Armed Intervention: Preserving Freedom and Maintaining Peace

Military personnel being deployed into a foreign country to maintain peace, restore order, and pressure a state to change its policies when they are harmful to its citizens, best describes Armed Intervention. When a state fails to prevent crimes against humanity within its own boundaries, or harbors terrorists, it is necessary for other countries to intervene, most times with force.

Many times Armed Intervention is required to restore the rights of the people in a country that is not treating its citizens in a humane manner. Governments must be held accountable when committing crimes against their citizens. The countries that make up the United Nations have banned together to step in, using force if they have to when human rights are being violated. When President Bush released the National Security Strategy he stated that all free nations must fight terror. The United States must help governments meet these criteria. The United States will act alone if other states are unable or unwilling to meet this responsibility to hold the violating states accountable. Sometimes the use of force is required to meet these criteria, which conflicts with the desire to gain peace. Sometimes though it is necessary to have conflicting issues to gain a better end result, which is humane treatment of all citizens.

It is hard to determine when it is necessary to use Armed Intervention on another country. The best way to decide if Armed Intervention is necessary is to determine whether or not a country is acting in a humane manner towards its citizens. A good example of justifiable Armed Intervention is Rwanda. When the Burindi and Rwanda Presidents died in a plane crash in 1994 resulting from a rocket attack, the Tutsi and Hutus minorities of Rwanda were murdered. The deaths of at least a million people was a shock to the world and labeled as clear inhumane acts of violence. Many women were also raped. On April 7, Agathe Uwilingiyimana and ten of her peacekeepers were murdered. Many other Hutu leaders were also assassinated. Belgium withdrew its troops after the massacre of its troops. Other countries also withdrew their troops and the UN peace accords were reduced from 2,165 to 270. The human suffering in Rwanda was not reduced because the United Nations failed to act with Armed Intervention. If the United Nations had intervened possibly many people would have been spared such inhumane treatment.

Another strong reason for Armed Intervention is if a country is harboring a terrorist. The United Nations specifically states if a state supports, harbors, or is unable to control international terrorists. The United Nations has the right to intervene by way of Armed Intervention. On November 10, 2008 David Rohde and two others were heading to a meeting with the Taliban commander. While on their way they were taken prisoner by the guards who were driving them to meet with the Taliban commander. They were held captive for seven months. This is also the area where Osama Ben Laden, the man thought responsible for the September 11, 2001 destruction of the Twin Towers, has been thought to be hiding. The United Nations and United States are within their rights to use Armed Intervention against Afghanistan for harboring terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden.

Armed Intervention is an action taken by the countries in the United Nations to step in and maintain peace, restore order, and force a country to change its policies when its citizens are being treated unfairly. It is the responsibility of the United Nations and all countries to make sure that governments treat their citizens fairly.


(Doebbler M F 2002 Crimes of War)

(Haass R 14 Armed Intervention:When Nations Forfeit their Sovereign Priveleges)

(Rohde D 17 Held by the Taliban)

(United Nations Lessons from Rwanda)

People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *