UNIT 19 INTERVENTION/INVASION

Structure 19.1 Introduction 19.2 Concept of Intervention

19.2.1 Origin of Concept of Intervention

19.3 Types of Intervention

19.3.1 Purpose of Intervention 19.3.2 The Motive of Intervention

19.4 Nature and Frequency of Foreign Intervention 19.5 Interventions since Second World War 19.6 Humanitarian Intervention 19.7 Summary 19.8 Exercises

19.1 INTRODUCTION
Intervention is a word used to describe an event, (something that happens in international relations). The event might take a form as significant as the entry of one state into a violent conflict within another state or as apparently insignificant as an ill-chosen remark made by a statesman about the affairs of a foreign state. The fact that the same word is used to describe such diverse phenomena turns the focus of attention from intervention as an event to intervention as a concept, in order to decide what it is that is common to each case. This is the task of definition and three general observations about it arise from these statements: In the first place, because intervention is a word used to describe events in the real world, and not a purely abstract concept, freedom to stipulate an arbitrary definition is limited. Second, because intervention is a term used to describe such a broad range of activities in international relations, it is unlikely that any definition can capture the whole of reality. And in the third place, disagreement about the concept of intervention, about the sorts of activity that are to be called intervention and what it is that makes them similar, casts doubt upon any idea that painstaking research could uncover the essential meaning of intervention.

19.2 CONCEPT OF INTERVENTION

When one country interferes by force in the internal affairs of another country, the act is called intervention. An example of intervention was the demand by the US government in April 1898 that Spain withdraw its troops from the island of Cuba, which was then in rebellion against Spanish rule. Nearly all-powerful nations have at some time or other, intervened in the affairs of weaker neighbours. According to some international lawyers, a country has the right to intervene in the 9

affairs of another whenever it sees a threat to its own peace and safety or to the property or persons of its citizens. Today, it is generally believed that intervention should take place only under the authority of an appropriate international organisation, such as the United Nations. Intervention in international law means the dictatorial interference by a state in the internal affairs of another state, or in relations between two other states. It is formally forbidden by a number of treaties, especially among American republics, and has been described as illegal in essence and justified, if at all, only by its success. Not all intervention has been selfish, predatory, maleficent or unsought. Not all has involved a disproportionate exercise of strength by the great power, although the disproportionate strength was usually in the background. Much of it has been reactive. Intervention, mediation and interposition Intervention is distinguished from mediation or the offering of advice by a state after a request by other states, and from representations or protests that concern the demanding states own interests or rights. It is also distinguished from interposition, or forcible action by one state in the territory of another to protect its nationals, and from defensive action against military action or aggression. It may take the form of another military or diplomatic action but diplomatic intervention implies resort to force if the demands are not complied with.

19.2.1 Origin of the Concept of Intervention

As a technical term the word intervention is of comparatively modern origin, but the idea comprised in it may be traced back to E. de Vattel, the Swiss jurist, whose Droit des gens was first published in 1758. He laid down the general rule of state independence that every state has the right to govern itself as it thinks fit, adding the corollary that no foreign power has a right to interfere with a state apart from friendly help unless it is asked to do so or unless prompted by special reasons. The notion that states were independent was recognised in theory, but in the European practice of that age little attention was paid to it by the more powerful states when it did not suit their purpose. The writers on international law who succeeded Vattel forged and welded the materials scattered throughout his book into a more compact form, but it was some time before interference was insulated as a substantive branch of international law and longer still before it acquired intervention as a technical name. This hardened as a distinctive term during a period extending roughly from 1817 to 1830. The reason for its swift evolution during this period is paradoxical. The gross infractions of state interference were so numerous that jurists were forced to give the topic of intervention, whether justifiable or otherwise, an increasing amount of attention. Within the brief span of the twelve years between 1820 and 1832 the Holy Alliance exploited its principles of interference in Naples and Spain; Greece and Belgium became independent states by the intervention of foreign states and the French and Austrian interventions balanced one another in Italy.

19.3 TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS

There are three distinct varieties of intervention. The commonest type, the type which has been discussed in the above historical sketch, is internal intervention or interference by one state between disputant sections of the community in another state, the matter of dispute being usually but not invariably some constitutional change. Internal intervention, when it occurs, is directed 10

against abnormal conditions resulting from internal strife, and as a general rule, the expectant treatment of non-intervention has come to be preferred to the surgery of intervention. A second type of intervention so called consists of punitive measures adopted by one state against another to enforce the observance of treaty engagements or the redress of illegal wrongs. Such interventions occurred with considerable frequency throughout the 19th Century, as for example, the blockade by France in 1838 of the coast of Argentina on the ground of the alleged ill treatment of French subjects by the local government; the warlike expedition sent jointly by England, France and Spain in 1861 to compel Mexico to repay their debt; the English embargo on Greek shipping in 1850 as a means of redressing the wrongs suffered by Don Pacifico and other British subjects; the naval expeditions dispatched against Korea in 1866 by France and the United States to punish in the one case, the murder of a French apostolic vicar and in the other, the destruction of an American vessel and the massacre of its crew. A third type of intervention, usually referred to as external intervention, consists of interference by one state in the relations usually the hostile relations of other states without the consent of the latter. The great majority of such interventions have had as their aim the promotion or settlement of a war between the states interfered with. External intervention usually involves participation by the intervener in a war, and the modern international law does not profess to classify the causes of war as just or unjust. But since the institution of League of Nations (formed in 1919), this doctrine has been seriously modified. Article II of the Covenant of the League declared that any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any members of the League or not, is a matter of concern to the whole League, which shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. Not only are elaborate provisions made in other articles for the settlement of disputes between member states but also certain topics are expressly specified as generally suitable for arbitration. Since all the three forms of intervention involve force or the threat of force, the question is raised as to the difference between intervention and war. This is found to lie not in the acts of the parties but in the intention of one of them. The intervening state in spite of the hostile character of its conduct and of its recognition as such by the state affected usually regards pacific relations as uninterrupted. The claim of the intervener may be reluctantly acquiesced , in which case the intervention is non-belligerent; or it may be taken up as a gauge of war, and then it becomes belligerent. As to the distinction between intervention and war, W.E. Hall wrote: [R]egarded from the point of view of the state intruded upon, it (intervention) must always remain an act, which, if not consented to, is an act of war. But from the point of view of the intervening power it isa measure of prevention or of police, undertaken sometimes for the express purpose of avoiding warit may be a pacific measure, which becomes war in the intention of authors only when resistance is offeredHence although intervention often ends in war, and is sometimes really war from the commencement, it may be conveniently considered abstractedly from the pacific or belligerent character which is assumed in different cases. Further, intervention, as a type of activity can be seen as military intervention or economic intervention. Military intervention might be one such type, taking place when troops are dispatched to keep order or to support a revolution in a foreign state, or when military aid is given to a government whose internal position is insecure or which is in conflict with a neighbouring state. It has been argued that the very presence or display of armed force, such as the location of the American Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, has an effect on the politics of the littoral 11

states tantamount to intervention in their affairs. Economic intervention might constitute another type of intervention, occurring when strings are attached by the great powers to aid given to the small or when an economically developed state denies a contract to an underdeveloped primary-producing state. Various sorts of political intervention might be said to take place when hostile propaganda is disseminated abroad, when moral support is lent to a revolutionary struggle within another state, when recognition is refused to an established government, or when a member state of the Commonwealth insists on discussing the internal affairs of another member at a primer ministers conference.

19.3.1 The Purpose of Intervention

The purpose of intervention is the end toward which it is directed, the thing that it is designed to achieve. The balance of power, the interests of humanity, and the maintenance of ideological solidarity are but three of the ends which states have pursued by intervention, and it might be argued that the compilation of a catalogue of purposes of intervention is of little value in defining intervention, because it would tend to become a general account of states motives for action in foreign policy. If intervention takes place for the purpose of forcing a delinquent state to submit to the recognised rules of international law or to punish a breach of the law or to neutralise the illegal intervention of another, then it has been argued that it is a lawful activity. Whenever an intervention can be said to take place by right, it never constitutes a violation of external independence or territorial supremacy. But this definition of intervention refers to dictatorial interference in the internal or external affairs of a state, and dictatorial interference clearly implies a violation of external independence or territorial supremacy. This is the core of the confusion between the use of the word intervention as a description of an event in international relations and its use as a normative expression by international lawyers. If intervention by right is held not to violate the independence of the target state, a violation which features in most definitions as the thing, which above all differentiates intervention from other phenomena, then it is to be understood that intervention by right is not intervention. However difficult it may prove, there can be no objection in attempting to distinguish lawful from unlawful intervention, but excluding lawful intervention from the class of events called intervention does not advance the attempt.

