During the past decade for Egypt, they had so far ten presidencies, and they didn’t need to an intervention to promote democracy or for humanitarian interventions by the military except for one case. When the Free Officers Movement came at 1956, they didn’t need a military intervention because of king Farouk peacefully turns the ligament authority, but the exception is when Mohamed Morsi used the violence a military intervention came for the necessary needs. To keep the country not go toward a civil war. All the cases of promoting democracy in Egypt didn’t need the necessary of foreign intervention either military or for promoting democracy. Even though there was a lot of democracy transactions, but none of those cases required intervention in all the cases. The Republic fo Egypt went from an autocritical regime toward democratic regime without the need for any interventions.
According to Fukuyama and McFaul, should democracy be promoted to all nations because of the united stated interests and security? No country in all the continent has benefited from the democracy like the United of States of America, and I think the U.S has the right to ensure their security, but not at the expense of another countries security or sovereignty. In results of their safety, several countries have lost their security, legitimacy, and economy. Nowadays, the U.S. confronting another overall ideological risk as radical Islamism, the U.S. government stresses that political change in autocracy. U.S. partners will deliver religious administrations that which led to a new to U.S. interests. This scenario created a controversy situation in the Middle East regarding Muslim Brotherhood organization to be an image of a radical Islamism. ISIS and Al-Qaida are a bit different than Muslim Brotherhood, because the actions and methods differ but, they have mostly the same goal. Also, Muslim Brotherhood is not considered as a terrorist organization by all the countries in the Middle-East such as Turkey and Qatar which create big a misunderstanding between Islamic states and radical Islamist groups for all nations.
Transfaring from a cosmopolitanism regime to a Political Realism regime took more then a decade and they still promoting democrazation and dint need the help for an internation intervantional relations. Since the Cold War ended, the concern regarding humanitarian interventions by the military has emerged as a contentious issue while at the same time raising heated debates in the area of internation. The debates that prevail between different viewpoints mostly revolves around the legality question in line with the rights that states have regarding the interference of the military in a different country’s affairs, especially in the event of severe human rights violations, which the international law guarantees (UN, 2017). Issues arise whenever humanitarian interventions do not match with the principles that govern non-intervention as well as sovereignty. Whereas various humanitarian interventions have prevailed in history, such as during the Cold War, the demise of the war contributed to the intensive humanitarian interventions. Some of the interventions supported the role of the United Nations (UN) in international affairs while others did not. As for the 1990s, for instance, diverse scholars perceive as a decade of humanitarian intervention due to various military interventions that took place at the time (Ford Institute, 2017). Thus, the paper discusses whether military intervention by foreign troops is justified owing to the prevalence of human rights abuses in different parts of the world.
Concerning challenge of legitimizing interventions by the military, it has been known to bedevil the UN since its establishment. Transparent justification is needed for UN Security Council when a need arises for authorizing an intervention to be the military to sovereign nations. In case the UN fails to offer legitimacy concerning a particular intervention in a certain member territory, nonetheless, it faces the challenge of political hindrances of attaining consensus within veto powers’ constraints imposed by the Security Council’s five permanent members, including Russia, United States, China, France, and the United Kingdom as well as deficiency of a standing force (Guraziu, 2012). During the past, more than 60 years, the principles that have driven the Security Council concerning military intervention have been deployed selectively, whereas justification regarding interventions has transformed to allow it meet the needs of the present environment’s atmosphere.
As the Cold War was taking place, the interventions imposed mostly revolved around the need for ending the civil wars or in imposing cease-fires to facilitate in peacekeeping initiatives. A large number of the interventions that took place then was because of the request that states made, although most of them were banned or opted not to vote (Ford Institute, 2017). The reason for this is that the U.S., as well as the Soviet Union, perceived them in the perspective of supporting their promote democracy in the Third World. The UN’s secretary generals started intermediations in Korea as well as Congo in 1950-1953 and 1960-1964 respectively (Krasniqi, 2016). After the Cold War had ended, considerable emphasis was directed toward two major probable justifications that lead to the interventions, including management of failed states as well as the provision of humanitarian protection.
In line with the war that took place between 1991 and 1995 in Balkans, the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994, and the delayed and limited response by the U.S. created an environment that fostered the emergence of a new kind of humanitarian intervention. The Agenda for Peace that the UN instituted in 1992 aimed at broadening understanding of intervention in line with the situations in which it would incorporate failed states. During the World Summit that the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) enabled in 2005 lay emphasis on the need for safeguarding populations from war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing (Ford Institute, 2017). Various solid legal forms prevail in the event of human rights as well as the UN Charter that lay emphasis in banning genocide in line with ensuring that political leaders are held responsible for such acts.
