Humanitarian Intervention Valentino Analysis
The True Cost of Humanitarian Intervention (Valentino)
The main premise of this article, is that military interventions are to be avoided at all cost and are not a productive way of reinforcing human rights and solving the issue of the “loss of lives” from a morailistic humanitarian perspective. The author is referencing primarily the humanitarian factor and believes that military interference is not necessary. Valentino believes aid development instead of intervention could save more lives and be more efficient at the same time. He mentions, that even liberals post cold war are pro intervention, when formally, as in the case of Vietnam, they had always been against it. The author however acknowledges that the left wing supported interventions have been ethical/humanitarian ones (or out of belief …show more content…
The moral, political and economic price is being undererstimated according to Valentino. He gives the alternative of saving lives through public health programs and aiding in natural disasters. He argues the human rights violations can not be excused and are too costly , i.e.: Milosevic as well as UN forces (executions, abduction, beatings human organ trafficking in Kosovo). Saving lives is synonymous with taking lives in this context, due to civilian deaths (NATO violating international humanitarian law). Valentino mentions the negative effect, specifically for the US, on relations with china and russia, which have soured due to interventions, as well as actions in Kosovo and Iraq dimishing the legitimacy of the UN, by ignoring their need to authorize such an involvement. Opportunity costs and major military expenses, are funds that could have been used elsewhere. Valentino believes that through these alternative programs (public health: i.:e: vaccinations; taking refugees- keeping borders open; disaster relief) issues could be solved without violence. Violence isn’t necessary, aid in combination with diplomatic
The main premise of this article, is that military interventions are to be avoided at all cost and are not a productive way of reinforcing human rights and solving the issue of the “loss of lives” from a morailistic humanitarian perspective. The author is referencing primarily the humanitarian factor and believes that military interference is not necessary. Valentino believes aid development instead of intervention could save more lives and be more efficient at the same time. He mentions, that even liberals post cold war are pro intervention, when formally, as in the case of Vietnam, they had always been against it. The author however acknowledges that the left wing supported interventions have been ethical/humanitarian ones (or out of belief …show more content…
The moral, political and economic price is being undererstimated according to Valentino. He gives the alternative of saving lives through public health programs and aiding in natural disasters. He argues the human rights violations can not be excused and are too costly , i.e.: Milosevic as well as UN forces (executions, abduction, beatings human organ trafficking in Kosovo). Saving lives is synonymous with taking lives in this context, due to civilian deaths (NATO violating international humanitarian law). Valentino mentions the negative effect, specifically for the US, on relations with china and russia, which have soured due to interventions, as well as actions in Kosovo and Iraq dimishing the legitimacy of the UN, by ignoring their need to authorize such an involvement. Opportunity costs and major military expenses, are funds that could have been used elsewhere. Valentino believes that through these alternative programs (public health: i.:e: vaccinations; taking refugees- keeping borders open; disaster relief) issues could be solved without violence. Violence isn’t necessary, aid in combination with diplomatic