3

Armed intervention criteria

Introduction

War is an awful something according to most human beings whereas throughout history there are so many people who have waged war. This may in other wards appear as a contradiction whereas it isn’t. This is because there are some circumstances whereby war is undeniably the only solution for preventing something else worse (Haass, 2003). For instance, it is universally accepted that both at the state and individual level, people always have the right to self-defense. Thus, armed interventions in the process of self-defense are exercised when a region or a country is attacked or sometimes when a certain country pose a threat which is immediate to a region or another country (Johnson, 2008). However, the multilateral via a collective regional defense system is an intervention agreed upon by a group of countries which are within a certain region and would be purposely for the aim of defending their whole region (Haass, 2003). Moreover, embarking on the armed intervention sometimes seems to open the floodgates for convincing some individuals that war is acceptable and legitimate in some instances (Podur, 2006).

Multilateral via a collective regional defense system

Assuming that the military and financial arguments are sound and that virtually all the diplomacy has already been exhausted, whereas the threats is real, then the criteria of collective responsibility of countries in a specific region to protect it must be considered. While these countries should respect the sovereignty of others, then placing doubts to the legitimacy of it is sometimes a practice which is commonly used (Podur, 2006). Then the support which each country is getting from its allies or other countries in pursuit of defending their region against a possible threat should always be the criteria which should be used in deciding to use the multilateral via a collective regional defense system (Haass, 2003).

This is mainly because it is a responsibility of each and every country in a specific region to collectively defend their region in case of a possible threat. Thus, there is need to amass enough resources to protect the region under such circumstances (Johnson, 2008). Hence if a country posses a real threat to a certain region then the specific countries in that region will be ready to invade that country and the rationale of it will be obvious to any other country or region which shares that regions values and success.

However, the multilateralism in case of regional protection acts as a good gage to determine the manipulation of facts which is likely to occur in the issues leading to the invasion (Haass, 2003). This multilateralism is also sometimes very critical when we look at the possible cost of the war in real human condition. Thus, if a country is fighting alongside its allies, the financial cost of the war is usually shared (Podur, 2006). There is also availability of experiences of their participating militaries to the troops. There will also be sharing of new technologies as well as opening channels for supplies movement to the troops. Thus, in overall there will be shortening of the war as well as sharing the war burden, this makes it essential to act collectively incase of a regional threat (Haass, 2003).

Conclusion

In the process of determining whether to use armed intervention or not, the right criteria should be selected depending on its usefulness (Podur, 2006). The multilateralism via collective regional defense system is very important because a country enjoys support of other countries in the region as well as allies, and there is a possibility of forming clear goals and exit whereby the process undertaken is agreeable by all the players (Haass, 2003).

Reference:
Haass, R. (2003, February 7). Armed intervention: When nations forfeit their sovereign privileges, International Herald Tribune online. Available at: http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/02/07/edhaass.php

Johnson, J. L. (2008, May 15). Which Criteria Should the President Use to Decide on Armed Intervention?. Available at: http://gotmine9.blogspot.com/2008/05/which-criteria-should-president-use-to.html

Podur, J. (2006). Kofi Annan’s Haiti, New Left Review 37, January - February 2006. Available at: http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2604