths and injuries of more than 17,500 civilians
More than 20 million people in Yemen are experiencing food insecurity; 10 million of them are at risk of famine

Amnesty International have claimed that the military aid supplied by the UK has played a key role in these human rights abuses
It is believed that the UK government continues with this military aid to Saudi due to their trading relationship:

Saudi Arabia has invested over £60 billion in the UK
Over 30,000 UK nationals live and work in Saudi Arabia

Direct Military Intervention

Direct military intervention is becoming part of a ‘war on terror’ to help eliminate the abuse of human rights of minority communities
However, some of the combatant states use torture as part of this ‘war on terror’, which is in direct conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The war on terror

Shortly after the 2001 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, US President George W. Bush declared a ‘war on terror’
It means a war against Islamic Extremism and the groups that support it, who commit human rights’ violations e.g.
- Al-Qaeda in Southern Yemen - amputating a thief's hand without a fair trial
- Boko Haram in Nigeria - kidnapping 276 Nigerian school girls
- Islamic State in Syria - killing, kidnapping and executing civilians
The USA justified sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq as it claimed that these countries supported terrorists
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not approved by the UN, but the USA justified the invasion stating that it was:
- To fight terror
- To defend the USA
- To protect human rights
  - - The Taliban severely restricted women’s rights (banned from working, studying, showing skin in public), beating women who failed to comply
    - Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, was responsible for human rights’ violations - using chemical weapons on the Kurdish ethnic group

The use of torture and rendition

Even though human rights were used to justify direct military intervention in the ‘war on terror’, some of the countries involved committed human rights abuse e.g.

US soldiers tortured prisoners in Iraq
People accused of being terrorists were flown to a US base, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - they were tortured and held without trial for years

Under international law, including the UDHR (signed by the USA), the use of torture is illegal
By using torture and rendtion, these countries have undermined their reasons for the invasions and damaged their reputation
Organisations such as al-Qaeda, have used this violation to recruit new members
This increases the risk that American citizens and military personnel will be treated more harshly if captured

Exam Tip

Think carefully about the language and terminology you use in your answers about the ‘War on Terror.’ Keep it factual and balanced and avoid sweeping generalisations.

Worked example

Explain how a government's stance on human rights can be undermined by their actions

(8 marks)

Begin by explaining how some governments see themselves as advocates of human rights and have used them to justify military interventions
Then discuss how sometimes their actions could undermine human rights e.g. the real motivation for the intervention and how they have carried out the intervention. Include examples you have studied in your answer.
Finally, you could look at the other side of the argument and suggest why a country’s stance is not undermined by direct military intervention, backing it up with an example of military intervention, which has led to progress in human rights

Answer

Many Western governments see themselves as advocates of human rights and are very vocal about it in international forums. Military interventions are often justified as a last resort by nations claiming they are defending human rights, such as minority ethnic groups in a civil war. However, sometimes the actions of the combatant state could actually violate human rights’ laws.

Sometimes the intervention is based on wider global strategic interests such as the need to protect important resources, like oil and trading routes, rather than the protection of human rights. For example, the UK continues to offer military aid to Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi’s appalling human rights record against women and their violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen. This aid is beneficial to both countries through the amount of trade generated, but Amnesty International have claimed that the military aid supplied by the UK has played a key role in human rights abuses in Yemen by Saudi Arabia.

The US and UK invasion of Iraq was argued to be justified on the basis of protecting human rights. It was claimed that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was using chemical weapons to attack the Kurdish ethnic minority group of Iraq. The US tortured captured soldiers in Iraq and practised rendition by sending prisoners to Guantanamo Bay. These actions directly violate the UDHR, which the US and UK have signed.

However, there are times when military intervention has been successful and the combatant country has upheld its stances on human rights. The deployment of NATO forces in Bosnia in 1995 has been widely viewed as successful in terms of ending the genocide by Bosnia Serbs. Eventually, the leaders responsible for these were prosecuted for war crimes. UK armed forces intervened in Sierra Leone during the civil war in 2000. The UK mission proved quick and decisive in ending the civil war through a ceasefire agreement. These two examples were achieved without the combatant countries being accused of acts of torture.

Direct & Indirect Military Intervention (Edexcel A Level Geography)

Revision Note