By Veena Saunder [Edited by Mark Potter & Fatmanour Chouseinoglou]
Why does Gary Bass think that it is not, and do you find his explanation convincing? Be sure to draw on evidence from the text in your response.
This essay is going to observe whether humanitarian intervention is motivated by true altruistic reasoning or if it is just a cloak for imperial practice. Gary Bass believes that intervention does have moral grounding. He reaches this conclusion through three themes: the history of human rights, the influence of domestic liberalism and the way diplomats manage humanitarian intervention. I do not find Bass’s explanation entirely convincing. I am going to draw upon Bass’s Freedom’s Battle and Samuel Moyn’s review Spectacular Wrongs: Gary Bass’s ‘Freedom’s Battle’ to show that there is more to a nation’s decision in intervening than pure humanitarian reasons.
To Bass’s credit, he acknowledges the long history of human rights intervention that gained prominence in the 1800s. He agrees that imperialism did play a part in intervention, but he stipulates that there were “some important episodes” of genuine humanitarianism.[1] His work focuses on the massacres that took place in Greece and Bulgaria, with his argument resting on the fact that these atrocities occur in distant lands. Moyn is critical of this view and states that this assumption overlooks unstated motives behind intervention. He humorously compares Bass’s argument to a bumper sticker with the slogan “Stop the Violence – Over there.”[2] This joking assertion illustrates Bass’s paternalistic othering of global violence supporting the hierarchical relationship where superior powers never lose their role as defenders of weaker nations. This gives the western intervening countries a position of comfort, far away from human rights violations, isolating them into seeing their actions as completely noble without addressing the deeper imperialistic ambitions.
In forming his argument Bass investigates the realist perspective which holds the importance of national sovereignty where intervention is seen as a “novel and alarming notion.”[3] Bass draws upon several conservative thinkers, such as Henry Kissinger, who believed that humanitarian intervention should be used as a last resort or self-defence. He also examines how realist thinking doubts that a state’s motives are truly humanitarian and this kind of intervention is seen by German international law expert, Wilhelm Grewe, as bearing similarities to “national expansionist ideology” and imperial practice.[4] Bass argues against this school of thought and reasons that even though an intervention may serve a state’s interest it does not mean that there are no moral values involved in helping.
He supports his argument with the anti-slavery movement. Bass uses historian David Brion Davis who states that humanitarian endeavours against enslavement were not only damaging to the British economy but also affected relations between the United States and France. By showing how Britain deliberately ignored their realpolitik needs Bass is stating that there is unselfish humanitarianism.[5] Moyn mocks this logic and describes the British as examples of “self-styled agents of humane values” who led the campaign to end enslavement yet used this moral superiority to justify British colonialism.[6] Therefore, despite this moral humanitarian intervention on the part of the British, there were also imperialistic tendencies.
Bass does not think humanitarian intervention has a basis in pan-Christian solidarity and the cases he has selected are the exceptions that confirm the rule. He insisted that the British identified with the Greeks due to their ancestral link to Western Civilisation and not their Christianity.[7] Moyn argues that this notion loses credibility when one of the main protagonists of Bass’s piece, William Gladstone, believes in a Christian World Order.[8] Bass’s argument that the religious identity of the victims did not matter to the western saviours is insufficient. It ignores the inherent biases displayed when a nation intervenes for one group that follows similar practices yet remains passive to injustices affecting a different group, for example, the late action of the Americans during the Holocaust possibly due to antisemitism.
Bass emphasises the importance of the free press in promoting humanitarian intervention. He argues they play a critical role in alerting the public, often graphically so, on overseas atrocities which then forces foreign policy action for “some obscure part of the world.”[9] He, however, completely avoids discussing the impact of the press constantly feeding the public articles on suffering. The writer Susan Sontag, whose work predates Bass’s Freedom’s Battle, criticises the sensationalist culture remarking that “the shock of photographed atrocities wears off with repeated viewings.”[10] Bass’s highly idealised portrayal of the media is inaccurate, and he does not consider the impact of repetitive content perpetuated by the press which could cause compassion fatigue. In addition, he does not recognise the profit motive that drives the press into producing this content which is not necessarily solely related to a humanitarian cause.
Moyn further highlights the shortcomings of Bass’s prescription for managing humanitarian intervention which involves interference only if the intruding country “know they won’t ignite a tinderbox.”[11] Bass advocates involvement only for when a country is in a weaker position and therefore it feels more like an add on when convenient rather than being the primary reason for involvement.
In conclusion, I do not fully believe that states intervene to protect the rights of others due to humanitarian compassion. Gary Bass poses an appealing argument where nobility is the driving force of humanitarian intervention, but to say that a country liberates another out of their pure goodness is not an argument supported in history. Samuel Moyn, a vocal critic of Bass’s Freedom’s Battle denounces his argument on that basis that while imperial ambitions may not be the sole factor, nations do have other reasonings that are not linked to ethical belief. Bass’s understanding of humanitarian intervention focuses on the nineteenth century where he sees atrocities taking place in faraway lands, depicted by a free press, and where armed involvement is the only option to ending human rights violations.[12] A closer reading of the history of these interventions, however, lays bare the imperialistic ambitions of the invading powers which Bass conveniently ignores. Notes [1] Gary J. Bass, Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Knopf, 2008), p. 12. [2] Samuel Moyn, “Spectacular Wrongs: Gary Bass’s ‘Freedom’s Battle,’” The Nation, 2008, p. 2. [3] Bass, Freedom’s Battle, pp. 17-18. [4] Bass, Freedom’s Battle, p. 15. [5] Bass, Freedom’s Battle, pp. 17-18. [6] Moyn, “Spectacular Wrongs”, pp. 6-7. [7] Bass, Freedom’s Battle, pp. 20-21. [8] Moyn, “Spectacular Wrongs”, pp 4-5. [9] Bass, Freedom’s Battle, p. 7. [10] Susan Sontag, On Photography (London: Penguin Books, 1977) p. 17. [11] Moyn, “Spectacular Wrongs”, pp. 13-14. [12] Moyn, “Spectacular Wrongs”, p. 2.
Bibliography
Bass, Gary. Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention. New York: Knopf, 2008
Moyn, Samuel. “Spectacular Wrongs: Gary Bass’s ‘Freedom’s Battle’”. The Nation, 2008
Sontag, Susan. On Photography. London: Penguin Books, 1977
Comments