Whose in the right in humanitarian intervention?

THE idea of humanitarian intervention is, and indeed should be, a contentious issue. It revolves around the principle of assuming that one group of individuals are better suited to solve issues and decide what is right rather than another.

By its very nature it speaks of an unevenness in the international system and the implication that some states are unable to manage their own affairs. 

There is an argument to be made that intervention, particularly in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya et al, has been conducted via a British and American led concept of imposing westernised thinking on the rest of the world. It is a post-colonial argument that we have never stopped seeing ourselves as the saviours of the rest of the world.

There is another argument, however, that due to our past involvement with much of the world we have left the foundations for current crises. This does not necessarily mean historic involvement though. 

In the case of Iraq it seems inevitable that we will once again deploy ground troops. When we invaded in 1990 it started a chain of events which has by clear and predictable means led to the situation whereby much of the country is ruled by terrorist insurgents and it balances dangerously on the precipice of becoming a failed state.

Both invasions into Iraq, led by Bush and son inc, served no purpose in increasing US, or another nation states, power. Indeed they could arguably seen as diminishing power by demonstrating weaknesses in American long term foreign policy, particularly in regards to divisions between the Republicans and Democrats outlooks. On a separate front it has opened America, and the West as a whole, to a new wave of terrorism which weakens them domestically.

The recent interventions, and lack of intervention in some places, has additionally highlighted the failure of liberal ideology and the use of international agencies. 

The US had overruled the United Nations on a number of occasions to launch interventions under the pretext of defence of self interest. In other instances opportunities when intervention may genuinely be justified it is blocked by the self interest of member states with the power of veto. Likewise individuals in an increasingly networked society may be under the illusion that they have the power to shape the choices and identity of states. Evidence in the international system at present, think new order in Egypt as a crucial example, proves this wrong though, with non-state actors having a transitory effect at best. Protests for or against intervention may gather a few extra viewers for the news, and add a couple of column inches, however if it truly had an effect then we would not be back working with Iraq.

As such humanitarian intervention cannot, and should not, be seen as something which can be covered by one particular mindset. No single theory can cover the multifaceted issues which surround the moral and legal justifications for intervening in the affairs of a sovereign state. As Lebanon buckles under the sheer volume of refugees from Syria, and in turn finds itself under threat of civil war, it is clear though that for the sake of a global society we must do something to help our fellow human beings. What higher justification can be needed than to preserve the basic human rights of our fellow beings?