19.3.2 The Motive of Intervention

The motive of intervention is political rather than legal. The US has, in pursuance of policies related to the Monroe Doctrine intervened in Caribbean republics-in Cuba to establish the independence of that state, and in others to maintain order and international obligations. It has been party to treaties that permitted intervention in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and the Panama, although these treaties were subsequently terminated in accordance with the good neighbour policy. Since Second World War, the US has intervened in Greece, Lebanon, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam to contain communism, although other grounds such as protection of national or collective self defence were also asserted. Also, the Soviet Union had entered Hungary and Czechoslovakia to maintain communist control, and Great Britain and France have intervened in Egypt in 1956 to prevent nationalisation of the Suez Canal.

12

The great powers have frequently intervened, sometimes collectively, to prevent a state from becoming so powerful as to disturb the balance of power. A system of international relations based on equilibrium of power can hardly avoid occasional intervention of this kind. Intervention to stop gross inhumanities against minorities or dependent peoples has also occurred, and has been considered justifiable if the purpose was genuinely humanitarian. Often such interventions have veiled political objectives. The League of Nations Covenant declared that the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations, and the UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Action authorised in pursuance of these provisions, as by the UN in Korea and Congo, has, sometimes been called collective intervention, and is undoubtedly legal if in pursuance of the authority given to the organisation by its members. The prevention of situations that will induce states to intervene in the affairs of others is the major problem of international law and international organisation and can hardly be solved without, in some degree, subjecting the sovereignty of states to a world order. Nations continue to be reluctant, however, to surrender their sovereignty in this manner.

19.4 NATURE AND FREQUENCY OF FOREIGN INTERVENTIONS

The legal notion of sovereignty notwithstanding, governments frequently intervene in the domestic affairs of other states. But as intervention contradicts the international legal norm, officials usually take the position that only other (unfriendly) governments engage in interventions, whereas they themselves do not practice intervention. Moreover, to the extent that they admit their own intervention, they tend to justify their action as resulting from an invitation or a request by a friendly government under duress, or as being a regrettable reaction against a hostile governments prior intervention. You should note, however, that intervention is not restricted to interference in the domestic affairs of another country. As already mentioned, we are using the term intervention to refer to any involvement by a government in a conflict situation that does not concern it in a direct or major way. Intervention can take the form of covert activities. For example, in the early 1970s, the US government provided funds to friendly conservative politicians in Chile in order to prevent the election of Marxist president Salvador Allende, and it conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the Indo-china War. Intervention can also take the overt form of massive and direct military assistance to a friendly regime in trouble, such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the US participation in the Vietnam War during 1965-1973, and the Chinese entry into the Korean War in 1950. Between these two extremes, there is a great deal of variation in the secrecy, scale, and direct involvement of the intervener. For example, although in 1961 the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supplied and organised a group of Cuban exiles in their attempt to overthrow Fidel Castros communist government, the US military forces did not engage in direct combat when the invasion was launched. Moreover, although never officially acknowledged, the US governments role in this attempt to overthrow another government (known as the Bay of Pigs episode, named after the place where the invasion forces landed) was an open secret. Until the Watergate era, the CIAs other covert activities, such as its plots to assassinate Fidel Castro, of foreign intervention were less well known. Among the 106 civil wars that were identified by Small and Singer for the period 1816-1980, 13

21 involved substantial foreign military intervention. That is, about 20 per cent of the civil wars became internationalised. More than one country intervened in some of these wars (e.g., the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War). There were altogether 33 cases of substantial foreign military intervention in civil wars. The following table shows the most active interventionists in other peoples civil wars. The United States and the United Kingdom head the list with six interventions each. The five interventions undertaken by France place it a close third. The record of intervention showed in this table, however, is understated for two reasons. First, only substantial military interventions were counted. The coding rules used by Small and Singer define substantial as meaning that the intervening state must commit at least 1,000 troops or suffer 100 battle deaths. As a result, small-scale interventions are not included in this table. Second, there were many situations that did not qualify according to the definition of civil war used by Small and Singer, but that nonetheless experienced foreign intervention. The Bay of Pigs episode mentioned earlier is such an example. Similarly, Soviet military forces did intervene in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and, most recently, Afghanistan, even though the internal turmoil of these countries did not qualify as civil war.
Military Intervention in Others Civil Wars, 1816-1980

The Intervener

Number of Interventions 6 6 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Countries Experiencing Civil War

United States United Kingdom France Portugal North Vietnam Japan Syria Belgium Cuba Egypt Finland Germany Italy Russia South Vietnam

USSR/Russia, Lebanon, Vietnam, Laos, Dominican Republic, Cambodia Portugal, Spain, Argentina, China, USSR/Russia, Greece Spain, Argentina, Morocco, USSR/ Russia Spain Laos, Cambodia USSR/Russia, China Jordan, Lebanon Zaire Angola Yemen Arab Republic USSR/Russia Spain Spain Iran Cambodia

Source: Melvin Small and J. David Singer, Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816-1980 (Beverly Hills, California:Sage, 1982). 16-1980 (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1982). 14

19.5 INTERVENTION SINCE SECOND WORLD WAR

Korean War Although two different political governments had emerged in Korea by 1947, the fact that they were still only provisional governments gave the Korean people hope for a possible unification. Up until this time, nationalists from both the North and the South continued their efforts to negotiate a unification treaty; however, irreconcilable differences between the US and the Soviet Union prevented any such goal. Eventually, the US concluded that the chasm that existed between the US and the Soviet Union in establishing a unified Korea was insurmountable and so they pressured the United Nations to allow for a general election in Korea. Suspicious of foul play by the US, the Soviets refused to allow the election to be held in North Korea. Nevertheless, the US advocated that voting should still be carried out in the south in order to establish some sort of legitimate government, and so in May 1948, South Korea held its first general elections. Thereafter, the Republic of Korea (ROK) was established and was promptly recognised by the United Nations as the legitimate government of Korea. Up until and through these elections there were heavy protests by Korean leftists who feared that this election would kill all chances for unification. During the same time the north followed with similar actions by holding its own elections. When the votes were tabulated, Kim Il Sung was declared president of the new Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPKR), which was immediately recognised, by the Soviet Union and other communist countries as the legitimate government of North Korea. By winter of 1948 the worst fears of Korean Nationalists were confirmed as Korea became permanently divided at the 38th parallel. In May 1948, a communist government was formed in North Korea, and Soviet Union instantly recognised it. Other East European countries followed suit. The two Koreas were involved in mounting conflict with each other while the US and USSR forces moved out of the two Koreas. With deteriorating relations in the wake of Cold War, Korea became an additional point of conflict. On 25 June 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea. The matter was immediately reported by the US to the Security Council. A UN unified command was set up, under the commandership of General MacArthur of US. The UN forces, hence, (most of them US troops) freed South Korea, but did not stop on the dividing line, the 38th parallel. They began pushing the North Koreans inside their territory and reached almost till the Chinese border. This certainly was not the spirit of the UN Security Council resolutions. An armistice was signed only in July 1953. The Korean War came to an end, leaving behind an intensified Cold War, heightened antiCommunist propaganda by the US and increased mutual hate and distrust. Suez Crisis The Egyptian decision to nationalise the Suez Canal in July 1956 led to a serious crisis involving the use of force by Israel, Britain and France. The invasion was universally condemned but the Soviet Union got the opportunity to threaten rocket attack on Anglo-French forces. America retaliated by counter threat. The United Nations compelled the British, French and Israelis to terminate their military action. The threatened rocket attack did not take place. Britain and France suffered humiliation. By their threatened intervention, the Soviets gained a sizeable propaganda victory in the Arab world. In the mid and late 1950s, however, Cold War moved into new arenas. As position in Europe 15

