The Slaughter of Sovereignty

“Humanitarian intervention is just a well dressed invasion into the sovereignty of a state.”

The origin of the concept of humanitarian intervention can be traced back to the 16th century, with the invention of Spanish jurists who, with their countrymen, conquered the New World. But much too clearly, the idea of humanitarian intervention isn’t quite the same as humanitarian aid, as often perceived.

However, nations such as the United States believe the fact that opposition to tyranny was not applied uniformly. This does not imply that it was in any way insincere. With the American and European policies endorsing human rights under the ‘heroic’ cloak of humanitarian intervention, international communities are involved in heavy duty discussions on how this notion is a solution from hell. The Russian Federation, on the other hand, very clearly holds the belief that humanitarian intervention was a mistake on the part of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and any repetition is unhesitatingly, unthinkable!

On a comprehensible deliberation, the sight of half a million people losing their lives to a genocide in 1994 and a poison gas attack that killed a hundred civilians (considering the Rwandan and Syrian tragedies), humanitarian intervention entails the loss of national and human rights, and benefit thus seems out of the picture. There can be no rights without belonging to a sovereign jurisdiction. The United Nations, by paradoxically enshrining sovereignty on one hand and “universal rights” on the other, has made deficient attempts to solve the problems revealed during the contemporary war period.

Today, we live in a land where it is redundant to look for leftists and rightists; as everywhere we look, we find capitalists. With the insensitive and vexing stances of the Western states, the world is on the threshold of a dazzling breakdown. Now the question is, Are the American and European states upholding some sort of a global autocracy?


About Author

Comments are closed.