No humanitarian intervention in Asian genocides: how possible and legitimate?

Abstract

This paper addresses an important empirical puzzle: why has the United States, without exception, chosen not to intervene in the six humanitarian catastrophes in post-war Asia, namely in Indonesia, East Pakistan/Bangladesh, Cambodia, East Timor, Sri Lanka and Myanmar? We use an eclectic approach that blends arguments about the international normative structure and geostrategic interests to examine what has made the absence of humanitarian intervention in Asia by the US possible and legitimate. Specifically, we focus on the paradox between calls for humanitarian intervention and the historically and geographically contingent social construction of the norms of humanity, national sovereignty and UN-backed multilateralism in conjunction with US and Chinese concerns over their regional geostrategic interests. The normative narratives about race, 'communists', 'terrorists', international order and inclusive multilateral process, and geostrategic interests of the US and China combine to make non-intervention possible and legitimate.

Mainstream Media Surrounding The Uighurs In a Post 9/11 Historical Context: A Content Analysis

“…The 20th century has been labeled the "century of genocide" (Lee & Ducci 2020). In it alone, over 250 million lives have been claimed by the institution.…”

“…When thinking of genocide, many commonly think of the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Bosnian Genocide, but Asian genocides may not come to mind. This is possible due to the fact that the international community has not interveded in Asian genocides in the same way, even prior to China emerging as a more assertive actor on the international stage (Lee & Ducci 2020). This lack of intervention occured in four of the major genocides that occured in Asia in the second-half of twentieth century (excluding Rohingya) including "Indonesia in 1965-66, East Pakistan/Bangledesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975-79 and East Timor in 1975-99."…”

“…Since the post-Cold War era the U.S. has kept this attitude of non-interference as it failed to take any coercive action in the humanitarian crises in Sri Lanka in 2009 and in Myanmar since 2017 (Lee & Ducci 2020:1578. Humanitarian intervention is defined by Lee & Ducci (2020:1579 as "the deployment of military force by a state, or group of states, or an international organization across borders for the purpose of protecting foreign civilians from egregious violations of human rights." They explain that after the 2005 World Summit, the scope of "humanitarian intervention" was broadened to include "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity" (Lee & Ducci 2020:1579.…”

“…Humanitarian intervention is defined by Lee & Ducci (2020:1579 as "the deployment of military force by a state, or group of states, or an international organization across borders for the purpose of protecting foreign civilians from egregious violations of human rights." They explain that after the 2005 World Summit, the scope of "humanitarian intervention" was broadened to include "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity" (Lee & Ducci 2020:1579. Humanitarian intervention, therefore, is meant to be applied in cases of extreme, ongoing, human rights violations when a state is failing in its basic responsibility to protect its population (Lee & Ducci 2020).…”

Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide and the responsibility to protect

“…Despite the existence of a normative regime both condemning mass atrocities and establishing a collective responsibility to prevent them, countries with veto power over humanitarian military intervention have the power to request justice exoneration; this “state release” occurred in six major genocides in Asia – Indonesia, East Pakistan/Bangladesh, Cambodia, East Timor, Sri Lanka and Myanmar (Lee and Ducci, 2020). An exemplary of this is the USA, who was either complicit or acted as a bystander in some of these atrocities despite having ratified the GC in 1988; “instead of condemning the use of violence against civilians and bringing it to an end, the US tolerated or excused the atrocities committed by the foe of its arch-rival in the region, Vietnamese Communists” (Lee and Ducci, 2020, p. 157; Robinson, 2011). For deadly inconsistencies such as this, scholars question the universal circumstances of human rights, arguing that, in practice, some groups of humans are noticeably deemed less worthy of protection (Bachman, 2017).…”