Fear, Honor, Intervention: Why Did the U.S. Not Stop Known Genocide?
AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES
Pagination or Media Count:
The US National Security Strategy promotes the idea that the US will defend universal human rights, while the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide creates the international framework legitimizing and directing nations of the world to intervene militarily to protect human rights and end or prevent genocide. Yet continually the US fails to use military intervention to stop genocide. By understanding the historical characteristics of limitations in utilizing military intervention, this study will actually serve to help identify future challenges and better prepare the US to intervene when appropriate. This study examines three main case studies Rwanda, Bosnia, and Sudan. Based on the three case studies, this study looks at how various schools of International Relations IR theory can help explain why nations and leaders make the decisions they do as well as analyzes factors that influence the decisions to intervene or not. Factors include the time elapsed between each conflict s start and the mass killing natural resources that each nation contributed to the international community and how it affected the relationship with the U.S. the ethnicity of each nation and the political lobby and political environment of the U.S. during the period. This study also explains how past experience and the use of analogies can drive political decisions. Although each case is unique, there are common characteristics visible in all three cases. This study has identified three primary characteristics that may explain why the US does not utilize military intervention to stop genocide. The first characteristic preventing the US from utilizing military intervention to stop genocide is the nature of international relations. More specifically, the prevailing school of international relations theory through which a nation and its political leaders view the world and acts is key to understanding its priorities and likely courses of action.
- Government and Political Science
- Sociology and Law
- Humanities and History
- Military Forces and Organizations