Discuss the view that a "humanitarian intervention" reflects the interests of great powers rather than legal or moral principles.

Intervention is “centrally motivated by a concern for...the destabilizing consequences of continued disorder”, as was the case in Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor and Afghanistan [1].

This has become particularly pertinent since 9/11, as prolonged disorder, even in countries that were previously of little strategic importance, may now be perceived to pose a pressing threat to international security.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq happened without UNSC approval at a time when the government's killing was not “of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify humanitarian intervention” [2]. There is no doubt that long-term human rights violations had been committed by the Iraqi regime and were continuing in 2003, but human rights violations were not the dominant factor behind the invasion.

Although Saddam Hussein's cruelty was mentioned, the principal justification for the invasion was the government's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and its purported Al Qaeda connections and consequent threat to national security, particularly in USA. The recasting of the invasion as humanitarianism in the aftermath of the war became a political necessity for the great powers involved as public support for the action declined.

The Global Policy Forum is very clear on its opinion as to whether great powers act in self-interest with regard to humanitarian intervention: “When nations send their military forces into other nations' territory, it is rarely (if ever) for 'humanitarian' purposes. They are typically pursuing their narrow national interest...Leaders hope to win public support by describing such actions in terms of high moral purposes – bringing peace, justice, democracy and civilization to the affected area”. [3]

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton's infamous statement only adds fuel to this hypothesis: “There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world – that's the United States – when it suits our interests” [4].

It is difficult not to be swayed to cynicism by such views. However, whilst it is not in the nature of governments to act out of purely selfless motives – nor, indeed, is that what they are elected to do – it seems that the increasingly moral focus of today's politics, encouraged by the voice of a growing global civil society, is forcing a realistic mix of altruism and self-interest when it comes to decisions on intervention, as governments sign up to the responsibility to protect.

Bad things happening in unimportant places can no longer be ignored by the great powers: the stakes are too high both in terms of electoral politics and international (let alone national) peace and security. Walzer has found only “mixed cases where the humanitarian motive is one among several” [5]. However, the inclusion of strategic motives does not invalidate humanitarian interests nor necessarily render intervention unjustified. This is the balance between great power interests and legal and moral principles.