and East Asia stabilised, the great powers increasingly turned their attention to the Third World, the newly independent states of the West Asia, South East Asia and Africa which were struggling to develop viable economies and to establish national identities. Soviet-American competition in the Third World produced the first of many explosive confrontations in the Suez Crisis of 1956, when the US withdrew an offer to assist Egypt in constructing a gigantic dam on the river Nile; the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalised the Suez Canal. Dependent on the Mediterranean lifeline, Britain, France and Israel subsequently launched military action against Egypt. The Soviet Union backed Nasser, and Khrushchev even threatened to use nuclear weapons against the Western allies. Fearful that the Soviet Union might exploit the crisis to extend its influence in the West Asia, the Eisenhower administration forced Britain and France to withdraw. The crisis ended, but it only added to intensify the Cold War rivalry. The Russians expanded their assistance to Nasser and sought to gain influence in the other West Asian nations. The US enunciated the Eisenhower Doctrine, which offered aid to any West Asian nation threatened by Communism. Cuban Missile Crisis The island of Cuba in the Caribbean is located at a distance of 90 miles from the US state of Florida. In 1898, United States freed Cuba from Spain. The United States acquired the right to intervene through the incorporation of Platt Amendment in the Constitution. In 1952, Batista, who had served as president of Cuba from 1940 to 1944, returned to power and established his dictatorship in Cuba that lasted till 1959, when Fidel Castro managed to capture power. In 1961 he formally declared himself as a Marxist. On the assumption of power, Castro tried to concentrate all the powers in his own hands and tried to establish a dictatorship. Castro also tried to free the Cuban economy from American dependence and decided to ally with a new paymaster USSR. Thus he converted Cuba virtually into a satellite of Soviet Union. Cuba further proceeded with the nationalisation of American property. The US reacted by stopping purchase of Cuban sugar and even severed diplomatic relations with Cuba. In the meanwhile a large number of anti-Castro Cubans moved to the US. Their strength increased so much so as to be able to form a Cuban army in exile. In April 1961, president Kennedy permitted the Cuban exiles to invade the island in the hope that the Cubans would rise and support the liberating forces against Castro. However, the invasion was a complete disaster. The failure of the mission (popularly known as Bay of Pigs) greatly enraged the American public opinion. In the meanwhile Soviet prime minister Khrushchev announced his decision to set up a Soviet base in Cuba with Soviet missiles, which posed a serious threat to the security of the United States. In fact, since mid-1961, Soviet Union had been supplying armaments including missiles to Cuba. As the installation of these missiles in Cuba put the United States in direct firing range from Cuba, US claimed that it posed a serious threat to its security. Though Khrushchev assured US that these missiles were installed only to strengthen Cuban defence and were not meant for any offensive use, this did not satisfy the US. In the meantime in October 1962, Soviet Union dispatched yet another vessel allegedly carrying long range missiles. However, before this could actually reach Cuba, US announced the blockade of Cuba. Although Soviet Union denounced the blockade, the Soviet missiles carriers moved up to the quarantine line and stopped there. Moscow finally ordered these ships to return home, thereby diffusing a situation, which could have converted into a nuclear war. Soviet Union subsequently, dismantled the missile bases in Cuba. Vietnam War The Vietnam War proved to be a disastrous adventure of the American foreign policy. The 16

