Humanitarian Intervention Does More Harm Than Good

The international community currently faces a global refugee crisis and mass atrocities in Iraq, Myanmar, Syria, Yemen, and beyond. How should the West respond? 

Proponents of humanitarian intervention – the use of force to halt human rights abuses – argue that the world’s most powerful militaries have a responsibility to protect innocent civilians around the world. Beyond saving lives, they argue, intervention deters would-be abusers and ensures global stability, thereby strengthening the liberal world order. But opponents argue that military intervention is thinly veiled Western imperialism, and subsequently, an assault on state sovereignty. And, it’s ineffective: the West, with its military might, increases the death toll and worsens the conflicts it sets out to solve. Further, given recent waves of populism in the U.S., France, and U.K., they suggest that Western nations should spend their time looking inward rather than policing activity around the world. On Friday, March 9 at 10:00 a.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. CET, Intelligence Squared in partnership with The German Marshall Fund will host a live debate from GMF's #BrusselsForum. Watch the debate live at brussels.gmfus.org or on the Intelligence Squared website. 

 

Where do you stand? Cast your vote here »



 

 

Oxford-Style Debate - March 9 at 10:00 a.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. CET

The Debators

For the Motion

Against the motion
Frank Ledwidge

Senior Fellow, Royal Air Force College & Former British Intelligence Office		 Rajan Menon

Author, The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention		 Bernard Kouchner

Co-Founder, Doctors Without Borders		 Kori Schake

Deputy Director-General, International Institute for Strategic Studies

Frank Ledwidge is a senior fellow at the Royal Air Force College and a former military intelligence officer. He spent fifteen years at the front end...  Read More

Rajan Menon is a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies and the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Chair... Read More

Bernard Kouchner, a medical doctor by training, is the co-founder and former president of Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders). The... Read More

Kori Schake is the deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Previously, she was a distinguished research fellow... Read More

 

For the Motion

  • Despite good intentions, humanitarian intervention invariably leads to instability, occupation, and the death of innocent civilians.

  • State sovereignty must be respected on the world stage. Unless acting in self-defense or facing an imminent threat, nations have no right to use military force against another state. 

  • The U.S. election and Brexit made Western opinion clear: civilians are fed up with spending money in foreign conflicts. It’s time for wealthy nations to turn inward and deal with problems at home.

 

Against the motion

  • Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to prevent crimes against humanity wherever they may occur. Failure to intervene constitutes a failure to lead. 

  • All U.N. member states have endorsed the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, a global political commitment to halt or prevent genocide and war crimes. These states have an obligation to uphold this promise. 

  • Violent civil wars often have spillover effects, leading to regional instability that could threaten global security