.
Policymaking is an evergreen struggle between solving real problems and striving for ideals. This is particularly true in foreign policy when addressing questions of humanitarian aid and intervention based on human rights abuses or failures. Human rights laws set admirable goals, but they are challenging to implement, often because the goals are too lofty or because those in power lack the political will to enforce them. This conflict is particularly clear with regard to humanitarian intervention, which requires the United States to grapple with its role in the world and the ideals it supports, in the 2016 presidential election.
This election has shown a particularly extreme clash of worldviews between the leading candidates. Republican nominee Donald Trump advocates a foreign policy strategy based on fear, largely driven by his xenophobic messaging, and rejects American intervention on any basis except when American security or interests are threatened. In today’s volatile world, such tunnel vision is dangerous. While American involvement in foreign conflicts should be judicious, it does have a responsibility as a global leader to set a moral example against injustice within its own borders as well as abroad. Trump’s extreme statements about immigration, refugees, and minority communities illustrate his disregard for true American values like acceptance, compassion, diversity, and selflessness. This track record inspires little hope that Trump would devote intellectual attention, let alone resources, to devastating humanitarian situations in other parts of the world.
In contrast, Clinton strongly supports humanitarian interventions in other countries —although it isn’t a highly emphasized part of her campaign. She has a long history of advocating for intervention in order to prevent or reduce the severity of humanitarian crises, including her support for intervention in Kosovo in the 1990s; for action in Rwanda when she was a senator; her vote for the Iraq war in 2002; and her support for bombing Libya to remove dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011. These are commonly viewed as key events indicating her philosophy toward America’s role in the world as it relates to humanitarian action. It is likely that this pattern will continue if she becomes president, considering her tentative support for removing dictator Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria.
In short, Clinton has hawkish tendencies when she believes that action has the potential to make a difference. This tendency has caused her trouble with both Republicans, who frame it as an over-eagerness to get involved in distant foreign conflicts, and with Democrats, who frame it as dangerous dependency on military action rather than diplomatic alternatives to resolve global issues. Humanitarian issues typically aren't a major part of campaign platforms for members of either party, although Democrats tend to emphasize them from a values-based perspective more than their Republicans counterparts. However, Trump's extreme foreign policy agenda has made it critical for Democrats to feature humanitarian issues more prominently in their platforms. The dichotomies between candidates have also drawn discussion on this issue from other members of both parties, partially as a defense of American values and partially out of concern for national security. Even if most voters do not prioritize humanitarian issues during elections, such discussions must occur.
Of course, it is crucial to balance all of the United States’ concerns, priorities, and values – domestic and international. U.S. humanitarian foreign policy tends to be reactive; it doesn’t intervene in a foreign conflict when there may be a chance of preventing the impact of a humanitarian crisis. Rather, the United States only gets involved once the crisis already exists. For instance, many people ask whether the United States would have been able to prevent the current crisis in Syria and the resulting refugee crisis had it taken action there earlier. Even if it had been able to prevent these crises, it would have to balance the human and physical costs it would have undertaken to achieve that goal with the possible outcomes, whether good or bad, of doing so.
Although intervention abroad is not always the right decision, Clinton’s strong moral imperative to defend human rights is a vital quality for the next president, who will be tasked with addressing increasing refugee flows around the world, a deteriorating situation in the Middle East, and numerous other crisis situations. Her approach to foreign policy balances those considerations while prioritizing America’s commitment to upholding human rights in voice and action.
About the author: Tania F. Cohen is employed by the American Society of International Law and is a Campaigns Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy, a Thought Partner for the Diplomatic Courier’s World in 2050 series. Her interests include domestic civic engagement, refugee and migration policy, and the influence of history on contemporary policy development and foreign relations. Any views expressed are those of the author and not those of the American Society of International Law.
