Can Solidarity Actually Save Strangers? A Review of: Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society

International relation theorists who argue that the international society should act as guardian of human rights through ethical humanitarian interventions provide a provocative philosophy of a universal duty of states to support the unsupportable. However, the descriptive history of humanitarian intervention in which the continual refusal from the most powerful of states to allow a possibly unfavorable international precedent suggests that solidarism effectively functions within a book but would fail on the ground in the next grand humanitarian crisis. Nicholas J. Wheeler, a senior lecturer at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, in his book, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, conducts a fascinating normative and descriptive analysis of humanitarian interventions during the Cold-War and post-Cold War eras. However, his fundamental arguments about the ethical norms of states that should construct a moral universality concerning humanitarianism fall short of developing a tangible possible solution to a humanitarian crisis. It was not clear after concluding the book, why this book, that sophisticatedly examined the history of seven important humanitarian missions under the framework of solidarism, is important if states will continue to act on behalf of their own national interest. The question that seems more relevant is how can the international society “save strangers” if the construct of the international system remains dominated by what John Mearsheimer refers to as an orderly anarchic realism?

Wheeler’s introduction effectively illustrates the important theoretical discussions within the fields of human rights and humanitarian intervention. Wheeler lays out the dualism within the study of humanitarian intervention claiming that, “humanitarian intervention exposes the conflict between order and justice at its starkest.” He elucidates these notions of order and justice by referring to the concepts of pluralism and solidarism within the English School of international relations theory. Throughout the latter section of the introduction and the first chapter, “Humanitarian Intervention and International Society”, Wheeler defines the meaning of pluralism and solidarism within the scope of humanitarian intervention. He defines the pluralist international-society theory view of humanitarian intervention as a violation of the cardinal rules of sovereignty, non-intervention, and non-use of force. An intervention, according to his definition of pluralist theorists, within another country not only defies the rules that are fundamental for international order but also could endanger the sovereign structure. Wheeler challenges this view that utilizing the concept of solidarism. He argues that the international system can be strengthened by deepening the commitment to justice by developing a system of international norms and standards.

Wheeler thoroughly and sophisticatedly develops the theoretical foundations for pluralism and solidarism. He successful asserts the solidarism approach as the fundamental framework for examining the descriptive history of humanitarian interventions. However, his arguments against the sustainability of pluralism lack definitive resolve. He identifies what the claims as a fundamental hypocrisy within the foundation of the pluralist argument for humanitarian intervention. He claims that pluralism defends the rules of society on the grounds that they uphold the conceptions of the ‘good’. However, he argues that that claim is a contradiction because the moral justification of the rules differ from actual human rights practices of states. He refers to pluralist scholar Robert H. Jackson and his ‘egg-box’ theory in his footnotes in which the intrinsic value of all states is defined by their sovereignty but also their juridical equality. Jackson’s thesis in his book, The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, develops the argument that this contradiction, primarily in the cases of the Gulf War and the Bosnia, Kosovo crises actually demonstrates the continued durability of the world system, defined by the Treaty of Westphalia, rather than its decline. Wheeler touches on this point in his discussion of United Nations (UN) Security Council authorization. He constructs a moral argument claiming that ethical concerns should trump legality. Jackson and Pluralists would maintain that legality supports international peace and security; however this Grotian view of international relations assumes that states should accept not only a moral responsibility to protect but also the wider guardianship of human rights everywhere. This new moral discussion, which is also taken by Barnett and Finnemore to describe UN authority, does not deconstruct the pluralist argument because it also does not reflect the actual human rights practices of states, and fundamental leaves the reader pondering whether strangers can actually be saved.

In latter half of the book, Wheeler conducts a descriptive analysis of seven humanitarian interventions broken up into two sections: during the Cold-War and after the Cold-War. The section including three humanitarian interventions, India into Bangladesh, Vietnam into Cambodia, and Tanzania into Uganda, furthered the descriptive field of humanitarian history because these events were deemed illegitimate. Thomas G. Weiss’s book, The United Nations and Changing World Politics, which is one of the preeminent histories of the UN, uses only the interventions in the Palestinian, Korean, Suez and Congolese crises as his case studies for Cold-War security efforts. However, Wheeler’s choice of case studies more effectively explicates the theoretical debate between pluralism and solidarism. Each of these cases were uniquely different from the latter, post-Cold War, cases because every intervention was conducted by a lesser developed country and each were for the most part successful at bringing an end to a crisis.
However, the response from the international community to deem each intervention as international illegitimate pegs the question whether solidarism could ever realistically be the theoretical framework used by international humanitarian policy-makers. The argument raised by General Olusegen Obasanjo of Nigeria that individual states do not have a ‘duty’ to use force to change the ‘morality’ of another government with which they disagree suggests that sovereignty still dominates the structure of the international system because moral authority is not universal. Even though the interventions were successful, the ethical justifications for the interventions suggest that states could construct an argument for their own moral superior to conduct an intervention in another country. The solidarity argument that the commitment by the international toward a universally accepted concept of justice could strengthen the stability of the international system works within the framework of Wheeler’s fundamental arguments, however, as powerful states continue to protect their sovereignty ethical humanitarian interventions will also occur when it is in the best interest of a capable state.

The final section of the book examines post-Cold War interventions that were conducted, or in the case of Rwanda not conducted, by powerful countries, especially the United States. Wheeler’s description of the Kuwaiti intervention by the United States under the legal jurisdiction of the UN does not provide any additional historical incites that have not already been examined by the field. However, a discussion concerning the selectivity of exceptionality provides more credence to the realist argument that states still act in their own best interest. The legality of the U.S. and UN intervention in Somalia had be legally utilize the words, ‘unique’, ‘extraordinary’, and ‘exceptional’ in order for the Chinese and Indian delegations at the Security Council to adopt the resolution. Similarity in the case of NATO intervention in Kosovo the German foreign minister Kinkel emphasized that Kosovo was a special case and that it should not be taken as a green light for future NATO actions outside the authority of the Security Council. However, in the case of Rwanda, in which more Rwandans died during the 1994 genocide, was not deemed exceptional and the United States due to the horrific aftermath of the Somalia intervention did not believe it was in the best interest of the state to intervene. This selectivity by the UN and powerful states within the international community, especially the United States, suggests that a universally accepted commitment to international justice and humanitarianism, which Wheeler continuously argues throughout the book would strengthen the legitimacy of the international society, has not yet come to fruition.

Wheeler’s study of solidarism in Saving Strangers illustrates the potential power of a collective global identity toward humanitarian intervention in an intra-state or inter-state humanitarian crisis. The prose throughout the book, especially in the introductory section, marks Wheeler as one of the preeminent scholars of solidarity. However, the reality of the descriptive history of humanitarian interventions during the latter half of the 20th century signifies that states continue to act under a pluralist and realist theoretical framework. This truism limits the Wheeler’s thesis to a mere academic exercise.

References

Barnett, Michael, and Martha Finnemore. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 2004.

Lynch, Cecelia. Rev. of The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, by Robert Jackson. The American Political Science Review Dec. 2002: 883-884.

Mearsheimer, John J. "The False Promise of International Relations." International Security 19 (1995): 5-49.

Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe, Roger A. Coate, and Kelly-Kate Pease. The United Nations and Changing World Politics. 5th ed. Boulder: Westview P, 2007.

Wheeler, Nicholas J. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.