Due to the recent uprisings in Middle Eastern countries for democracy, we are seeing more and more of foreign forces entering Middle Eastern nations. Just in the 21st century alone, the U.S. forces have intervened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, Libya and are now preparing to intervene in Syria. Syrian rebel officials have even said that the intervention of foreign forces was the solution to bringing their civil war to an end. With foreign intervention becoming a ritual for Middle Eastern nations yearning for revolution, experts are raising concerns regarding the consequences a country must face by letting other nations interfere in their country’s destiny.

 

A similarity among Middle Eastern nations that seek foreign intervention is that they are revolting against the existing regime. Many of these regimes are authoritative dictatorships or corrupt democracies that led to one figure or family ruling for decades. In the case of Egypt, Mubarak ruled for three decades until he was forced to leave his post. Gaddafi ruled over Libya 42 years until he was assassinated by the rebel forces in the process of overthrowing his regime. Al Assad is the incumbent president of Syria and has been for over a decade now. Fed up with a dictator who refuses to give up his post, the public started to rise against the government.

 

However, many of these movements against the government are met with suppression. Because dictators (with an exception of Egypt) have complete control over military forces of a country and have accumulated wealth and power for decades, a peaceful protest has no real influence. The protest soon expands to a violent movement or a civil war when the civilians arm themselves with weapons. Even after acquiring weapons, the civilian forces are not strong enough to overwhelm the army. Not only are they mismatched in fire power but they are also unorganized. This is why movements for democracy usually end in a stalemate where both powers cannot advance but civilian casualties increase steadily. As of October 2011, 7037 civilians had died from the Libyan civil war. Civilian casualties in Syria are reaching a number of 30,000 and are growing.

 

In the midst of these civilian deaths, rebel forces must decide whether to drag on this exhausting fight. Cho Jung- Hyun, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU), says, “Foreign intervention is justified in cases where a country is failing to protect the basic rights of civilians. Countries must realize that sovereignty is a term that connotes responsibility.” Taking into consideration the immensely superior fire power of nations like the United States, foreign intervention can facilitate the process of bringing democracy to their country as well as stopping further civilian casualties. This is perhaps why General Fayez Amro of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has stated that there are a total of 15 generals who have abandoned the Syrian regime and claimed that foreign intervention is not only necessary but justified.

While many officials, including those of the FSA, believe that foreign intervention is a justified action of responsibility, foreign intervention itself comes with its consequences. First and foremost, the term itself implies that one state is intervening and interfering in the business of another state. In modern international politics, the very first quality of sovereignty is its absoluteness. While the degree of absoluteness has been always debated (whether international law justifies intervention), a state’s sovereignty must be respected if a country is to have independence.

 

This is why foreign intervention under the pretext of humanitarian justifications is still considered a breach of sovereignty. Noam Chomsky has said “Humanitarian intervention is orthodoxy and it’s taken for granted that if we do it, it’s humanitarian. The reason is because our leaders say so. But you can check. For one thing, there’s a history of humanitarian intervention. You can look at it. And when you do, you discover that virtually every use of military force is described as humanitarian intervention.” Many scholars, including Chomsky, stress those humanitarian justifications are just a mask for Western countries to continue their actions of colonialist motives.

 

A breach of sovereignty leads to dependency on another state. Because a state relied on another state’s financial or military support to fulfill its means, the state is now dependent on the other state. In the case of Iraq, which was invaded by the U.S. under justifications of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein in 2003, it has remained dependent until today even after the U.S. has started to retrieve its armies from Iraq. Hameed Fadhel of Baghdad University has said, “The American role is necessary now in Iraq, not only to maintain security but to maintain political stability.” Moreover, the U.S. is intervening in its election and has been criticized by certain Iraqi politicians. Mohammed Ahmed, a top official of the Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU), said, “I think the Kurds are vulnerable to U.S. pressure.”

 

Egypt, a country that received relatively little help from the U.S. during its revolt in 2011, still fights hard to stay independent from the U.S. When Egypt did not turn to democracy after the uprising, the U.S. pressured Egypt through pro-democracy organizations dedicated to promoting democracy. Accused of illegal funding, these pro-democracy groups are now being investigated. The U.S. government threatened Egypt that the U.S. will cut its fundings to Egypt if the investigation continues. Instances of Egypt and Iraq show the extent to which countries become dependent after intervention.

With more and more countries of African and the Middle East revolting, there will be foreign interventions in the future. Under current circumstances, some may ask when and how foreign intervention should be allowed. Deciding when to intervene must be strictly based on whether there will be more civilian casualties and whether UN has given authorization. While there are continued disputes about whether the U.S. should have or should intervene in certain countries, UN stresses that it is a “humanitarian” intervention. It stresses the importance of countries to move under humanitarian intent and justification. Professor Cho of KINU stresses this point when he says, “The international society must focus on establishing a more clear standard and prerequisite for foreign intervention. By solving problems of ‘selectivity’ (U.S.’s attitude of intervening in some countries while staying indifferent to some countries) shown by the U.S., the international society will be able to avoid criticisms like that of Chomsky’s.”

 

As to how foreign intervention should be done, Stephen Hadley, a former senior U.S. official, stresses the importance of “leaving a state that can govern.” Discussing the issue of Afghanistan, Hadley emphasized the importance of intervening countries taking responsibility regarding certain parts before they irresponsibly rush back to their home countries. Rather than focusing on imposing influence in the area, it was suggested that the U.S. should focus on establishing stability of a country by eliminating potential threats through negotiations, settling regional conflicts, and overlooking electoral reforms.

 

Historians and foreign relations experts alike say that the history of foreign intervention dates back to centuries ago. They mention that defining foreign intervention as either bad or good is too naïve an approach to the matter. With a rise for democracy spreading throughout Africa and the Middle East, it seems inevitable that the history of foreign intervention will go on. The international society will have to try with its utmost effort to take an ideal approach to the matter.