Nevertheless, the rules that prevail for the time being the focus on enforcing the notion that such criminals should face tribunals or the ICC (International Criminal Court). With the growing experience in the area of humanitarian interventions during the 1990s, the UN realized that efficient and unending humanitarian safeguard needed a way of ensuring that the interventions separated the distinct parties while at the same time punishing the guilty in line with transforming the prevailing situations that contributed to distress (peacemaking) (Krasniqi, 2016). In the event of the lessons learned from the policies, sophisticated missions for peacekeeping in line with increased reluctance among the members of the Security Council in committing interventional resources required complex as well as lengthy operations.
In the recent years, considerable attention has been directed toward failed states, such as targeting collapse of the domestic economy especially in cases whereby no one in the position of authority has the capacity of inviting intervention or assistance (Ford Institute, 2017). In the case of failed states, they usually establish political challenges inside the nation, which lead to states to fall into anarchy as well as civil warlordism, while the neighboring countries also start experiencing problems (Guraziu, 2012). The neighboring states are forced to accept many refugees or embark on repelling troops that might be focusing on establishing safe enclaves beyond the failed state. In the event of such situations, no legal authority prevails that has the capacity of attracting the attention of the UN.
The process of dealing with states perceived as having failed presents various challenging duties, including addressing poverty, redeveloping the economy, disarming militias, provision of education, food, and shelter, as well as facilitating elections (Ford Institute, 2017). Furthermore, interventions implemented result to the establishment of ethical puzzles, which international actors follow. They encounter the problem of determining ways in which they can safeguard rights of people when a state fails while refraining from violating legal veracity affiliated with countrywide sovereignty (UN, 2017). In the perspective of certain scholars, they believe that foreign intervention that focuses on dealing with states that fail in punishing the individuals who lead genocide served as the new phase of imperialism whereas others agree that failed states do not carry any moral or legal authority, while the rights of individuals surpass those of sovereignty.
Furthermore, individual observers show concerns regarding humanitarian intrusions that might contribute to the ineffective application of justifiable interventions. The major accepted practice is embarking on intervention with the goal of saving human lives while it is also deemed essential to conquering a state with the goal of mitigating or preventing famine. However, in the event of offering humanitarian help when a natural disaster strikes, especially when the government does not have funds of addressing the issue, they pose challenges in legalizing interventions mostly because no clear framework prevails for enforcing intervention (Guraziu, 2012).
In conclusion, to promote democracy or the needs of international or humatirian intervention, it should come from internal factors, not external influence, because democracy should be building on the culture roots, not in an “American value” or another country’s standers values. I don’t believe that America has its values, because of the diversity in religious, ethnicity, and culture. Egypt did not face an international intervention so far because during all the coup and the revolutions, Egypt was under control, and there were no reasons for international intervention as long as the local government has the situation under control. It is evident that restricted rights in matters of intervening against extreme issues, such as genocide are the idea. Therefore, in the event of forceful and frequent exercise of the right, particularly by the UNSC, it is crucial to exercise care while refraining from confusing the exemption with the rule. Moreover, it is crucial to note that not all far-reaching abuses of human rights warrant humanitarian interventions by armed military. Also, when disregarding the injustices tolerated beyond the law, politics, and order considerations, it would be vital to realize that the values are crucial and should be accorded significant respect.
Ford Institute. (2017). Controversies about humanitarian military intervention. Retrieved from http://www.fordinstitute.pitt.edu/Portals/0/Pub_PDF/SeyboltChapter1.pdf
Guraziu, R. (2012). Is humanitarian military intervention in the affairs of another state ever justified? Retrieved from http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/Is%20humanitarian%20military%20intervention%20ever%20justified.pdf
Haas, Peter M., and John A. Hurd. Controversies in Globalization: Conflicting Approaches in International Relations. Second Edition. A Thousand Oaks, California: SC Press, 2013. Print.
Krasniqi, F. (2016). Are military interventions inevitably doomed to backfire? Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2016/03/23/are-military-interventions-inevitably-doomed-to-backfire/
- (2017). Who is responsible for protecting people from gross violations of human rights? Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml