UNIT 19 INTERVENTION/INVASION

Structure
19.1 Introduction
19.2 Concept of Intervention
19.2.1 Origin of Concept of Intervention

19.3 Types of Intervention

19.3.1 Purpose of Intervention
19.3.2 The Motive of Intervention

19.4 Nature and Frequency of Foreign Intervention

19.5 Interventions since Second World War
19.6 Humanitarian Intervention
19.7 Summary
19.8 Exercises

19.1 INTRODUCTION
Intervention is a word used to describe an event, (something that happens in international
relations). The event might take a form as significant as the entry of one state into a violent
conflict within another state or as apparently insignificant as an ill-chosen remark made by a
statesman about the affairs of a foreign state.
The fact that the same word is used to describe such diverse phenomena turns the focus of
attention from intervention as an event to intervention as a concept, in order to decide what it
is that is common to each case. This is the task of definition and three general observations
about it arise from these statements:
In the first place, because intervention is a word used to describe events in the real world, and
not a purely abstract concept, freedom to stipulate an arbitrary definition is limited. Second,
because intervention is a term used to describe such a broad range of activities in international
relations, it is unlikely that any definition can capture the whole of reality. And in the third place,
disagreement about the concept of intervention, about the sorts of activity that are to be called
intervention and what it is that makes them similar, casts doubt upon any idea that painstaking
research could uncover the essential meaning of intervention.

19.2 CONCEPT OF INTERVENTION

When one country interferes by force in the internal affairs of another country, the act is called
intervention. An example of intervention was the demand by the US government in April 1898
that Spain withdraw its troops from the island of Cuba, which was then in rebellion against
Spanish rule.
Nearly all-powerful nations have at some time or other, intervened in the affairs of weaker
neighbours. According to some international lawyers, a country has the right to intervene in the
9

affairs of another whenever it sees a threat to its own peace and safety or to the property or
persons of its citizens. Today, it is generally believed that intervention should take place only
under the authority of an appropriate international organisation, such as the United Nations.
Intervention in international law means the dictatorial interference by a state in the internal
affairs of another state, or in relations between two other states. It is formally forbidden by a
number of treaties, especially among American republics, and has been described as illegal in
essence and justified, if at all, only by its success.
Not all intervention has been selfish, predatory, maleficent or unsought. Not all has involved a
disproportionate exercise of strength by the great power, although the disproportionate strength
was usually in the background. Much of it has been reactive.
Intervention, mediation and interposition
Intervention is distinguished from mediation or the offering of advice by a state after a request
by other states, and from representations or protests that concern the demanding states own
interests or rights. It is also distinguished from interposition, or forcible action by one state in
the territory of another to protect its nationals, and from defensive action against military action
or aggression. It may take the form of another military or diplomatic action but diplomatic
intervention implies resort to force if the demands are not complied with.

19.2.1 Origin of the Concept of Intervention

As a technical term the word intervention is of comparatively modern origin, but the idea
comprised in it may be traced back to E. de Vattel, the Swiss jurist, whose Droit des gens was
first published in 1758. He laid down the general rule of state independence that every state
has the right to govern itself as it thinks fit, adding the corollary that no foreign power has a
right to interfere with a state apart from friendly help unless it is asked to do so or unless
prompted by special reasons. The notion that states were independent was recognised in theory,
but in the European practice of that age little attention was paid to it by the more powerful states
when it did not suit their purpose.
The writers on international law who succeeded Vattel forged and welded the materials scattered
throughout his book into a more compact form, but it was some time before interference was
insulated as a substantive branch of international law and longer still before it acquired
intervention as a technical name. This hardened as a distinctive term during a period extending
roughly from 1817 to 1830. The reason for its swift evolution during this period is paradoxical.
The gross infractions of state interference were so numerous that jurists were forced to give
the topic of intervention, whether justifiable or otherwise, an increasing amount of attention.
Within the brief span of the twelve years between 1820 and 1832 the Holy Alliance exploited
its principles of interference in Naples and Spain; Greece and Belgium became independent
states by the intervention of foreign states and the French and Austrian interventions balanced
one another in Italy.

19.3 TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS

There are three distinct varieties of intervention. The commonest type, the type which has been
discussed in the above historical sketch, is internal intervention or interference by one state
between disputant sections of the community in another state, the matter of dispute being usually
but not invariably some constitutional change. Internal intervention, when it occurs, is directed
10

against abnormal conditions resulting from internal strife, and as a general rule, the expectant
treatment of non-intervention has come to be preferred to the surgery of intervention.
A second type of intervention so called consists of punitive measures adopted by one state
against another to enforce the observance of treaty engagements or the redress of illegal
wrongs. Such interventions occurred with considerable frequency throughout the 19th Century,
as for example, the blockade by France in 1838 of the coast of Argentina on the ground of the
alleged ill treatment of French subjects by the local government; the warlike expedition sent
jointly by England, France and Spain in 1861 to compel Mexico to repay their debt; the English
embargo on Greek shipping in 1850 as a means of redressing the wrongs suffered by Don
Pacifico and other British subjects; the naval expeditions dispatched against Korea in 1866 by
France and the United States to punish in the one case, the murder of a French apostolic vicar
and in the other, the destruction of an American vessel and the massacre of its crew.
A third type of intervention, usually referred to as external intervention, consists of interference
by one state in the relations usually the hostile relations of other states without the consent of
the latter. The great majority of such interventions have had as their aim the promotion or
settlement of a war between the states interfered with. External intervention usually involves
participation by the intervener in a war, and the modern international law does not profess to
classify the causes of war as just or unjust. But since the institution of League of Nations
(formed in 1919), this doctrine has been seriously modified. Article II of the Covenant of the
League declared that any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any members
of the League or not, is a matter of concern to the whole League, which shall take any action
that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. Not only are
elaborate provisions made in other articles for the settlement of disputes between member states
but also certain topics are expressly specified as generally suitable for arbitration.
Since all the three forms of intervention involve force or the threat of force, the question is
raised as to the difference between intervention and war. This is found to lie not in the acts
of the parties but in the intention of one of them. The intervening state in spite of the hostile
character of its conduct and of its recognition as such by the state affected usually regards
pacific relations as uninterrupted. The claim of the intervener may be reluctantly acquiesced ,
in which case the intervention is non-belligerent; or it may be taken up as a gauge of war, and
then it becomes belligerent.
As to the distinction between intervention and war, W.E. Hall wrote:
[R]egarded from the point of view of the state intruded upon, it (intervention) must always
remain an act, which, if not consented to, is an act of war. But from the point of view of the
intervening power it isa measure of prevention or of police, undertaken sometimes for the
express purpose of avoiding warit may be a pacific measure, which becomes war in the
intention of authors only when resistance is offeredHence although intervention often ends
in war, and is sometimes really war from the commencement, it may be conveniently considered
abstractedly from the pacific or belligerent character which is assumed in different cases.
Further, intervention, as a type of activity can be seen as military intervention or economic
intervention. Military intervention might be one such type, taking place when troops are
dispatched to keep order or to support a revolution in a foreign state, or when military aid is
given to a government whose internal position is insecure or which is in conflict with a neighbouring
state. It has been argued that the very presence or display of armed force, such as the location
of the American Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, has an effect on the politics of the littoral
11

states tantamount to intervention in their affairs.

Economic intervention might constitute another type of intervention, occurring when strings are
attached by the great powers to aid given to the small or when an economically developed state
denies a contract to an underdeveloped primary-producing state.
Various sorts of political intervention might be said to take place when hostile propaganda is
disseminated abroad, when moral support is lent to a revolutionary struggle within another state,
when recognition is refused to an established government, or when a member state of the
Commonwealth insists on discussing the internal affairs of another member at a primer ministers
conference.

19.3.1 The Purpose of Intervention

The purpose of intervention is the end toward which it is directed, the thing that it is designed
to achieve. The balance of power, the interests of humanity, and the maintenance of ideological
solidarity are but three of the ends which states have pursued by intervention, and it might be
argued that the compilation of a catalogue of purposes of intervention is of little value in defining
intervention, because it would tend to become a general account of states motives for action
in foreign policy. If intervention takes place for the purpose of forcing a delinquent state to
submit to the recognised rules of international law or to punish a breach of the law or to
neutralise the illegal intervention of another, then it has been argued that it is a lawful activity.
Whenever an intervention can be said to take place by right, it never constitutes a violation of
external independence or territorial supremacy. But this definition of intervention refers to
dictatorial interference in the internal or external affairs of a state, and dictatorial interference
clearly implies a violation of external independence or territorial supremacy. This is the core of
the confusion between the use of the word intervention as a description of an event in international
relations and its use as a normative expression by international lawyers. If intervention by right
is held not to violate the independence of the target state, a violation which features in most
definitions as the thing, which above all differentiates intervention from other phenomena, then
it is to be understood that intervention by right is not intervention. However difficult it may
prove, there can be no objection in attempting to distinguish lawful from unlawful intervention,
but excluding lawful intervention from the class of events called intervention does not advance
the attempt.

19.3.2 The Motive of Intervention

The motive of intervention is political rather than legal. The US has, in pursuance of policies
related to the Monroe Doctrine intervened in Caribbean republics-in Cuba to establish the
independence of that state, and in others to maintain order and international obligations. It has
been party to treaties that permitted intervention in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and the
Panama, although these treaties were subsequently terminated in accordance with the good
neighbour policy. Since Second World War, the US has intervened in Greece, Lebanon, Cuba,
the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam to contain communism, although other grounds such as
protection of national or collective self defence were also asserted.
Also, the Soviet Union had entered Hungary and Czechoslovakia to maintain communist control,
and Great Britain and France have intervened in Egypt in 1956 to prevent nationalisation of the
Suez Canal.

12

The great powers have frequently intervened, sometimes collectively, to prevent a state from
becoming so powerful as to disturb the balance of power. A system of international relations
based on equilibrium of power can hardly avoid occasional intervention of this kind. Intervention
to stop gross inhumanities against minorities or dependent peoples has also occurred, and has
been considered justifiable if the purpose was genuinely humanitarian. Often such interventions
have veiled political objectives.
The League of Nations Covenant declared that the League shall take any action that may be
deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations, and the UN Charter gives the
Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Action authorised in pursuance of these provisions, as by the UN in Korea and Congo, has,
sometimes been called collective intervention, and is undoubtedly legal if in pursuance of the
authority given to the organisation by its members.
The prevention of situations that will induce states to intervene in the affairs of others is the
major problem of international law and international organisation and can hardly be solved
without, in some degree, subjecting the sovereignty of states to a world order. Nations continue
to be reluctant, however, to surrender their sovereignty in this manner.

19.4 NATURE AND FREQUENCY OF FOREIGN

INTERVENTIONS
The legal notion of sovereignty notwithstanding, governments frequently intervene in the domestic
affairs of other states. But as intervention contradicts the international legal norm, officials
usually take the position that only other (unfriendly) governments engage in interventions, whereas
they themselves do not practice intervention. Moreover, to the extent that they admit their own
intervention, they tend to justify their action as resulting from an invitation or a request by
a friendly government under duress, or as being a regrettable reaction against a hostile
governments prior intervention. You should note, however, that intervention is not restricted to
interference in the domestic affairs of another country. As already mentioned, we are using the
term intervention to refer to any involvement by a government in a conflict situation that does
not concern it in a direct or major way.
Intervention can take the form of covert activities. For example, in the early 1970s, the US
government provided funds to friendly conservative politicians in Chile in order to prevent the
election of Marxist president Salvador Allende, and it conducted secret bombings of Cambodia
during the Indo-china War. Intervention can also take the overt form of massive and direct
military assistance to a friendly regime in trouble, such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
in 1979, the US participation in the Vietnam War during 1965-1973, and the Chinese entry into
the Korean War in 1950. Between these two extremes, there is a great deal of variation in the
secrecy, scale, and direct involvement of the intervener. For example, although in 1961 the US
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supplied and organised a group of Cuban exiles in their
attempt to overthrow Fidel Castros communist government, the US military forces did not
engage in direct combat when the invasion was launched. Moreover, although never officially
acknowledged, the US governments role in this attempt to overthrow another government
(known as the Bay of Pigs episode, named after the place where the invasion forces landed)
was an open secret. Until the Watergate era, the CIAs other covert activities, such as its
plots to assassinate Fidel Castro, of foreign intervention were less well known.
Among the 106 civil wars that were identified by Small and Singer for the period 1816-1980,
13

21 involved substantial foreign military intervention. That is, about 20 per cent of the civil wars
became internationalised. More than one country intervened in some of these wars (e.g., the
Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War). There were altogether 33 cases of substantial
foreign military intervention in civil wars.
The following table shows the most active interventionists in other peoples civil wars. The
United States and the United Kingdom head the list with six interventions each. The five
interventions undertaken by France place it a close third. The record of intervention showed in
this table, however, is understated for two reasons. First, only substantial military interventions
were counted. The coding rules used by Small and Singer define substantial as meaning that
the intervening state must commit at least 1,000 troops or suffer 100 battle deaths. As a result,
small-scale interventions are not included in this table. Second, there were many situations that
did not qualify according to the definition of civil war used by Small and Singer, but that
nonetheless experienced foreign intervention. The Bay of Pigs episode mentioned earlier is such
an example. Similarly, Soviet military forces did intervene in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and, most
recently, Afghanistan, even though the internal turmoil of these countries did not qualify as civil
war.
Military Intervention in Others Civil Wars, 1816-1980

The Intervener

Number of
Interventions

Countries Experiencing Civil War

United States

USSR/Russia, Lebanon, Vietnam,

Laos, Dominican Republic, Cambodia

United Kingdom

Portugal, Spain, Argentina, China,

USSR/Russia, Greece

France

Spain, Argentina, Morocco, USSR/

Russia

Portugal

Spain

North Vietnam

Laos, Cambodia

Japan

USSR/Russia, China

Syria

Jordan, Lebanon

Belgium

Zaire

Cuba

Angola

Egypt

Yemen Arab Republic

Finland

USSR/Russia

Germany

Spain

Italy

Spain

Russia

Iran

South Vietnam

Cambodia

Source: Melvin Small and J. David Singer, Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars,
1816-1980 (Beverly Hills, California:Sage, 1982). 16-1980 (Beverly Hills, California: Sage,
1982).
14

19.5 INTERVENTION SINCE SECOND WORLD WAR

Korean War
Although two different political governments had emerged in Korea by 1947, the fact that they
were still only provisional governments gave the Korean people hope for a possible unification.
Up until this time, nationalists from both the North and the South continued their efforts to
negotiate a unification treaty; however, irreconcilable differences between the US and the
Soviet Union prevented any such goal. Eventually, the US concluded that the chasm that existed
between the US and the Soviet Union in establishing a unified Korea was insurmountable and
so they pressured the United Nations to allow for a general election in Korea. Suspicious of
foul play by the US, the Soviets refused to allow the election to be held in North Korea.
Nevertheless, the US advocated that voting should still be carried out in the south in order to
establish some sort of legitimate government, and so in May 1948, South Korea held its first
general elections. Thereafter, the Republic of Korea (ROK) was established and was promptly
recognised by the United Nations as the legitimate government of Korea. Up until and through
these elections there were heavy protests by Korean leftists who feared that this election would
kill all chances for unification. During the same time the north followed with similar actions by
holding its own elections. When the votes were tabulated, Kim Il Sung was declared president
of the new Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPKR), which was immediately recognised,
by the Soviet Union and other communist countries as the legitimate government of North
Korea. By winter of 1948 the worst fears of Korean Nationalists were confirmed as Korea
became permanently divided at the 38th parallel.
In May 1948, a communist government was formed in North Korea, and Soviet Union instantly
recognised it. Other East European countries followed suit. The two Koreas were involved in
mounting conflict with each other while the US and USSR forces moved out of the two Koreas.
With deteriorating relations in the wake of Cold War, Korea became an additional point of
conflict.
On 25 June 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea. The matter was immediately reported
by the US to the Security Council. A UN unified command was set up, under the commandership
of General MacArthur of US. The UN forces, hence, (most of them US troops) freed South
Korea, but did not stop on the dividing line, the 38th parallel. They began pushing the North
Koreans inside their territory and reached almost till the Chinese border. This certainly was not
the spirit of the UN Security Council resolutions. An armistice was signed only in July 1953.
The Korean War came to an end, leaving behind an intensified Cold War, heightened antiCommunist propaganda by the US and increased mutual hate and distrust.
Suez Crisis
The Egyptian decision to nationalise the Suez Canal in July 1956 led to a serious crisis involving
the use of force by Israel, Britain and France. The invasion was universally condemned but the
Soviet Union got the opportunity to threaten rocket attack on Anglo-French forces. America
retaliated by counter threat. The United Nations compelled the British, French and Israelis to
terminate their military action. The threatened rocket attack did not take place. Britain and
France suffered humiliation. By their threatened intervention, the Soviets gained a sizeable
propaganda victory in the Arab world.
In the mid and late 1950s, however, Cold War moved into new arenas. As position in Europe
15

and East Asia stabilised, the great powers increasingly turned their attention to the Third World,
the newly independent states of the West Asia, South East Asia and Africa which were
struggling to develop viable economies and to establish national identities. Soviet-American
competition in the Third World produced the first of many explosive confrontations in the Suez
Crisis of 1956, when the US withdrew an offer to assist Egypt in constructing a gigantic dam
on the river Nile; the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalised the Suez Canal.
Dependent on the Mediterranean lifeline, Britain, France and Israel subsequently launched
military action against Egypt. The Soviet Union backed Nasser, and Khrushchev even threatened
to use nuclear weapons against the Western allies. Fearful that the Soviet Union might exploit
the crisis to extend its influence in the West Asia, the Eisenhower administration forced Britain
and France to withdraw. The crisis ended, but it only added to intensify the Cold War rivalry.
The Russians expanded their assistance to Nasser and sought to gain influence in the other
West Asian nations. The US enunciated the Eisenhower Doctrine, which offered aid to any
West Asian nation threatened by Communism.
Cuban Missile Crisis
The island of Cuba in the Caribbean is located at a distance of 90 miles from the US state of
Florida. In 1898, United States freed Cuba from Spain. The United States acquired the right to
intervene through the incorporation of Platt Amendment in the Constitution. In 1952, Batista,
who had served as president of Cuba from 1940 to 1944, returned to power and established his
dictatorship in Cuba that lasted till 1959, when Fidel Castro managed to capture power. In 1961
he formally declared himself as a Marxist. On the assumption of power, Castro tried to concentrate
all the powers in his own hands and tried to establish a dictatorship. Castro also tried to free
the Cuban economy from American dependence and decided to ally with a new paymaster USSR. Thus he converted Cuba virtually into a satellite of Soviet Union. Cuba further proceeded
with the nationalisation of American property. The US reacted by stopping purchase of Cuban
sugar and even severed diplomatic relations with Cuba. In the meanwhile a large number of
anti-Castro Cubans moved to the US. Their strength increased so much so as to be able to form
a Cuban army in exile.
In April 1961, president Kennedy permitted the Cuban exiles to invade the island in the hope
that the Cubans would rise and support the liberating forces against Castro. However, the
invasion was a complete disaster. The failure of the mission (popularly known as Bay of Pigs)
greatly enraged the American public opinion. In the meanwhile Soviet prime minister Khrushchev
announced his decision to set up a Soviet base in Cuba with Soviet missiles, which posed a
serious threat to the security of the United States. In fact, since mid-1961, Soviet Union had
been supplying armaments including missiles to Cuba. As the installation of these missiles in
Cuba put the United States in direct firing range from Cuba, US claimed that it posed a serious
threat to its security. Though Khrushchev assured US that these missiles were installed only to
strengthen Cuban defence and were not meant for any offensive use, this did not satisfy the
US. In the meantime in October 1962, Soviet Union dispatched yet another vessel allegedly
carrying long range missiles. However, before this could actually reach Cuba, US announced
the blockade of Cuba. Although Soviet Union denounced the blockade, the Soviet missiles
carriers moved up to the quarantine line and stopped there. Moscow finally ordered these
ships to return home, thereby diffusing a situation, which could have converted into a nuclear
war. Soviet Union subsequently, dismantled the missile bases in Cuba.
Vietnam War
The Vietnam War proved to be a disastrous adventure of the American foreign policy. The
16

Geneva Agreement of 1954 confirmed the exit of French from the whole of Indo-China. It also
created two Vietnams, but they never lived in peace. The elections that were to be held in the
two parts in 1956 were never held. Instead the war began which lasted almost twenty years
and finally led to the creation of one unified Vietnam under the communist rule. While North
Vietnam was helped by the Soviet Union, it was mainly the American intervention that made
the Vietnam War different from other wars between the two neighbours.
Both China and Soviet Union were interested in bringing the conflict to an end and prevailed
upon North Vietnam to accept the Geneva Agreement. As South Vietnam did not respond
favourably to the Geneva Agreement, a war broke out between North and South which lasted
for almost 20 years and proved to be the most destructive war in the post Second World War
period.
The foreign policy-makers of the United States made several miscalculations and became
responsible for a prolonged war in which large numbers of casualties were suffered by both the
Americans and the Vietnamese. Eisenhowers decision to provide American military and
economic assistance to Ngo Dinh Diems regime was not in conformity with the US policy of
free elections to decide the contentious issues. When Kennedy assumed office in January 1961,
Vietnam was already Americas costliest commitment.
By 1963, America got more deeply involved in South Vietnam. In 1964 the first bombing raid
was made over North Vietnam, which soon became a regular feature for the Vietnam War. By
the close of 1972, the futility of continued war with Vietnam was realised. This led to the Paris
Agreement in January 1973, whereby a cease-fire was established, which did not last very long.
In 1974-75 the North Vietnamese launched an offensive against South Vietnam. The then
regime of South Vietnam collapsed and the city of Saigon was captured by the communist
troops on 30 April 1975. This marked the end of Vietnam War and the whole Vietnam came
under communist control.
Soviet Intervention in Czechoslovakia
Yugoslav secession in 1948, and the uprising in Poland and Hungary in 1956 had caused
upheaval in the communist system. The USSR could not afford to allow Czechoslovakia to
follow Yugoslav example. Josip Broz Tito was still alive and popular, and in Rumania, Ceausescu
was making uncomfortable gestures. The prospects of Czechoslovakia, under Dubeck sliding
out of the Soviet Bloc were disturbing. By June 1968, Soviet prime minister Kosygin had visited
Czechoslovakia, and Dubeck and other reformist leaders had visited Moscow. When Warsaw
Pact forces began manoeuvres in Czechoslovakia, the situation became very tense. The French
and Italian Communist parties tried to mediate. West Germany got so alarmed that it withdrew
its troops from the Czechoslovak border to belie the rumours that Germans were instigating the
popular reformists.
During mid-1968, Soviet Union alleged that a cache of American arms had been found in
Czechoslovakia. This allegation was sought to introduce Cold War politics in an essentially
internal crisis of the Communists. Soon the Soviet troops began to move out of Czechoslovakia,
but suddenly Soviet intervention took place on 20 August 1968, when the Soviet, East German,
Polish, Hungarian and Bulgarian troops marched into Czechoslovakia.
It was considered as a violation of the Czech sovereignty and in October 1968, Czechoslovaks
were asked to sign a treaty permitting Soviet troops to be stationed in Czechoslovakia. The
Soviet action in Czechoslovakia was a mild intervention. From a Soviet point of view, it was a
regrettable necessity.
17

Afghan Crisis
Tension was developing between the East and the West after the Helsinki Summit in 1975. The
areas of tension were outside Europe. However, the Cold War returned with the Soviet military
intervention in Afghanistan. The West described Soviet action as an invasion of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was a monarchy till Mohammed Daud deposed King Zahir Shah in 1973. Daud
abolished monarchy and himself became the president of the new Republic. Daud decided to
seek weapons from the Soviet Union to restore balance of power in the region. Earlier, Daud
had been supported by Peoples Democratic Party, which soon split into two factions: one led
by Mohammed Taraki and Hafizullah Amin and known as the Khalq, and the other led by
Babrak Karmal, called Parcham.
Having consolidated his position, Daud played off East against the West and sought help from
the Shah of Iran. He persecuted both the factions of Peoples Democratic Party, and in 1977
put some of their leaders in jail. Meanwhile, both the factions had penetrated into the army and
had even made a sort of truce with each other. The tables were turned and Mohammed Daud
was ousted in 1978. Hafizullah Amin took over as Afghan president in September 1979.
Meanwhile, in Iran, Shah had been deposed and Ayatollah Khomeinis volunteers had seized the
US Embassy and taken many Americans as hostages. The USSR felt that America might
organise a coup in Iran. In anticipation that Amin would join hands with America, Soviet Union
decided to get rid of him and tighten its grip on Afghanistan. The Soviet forces entered
Afghanistan towards the end of 1979. Amin was arrested and executed. Babrak Karmal came
back from the Soviet Union and was named the president. This action was described and
justified by the Soviet Union as a painful intervention to keep the US imperialists away from
the country.
Gulf War
The first major international crisis after the Cold War occurred in West Asia during 1990-1991.
The attack by Iraq on neighbouring oil-rich Kuwait, conquest and annexation of Kuwait into Iraq
as its nineteenth province marked the first phase of the crisis. When all efforts to persuade Iraq
to withdraw from Kuwait failed, and peaceful solution appeared to be impossible, the 28-nation
coalition, led by the United States and authorised by the UN Security Council, waged a war on
Iraq and liberated Kuwait. This was the second phase of what is called Gulf War II. The IranIraq War of 1980-88 may be described as Gulf War I. The prolonged war had been generally
indecisive, though Iraq claimed eventual advantage. As Iran had already come under the Islamic
regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, America had generally supported Iraq in that war, without being
actually involved in it. It is the Gulf War of 1990-91, which threatened the international peace
with injected Arab-Israel conflict input and an attempt to give it an ideological colour.

