• DOI:10.1023/A:1009817421313
• Corpus ID: 30297743

Realpolitik and humanitarian intervention: The case of Somalia

@article{Gibbs2000RealpolitikAH,
  title={Realpolitik and humanitarian intervention: The case of Somalia},
  author={David N. Gibbs},
  journal={International Politics},
  year={2000},
  volume={37},
  pages={41-55}
}

• D. N. Gibbs
• Published 2000
• Political Science
• International Politics

This article examines factors that motivate major powers to participate in humanitarian interventions, with a case study of US intervention in Somalia during the period 1992-93. Two potential explanations are assessed: First, the ar ticle considers the conventional perspective that the Un i ted States interven ti on was guided by hu m a n i t a rian con s i dera ti on s , particularly a desire to attenuate effects of famine,war, and political disorder in Somalia. Second,US intervention may have reflected realpolitik considerations, e.g. maintaining control over traditional spheres of influence for re a s ons of n a ti onal power and pre s ti ge , as well as gaining access to potential oil supplies. While altruistic concerns may have had some influence on US conduct, this study finds that humanitarianism was (at best) mixed with considerations of national interest. Introduction With the termination of the Cold War, it is often asserted that international relati ons no lon ger have a basic logic or com m on thre ad . A con tra ry vi ew holds that m a ny analys t s’ con f u s i on abo ut world po l i tics stems from the irrel eva n ce of re a l i s t p a rad i gm s . In deed , Ch a rles Kegl ey ’s 1993 Pre s i den tial Ad d ress to the In tern a ti on a l Studies Association raised the possibility of realism’s obsolescence for the current era. Kegley argued that recent events could herald a return to Wilsonian idealism.2 The view that we have entered a “neo-Wilsonian” era is widespread. One manifestation of this neo-Wilsonianism is the rise of humanitarian interventi on . It appe a rs that the po s t Cold War era has finally inaugura ted a world order where great powers use their military force not as an expression of realpolitik, as was true earlier, but as a technique to restore democratic governance, overcome famine, or pro tect minori ti e s . Even Jack Don n elly, a skepti c , ack n owl ed ges that “hu m a n rights and issues of humanitarian politics more generally, have achieved an international prominence at least as great as at any other time in modern history.”3 Hu m a n i t a rian interven ti on also has tra n s form ed the ideo l ogical ch a racter of deb a te on intern a ti onal rel a ti on s . L i beral activi s t s , of ten of feminist and/or pac i f i s t orientation, and hostile to foreign intervention, have in recent years become enthusia s tic su pporters of the con cept , provi ded that interven ti on is of the hu m a n i t a ri a n variety. Indeed, in the debate over intervention in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo, many of the strongest advocates of force had previously been staunch opponents of US intervention in Vietnam or Central America during the Cold War.4 This article In tern a tional Pol i ti cs 3 7: 4 1 5 5 , Ma rch 2000 © 2000 Kl uwer Law In tern a ti o n a l . Pri n ted in the Un i ted St a te s