Photo Caption: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers remarks at the Human Rights Day Town Hall Meeting with civil society organizations at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on December 10, 2010. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Why Humanitarian Interventionism Matters in the 2016 Presidential Election
October 27, 2016
Policymaking is an evergreen struggle between solving real problems and striving for ideals. This is particularly true in foreign policy when addressing questions of humanitarian aid and intervention based on human rights abuses or failures. Human rights laws set admirable goals, but they are challenging to implement, often because the goals are too lofty or because those in power lack the political will to enforce them. This conflict is particularly clear with regard to humanitarian intervention, which requires the United States to grapple with its role in the world and the ideals it supports, in the 2016 presidential election.
This election has shown a particularly extreme clash of worldviews between the leading candidates. Republican nominee Donald Trump advocates a foreign policy strategy based on fear, largely driven by his xenophobic messaging, and rejects American intervention on any basis except when American security or interests are threatened. In today’s volatile world, such tunnel vision is dangerous. While American involvement in foreign conflicts should be judicious, it does have a responsibility as a global leader to set a moral example against injustice within its own borders as well as abroad. Trump’s extreme statements about immigration, refugees, and minority communities illustrate his disregard for true American values like acceptance, compassion, diversity, and selflessness. This track record inspires little hope that Trump would devote intellectual attention, let alone resources, to devastating humanitarian situations in other parts of the world.
In contrast, Clinton strongly supports humanitarian interventions in other countries —although it isn’t a highly emphasized part of her campaign. She has a long history of advocating for intervention in order to prevent or reduce the severity of humanitarian crises, including her support for intervention in Kosovo in the 1990s; for action in Rwanda when she was a senator; her vote for the Iraq war in 2002; and her support for bombing Libya to remove dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011. These are commonly viewed as key events indicating her philosophy toward America’s role in the world as it relates to humanitarian action. It is likely that this pattern will continue if she becomes president, considering her tentative support for removing dictator Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria.
In short, Clinton has hawkish tendencies when she believes that action has the potential to make a difference. This tendency has caused her trouble with both Republicans, who frame it as an over-eagerness to get involved in distant foreign conflicts, and with Democrats, who frame it as dangerous dependency on military action rather than diplomatic alternatives to resolve global issues. Humanitarian issues typically aren't a major part of campaign platforms for members of either party, although Democrats tend to emphasize them from a values-based perspective more than their Republicans counterparts. However, Trump's extreme foreign policy agenda has made it critical for Democrats to feature humanitarian issues more prominently in their platforms. The dichotomies between candidates have also drawn discussion on this issue from other members of both parties, partially as a defense of American values and partially out of concern for national security. Even if most voters do not prioritize humanitarian issues during elections, such discussions must occur.
Of course, it is crucial to balance all of the United States’ concerns, priorities, and values – domestic and international. U.S. humanitarian foreign policy tends to be reactive; it doesn’t intervene in a foreign conflict when there may be a chance of preventing the impact of a humanitarian crisis. Rather, the United States only gets involved once the crisis already exists. For instance, many people ask whether the United States would have been able to prevent the current crisis in Syria and the resulting refugee crisis had it taken action there earlier. Even if it had been able to prevent these crises, it would have to balance the human and physical costs it would have undertaken to achieve that goal with the possible outcomes, whether good or bad, of doing so.
Although intervention abroad is not always the right decision, Clinton’s strong moral imperative to defend human rights is a vital quality for the next president, who will be tasked with addressing increasing refugee flows around the world, a deteriorating situation in the Middle East, and numerous other crisis situations. Her approach to foreign policy balances those considerations while prioritizing America’s commitment to upholding human rights in voice and action.
About the author: Tania F. Cohen is employed by the American Society of International Law and is a Campaigns Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy, a Thought Partner for the Diplomatic Courier’s World in 2050 series. Her interests include domestic civic engagement, refugee and migration policy, and the influence of history on contemporary policy development and foreign relations. Any views expressed are those of the author and not those of the American Society of International Law.
Photo Caption: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers remarks at the Human Rights Day Town Hall Meeting with civil society organizations at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on December 10, 2010. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
