Abstract
Against rising scepticism in the wake of imperial wars waged in the name of humanitarianism, Michael Newman's Humanitarian Intervention offers a principled position for leftists who oppose military crusades waged by the West, but who still wish to argue that there are circumstances in which military intervention is justifiable on humanitarian grounds. It furthermore shines a spotlight on the role of rich countries in contributing to conflict in poorer ones via neo-liberal policies. This role, Newman argues, gives rise to a humanitarian duty on the part of powerful countries not only to provide aid and support development but also to address the root causes of conflict by reducing global inequality, addressing the flow of arms and transforming trade policies. Noting that his position is compatible with the principle of ‘the Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) advocated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), Newman argues in favour of the broad understanding of human security underpinning this duty to protect. Unfortunately, Newman notes, the risk remains that ‘the Responsibility to Protect’ will become just another slogan to justify military intervention against vulnerable states. The duty to protect, however, justifies military intervention only in exceptional circumstances, he emphasises. Such a duty also implies a commitment to an ‘exit’, which occurs only after meaningful efforts to support civil society in rebuilding a sustainable peace.
Newman's case is persuasively supported by a detailed analysis of conflict zones from the past twenty years. His analysis takes into account both historical events and the theoretical evolution of humanitarianism. Newman's claim that humanitarianism is distinguishable from politics (that is, the pursuit of overt political goals) is, however, problematic. Newman acknowledges that the line between humanitarianism and politics is ‘fuzzy’, but insists that the distinction is important (p. 183). It is too much to expect of humanitarian efforts, he argues, that they achieve equality, solidarity and emancipation; we can, however, expect humanitarianism to protect human security. It would seem, though, that if we include in humanitarianism the root causes that threaten human security, it would be impossible to achieve without (at minimum) requiring a significant redistribution of wealth, not to mention transformations in international political economy and the UN. The distinction between humanitarian and political goals thus seems impossible to draw. Regardless, this book is an important contribution to the debate on humanitarian intervention, and will be of interest to international relations and security scholars, as well as international political theorists.