19.6 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

The concept of humanitarian intervention is not new-it has long been part of the inventory of
European power politics. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention remained an integral part of
the European powers conduct of foreign policy from until the First World War. The theory
implies that whenever its very government violates the human rights of the population of a
given state, another state or group of states has the right to intervene in the name of the socalled international community, thus temporarily substituting their own sovereignty for that of
the state against which the intervention is directed.
More recently, in a space of just a few months, from March to September 1999, the global
18

community witnessed major interventions in defence of human rights and self-determination in

Kosovo and East Timor. Although carried out by different coalitions of forces and acting under
different mandates, these two interventions signalled that it could well be an increased emphasis
on humanitarian intervention by the international community at the seeming expense of the
principles of state sovereignty and non-interference in a countrys domestic affairs. Such
interventions have sought to compel a change in behaviour regarding the widespread abuses of
human rights (Kurds and Kosovars).
Intervention and Non-intervention
Intervention having been discussed, non-intervention might be said to be the circumstance in
which intervention does not occur. But beyond the accident of non-intervention, a state might
be said to follow a policy of non-intervention when it chooses not to intervene in a situation
where intervention also is a possible policy. Publicists have expounded theories of non-intervention,
which assert the desirability of states refraining from intervention from the point of view of the
achievement of peace between states, or of providing for the best interests of a particular state.
An international law asserts non-intervention as a principle, a rule which states are obliged to
adhere to in their relation with each other.
The function of the principles of intervention in international relations might be said, then, to be
one of protecting the principle of state sovereignty. In the first place, states might feel obliged
to obey rules out of a sense of moral duty. Second, they might adhere to rules through a
calculation that it is in their interests to do so, and third, they might be forced into obedience
to rules. An account of the promise of each of these factors as inducements to rule-determined
behaviour by states will emerge from the study of the practice of states with regard to the
principle of non-intervention.

19.7 SUMMARY
Intervention has been and probably still is inevitable as one means of standardising the civilisation
upon which the international law is now based. From the point of view of maintaining peace,
there is something to be said for the suppression of internal discords in another state when it
is a common knowledge that no revolution can break out in a European state without the
likelihood of the balance of power between other states being upset. In many instances this is,
at best, an excuse and not a justification, but it does show clearly that a policy of isolation, if
it signifies absolute indifference to what occurs in other states, is neither advisable nor practicable.
If any change in the trend of ideas about intervention is perceptible, it is this. In future,
intervention is more likely to be undertaken collectively, and the threat in it will more probably
be one of economic outlawry-which is one of the sanctions of the Covenant of the League of
Nations or the Charter of the United Nations-rather than one of actual war.
Under international law, intervention may be legally justified (1) if the intervening state has been
granted such a right by treaty; (2) if a state violates an agreement for joint policy determination
by acting unilaterally; (3) if intervention is necessary to protect a states citizens; (4) if it is
necessary for self defence; or (5) if a state violates international law. The UN Charter also
justifies intervention when it involves a collective action by the international community against
a state that threatens or breaks the peace or commits an act of aggression. Nonetheless,
politically, much less ideologically motivated, interventions are most likely to occur when a great
powers hegemonic role is threatened within its sphere of influence. Interventions by small Third
World states in the territory of their own neighbours, however, also are likely to become a
frequent occurrence.
19

19.8 EXERCISES
1. What is meant by intervention?
2. Trace the origin and development of the concept of intervention.
3. Identify three distinct varieties of intervention.
4. What is the purpose of intervention?
5. What are the motives behind any kind of intervention?
6. Give examples of intervention in the post-Second World War period.
7. What do you understand by humanitarian intervention?
8. Explain the difference between Intervention and Non-intervention.

20