Geneva Agreement of 1954 confirmed the exit of French from the whole of Indo-China. It also created two Vietnams, but they never lived in peace. The elections that were to be held in the two parts in 1956 were never held. Instead the war began which lasted almost twenty years and finally led to the creation of one unified Vietnam under the communist rule. While North Vietnam was helped by the Soviet Union, it was mainly the American intervention that made the Vietnam War different from other wars between the two neighbours. Both China and Soviet Union were interested in bringing the conflict to an end and prevailed upon North Vietnam to accept the Geneva Agreement. As South Vietnam did not respond favourably to the Geneva Agreement, a war broke out between North and South which lasted for almost 20 years and proved to be the most destructive war in the post Second World War period. The foreign policy-makers of the United States made several miscalculations and became responsible for a prolonged war in which large numbers of casualties were suffered by both the Americans and the Vietnamese. Eisenhowers decision to provide American military and economic assistance to Ngo Dinh Diems regime was not in conformity with the US policy of free elections to decide the contentious issues. When Kennedy assumed office in January 1961, Vietnam was already Americas costliest commitment. By 1963, America got more deeply involved in South Vietnam. In 1964 the first bombing raid was made over North Vietnam, which soon became a regular feature for the Vietnam War. By the close of 1972, the futility of continued war with Vietnam was realised. This led to the Paris Agreement in January 1973, whereby a cease-fire was established, which did not last very long. In 1974-75 the North Vietnamese launched an offensive against South Vietnam. The then regime of South Vietnam collapsed and the city of Saigon was captured by the communist troops on 30 April 1975. This marked the end of Vietnam War and the whole Vietnam came under communist control. Soviet Intervention in Czechoslovakia Yugoslav secession in 1948, and the uprising in Poland and Hungary in 1956 had caused upheaval in the communist system. The USSR could not afford to allow Czechoslovakia to follow Yugoslav example. Josip Broz Tito was still alive and popular, and in Rumania, Ceausescu was making uncomfortable gestures. The prospects of Czechoslovakia, under Dubeck sliding out of the Soviet Bloc were disturbing. By June 1968, Soviet prime minister Kosygin had visited Czechoslovakia, and Dubeck and other reformist leaders had visited Moscow. When Warsaw Pact forces began manoeuvres in Czechoslovakia, the situation became very tense. The French and Italian Communist parties tried to mediate. West Germany got so alarmed that it withdrew its troops from the Czechoslovak border to belie the rumours that Germans were instigating the popular reformists. During mid-1968, Soviet Union alleged that a cache of American arms had been found in Czechoslovakia. This allegation was sought to introduce Cold War politics in an essentially internal crisis of the Communists. Soon the Soviet troops began to move out of Czechoslovakia, but suddenly Soviet intervention took place on 20 August 1968, when the Soviet, East German, Polish, Hungarian and Bulgarian troops marched into Czechoslovakia. It was considered as a violation of the Czech sovereignty and in October 1968, Czechoslovaks were asked to sign a treaty permitting Soviet troops to be stationed in Czechoslovakia. The Soviet action in Czechoslovakia was a mild intervention. From a Soviet point of view, it was a regrettable necessity. 17

Afghan Crisis Tension was developing between the East and the West after the Helsinki Summit in 1975. The areas of tension were outside Europe. However, the Cold War returned with the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan. The West described Soviet action as an invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a monarchy till Mohammed Daud deposed King Zahir Shah in 1973. Daud abolished monarchy and himself became the president of the new Republic. Daud decided to seek weapons from the Soviet Union to restore balance of power in the region. Earlier, Daud had been supported by Peoples Democratic Party, which soon split into two factions: one led by Mohammed Taraki and Hafizullah Amin and known as the Khalq, and the other led by Babrak Karmal, called Parcham. Having consolidated his position, Daud played off East against the West and sought help from the Shah of Iran. He persecuted both the factions of Peoples Democratic Party, and in 1977 put some of their leaders in jail. Meanwhile, both the factions had penetrated into the army and had even made a sort of truce with each other. The tables were turned and Mohammed Daud was ousted in 1978. Hafizullah Amin took over as Afghan president in September 1979. Meanwhile, in Iran, Shah had been deposed and Ayatollah Khomeinis volunteers had seized the US Embassy and taken many Americans as hostages. The USSR felt that America might organise a coup in Iran. In anticipation that Amin would join hands with America, Soviet Union decided to get rid of him and tighten its grip on Afghanistan. The Soviet forces entered Afghanistan towards the end of 1979. Amin was arrested and executed. Babrak Karmal came back from the Soviet Union and was named the president. This action was described and justified by the Soviet Union as a painful intervention to keep the US imperialists away from the country. Gulf War The first major international crisis after the Cold War occurred in West Asia during 1990-1991. The attack by Iraq on neighbouring oil-rich Kuwait, conquest and annexation of Kuwait into Iraq as its nineteenth province marked the first phase of the crisis. When all efforts to persuade Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait failed, and peaceful solution appeared to be impossible, the 28-nation coalition, led by the United States and authorised by the UN Security Council, waged a war on Iraq and liberated Kuwait. This was the second phase of what is called Gulf War II. The IranIraq War of 1980-88 may be described as Gulf War I. The prolonged war had been generally indecisive, though Iraq claimed eventual advantage. As Iran had already come under the Islamic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, America had generally supported Iraq in that war, without being actually involved in it. It is the Gulf War of 1990-91, which threatened the international peace with injected Arab-Israel conflict input and an attempt to give it an ideological colour.

