Scholars have described foreign policy in a number of ways, highlighting its different facets and tasks; therefore, to estimate on definition does not fulfill the goal. Following are definitions by some dominant scholars According to Charles O.
Charles Chip Hauss August A generation ago, the terms "military intervention" and "conflict resolution" would almost never have been uttered in the same breath. The field of conflict resolution has its roots in the peace movements that dotted the 20th century, most of whose members found the use of force abhorrent.
Militaries have intervened in the domestic affairs of other countries time and time again, but rarely have they done so in an attempt to end a complex emergency or intractable conflict -- until recently. What Is Military Intervention?
There are many forms of military intervention. It was rare for states or international organizations IOs to use force for "humanitarian" purposes in the intractable conflicts that are often euphemistically called "complex emergencies. At most, lightly armed troops were used in peacekeeping operations once a ceasefire had already been reached.
Since the close of the cold war, military intervention for humanitarian ends and conflict resolution has increased dramatically. This can include the use of troops in traditionally unconventional ways such as disaster relief, for example, when the United States sent troops to help Hondurans recover from a devastating hurricane in the s.
Far more common and far more controversial is the use of combat troops to help end the fighting in an intractable conflict, troops which typically stay on in a far more active peacemaking capacity than tradition "blue helmet" peacekeepers did.
Why Military Intervention Is Important -- and Controversial There is no doubt that the use of force by the international community in such places as Kosovo and Somalia was an important part of the development of peacebuilding in the s.
There is also little doubt that the failure to intervene effectively in Rwanda, Chechnya, and elsewhere made intractable conflicts worse than they otherwise would have been.
Finally, there is little doubt that the international community has a lot to learn about how to conduct such operations. In short, there are four central questions here. First, why does military intervention occur in some cases but not others?
At the same time, in order to intervene, the major powers -- whose military resources are almost always needed in any significant deployment -- have to agree either that there are overwhelming humanitarian needs or that intervention is necessary to protect their own interests.
The United States, for example, decided against intervening on those grounds in most of the major sub-Saharan crises from on. Finally, the potential interveners have to conclude that their intervention is likely to succeed, especially following the debacle in Somalia in That leads to the second question: Success, of course, is relative.
Most interventions, however, have at least one common goal -- ending the short-term crisis. Interventions in such different places as Kosovo and East Timor have helped end humanitarian disasters in which the stronger side in a dispute viciously abused the human rights and worse of their weaker adversaries.
Third, there is the very open question about whether an intervention can be turned into an operation that can later lead to stable peace.
That is especially problematic when the intervention involves outsiders coming in to promote the interests of the weaker side of an asymmetrical conflict.
Implicit in the first three questions is a fourth, about the relationship between states whose military forces intervene and the NGOs who have long provided relief and other aid to civilians caught up in the fighting. As put forth most forcefully by the journalist David Rieff, many of those NGOs have abandoned their traditional and, in his eyes, vital political neutrality in order to get the funds and the influence that cooperation with states provide, thereby diluting their own long-term impact.
This is one of those aspects of intractable conflict that average citizens can contribute little to, at least directly.
That said, there does need to be a debate about what intervention policy should be in the countries that provide the most foreign aid and that also provide the most troops for military intervention. Unfortunately, very few people currently pay much attention to foreign policy in general, let alone the politics of the third world, where many intractable conflicts occur these days.
The debate, of course, needs to be about far more than just military intervention. The world has seen two major upheavals in barely a decade -- the end of the cold war and the terrorist attacks of Sept.
Each should be leading us to question previously unquestioned assumptions about foreign policy, including the role of the military and the relationship between states and NGOs. What States Can Do On one level, this is obvious.
There can be no military intervention unless states commit their troops. On another level, what states can do and should do is anything but obvious. One of the consequences of the rapid and sweeping change is that the handful of major powers have all had a hard time determining what their role should be in dealing with intractable conflicts.
In some cases -- as in Rwanda -- their uncertainty has had tragic consequences. What the International Community Can Do The very use of the term "international community" is a sign of how much things have changed in a few short years.
The term could not have been used during the cold war when the superpower rivalry meant that no real community could exist that included "East" and "West. Nonetheless, it is probably the case that the greatest potential for using military force as part of the resolution of intractable conflict lies at the international level.
As the debates about the War on Terrorism or the possible acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq and North Korea attests, when a single state like the United States intervenes, it invariably is accused of pursuing its own parochial or selfish interests.
On the other hand, if the intervention is authorized by the United Nations and involves a multinational force, it invariably has more legitimacy.Why Military Intervention Is Important -- and Controversial There is no doubt that the use of force by the international community in such places as Kosovo and Somalia was an important part of the development of peacebuilding in the s.
The reasons of military interventions in politics has taken place on the basis of vested interest of military, poverty, economic instability, weak institutions, corruption and . military interventions in politics have not only the keen interest of the military itself, but it is also the result of weak political institutions and low political culture of the developing countries.
94 These kinds’ of flaws have been provided the opportunities to military for the.
Contemporary States of Emergency examines historical antecedents as well as the moral, juridical, ideological, and economic conditions that have made military and humanitarian interventions common today.
It addresses the practical process of intervention in global situations on five continents, describing both differences and similarities, and Reviews: 3.
According Huntington () the sources of military interventions in politics have not only the keen interest of the military itself, but it is also the result of weak political institutions and low political culture of the developing countries.
International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology Vol. 2 No. 5; August Military Interventions in the Nigerian Politics: ‘A Timed Bomb’ Waiting to.