19.6 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

The concept of humanitarian intervention is not new-it has long been part of the inventory of European power politics. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention remained an integral part of the European powers conduct of foreign policy from until the First World War. The theory implies that whenever its very government violates the human rights of the population of a given state, another state or group of states has the right to intervene in the name of the socalled international community, thus temporarily substituting their own sovereignty for that of the state against which the intervention is directed. More recently, in a space of just a few months, from March to September 1999, the global 18

community witnessed major interventions in defence of human rights and self-determination in Kosovo and East Timor. Although carried out by different coalitions of forces and acting under different mandates, these two interventions signalled that it could well be an increased emphasis on humanitarian intervention by the international community at the seeming expense of the principles of state sovereignty and non-interference in a countrys domestic affairs. Such interventions have sought to compel a change in behaviour regarding the widespread abuses of human rights (Kurds and Kosovars). Intervention and Non-intervention Intervention having been discussed, non-intervention might be said to be the circumstance in which intervention does not occur. But beyond the accident of non-intervention, a state might be said to follow a policy of non-intervention when it chooses not to intervene in a situation where intervention also is a possible policy. Publicists have expounded theories of non-intervention, which assert the desirability of states refraining from intervention from the point of view of the achievement of peace between states, or of providing for the best interests of a particular state. An international law asserts non-intervention as a principle, a rule which states are obliged to adhere to in their relation with each other. The function of the principles of intervention in international relations might be said, then, to be one of protecting the principle of state sovereignty. In the first place, states might feel obliged to obey rules out of a sense of moral duty. Second, they might adhere to rules through a calculation that it is in their interests to do so, and third, they might be forced into obedience to rules. An account of the promise of each of these factors as inducements to rule-determined behaviour by states will emerge from the study of the practice of states with regard to the principle of non-intervention.

19.7 SUMMARY
Intervention has been and probably still is inevitable as one means of standardising the civilisation upon which the international law is now based. From the point of view of maintaining peace, there is something to be said for the suppression of internal discords in another state when it is a common knowledge that no revolution can break out in a European state without the likelihood of the balance of power between other states being upset. In many instances this is, at best, an excuse and not a justification, but it does show clearly that a policy of isolation, if it signifies absolute indifference to what occurs in other states, is neither advisable nor practicable. If any change in the trend of ideas about intervention is perceptible, it is this. In future, intervention is more likely to be undertaken collectively, and the threat in it will more probably be one of economic outlawry-which is one of the sanctions of the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Charter of the United Nations-rather than one of actual war. Under international law, intervention may be legally justified (1) if the intervening state has been granted such a right by treaty; (2) if a state violates an agreement for joint policy determination by acting unilaterally; (3) if intervention is necessary to protect a states citizens; (4) if it is necessary for self defence; or (5) if a state violates international law. The UN Charter also justifies intervention when it involves a collective action by the international community against a state that threatens or breaks the peace or commits an act of aggression. Nonetheless, politically, much less ideologically motivated, interventions are most likely to occur when a great powers hegemonic role is threatened within its sphere of influence. Interventions by small Third World states in the territory of their own neighbours, however, also are likely to become a frequent occurrence. 19

19.8 EXERCISES
1. What is meant by intervention? 2. Trace the origin and development of the concept of intervention. 3. Identify three distinct varieties of intervention. 4. What is the purpose of intervention? 5. What are the motives behind any kind of intervention? 6. Give examples of intervention in the post-Second World War period. 7. What do you understand by humanitarian intervention? 8. Explain the difference between Intervention and Non-intervention.

20