The state where humanitarian agencies are solely left with problems requiring political and military response they might even inadvertently compound such problems which points to conflict and eventually becoming the whipping boy for political inaction. Threats to regional peace and security of large-scale forces massive human rights violations and leads to regional organizations to take responsibilities in the area of peace-making and peace-settlements. Increasing awareness and readiness by international and regional organization presents opportunities as well as challenges to humanitarian agencies, which leads to the mobilization of peace efforts, provides greater opportunities for harmonizing policies and actions, and facilitates information sharing, consultations and decision-making. This allows the incorporation of humanitarian concerns in peacemaking and peace-keeping arrangements so as to build the momentum for peace. At times, humanitarian efforts have too often disconnected from the political and diplomatic action needed to end the crises that have placed people in danger. Humanitarian intervention alone, however, does not eliminate the root causes of the problems it addresses.
The researcher finds out that trying to save lives is a moral concern but not a legal doctrine, thus, states very often fail to fulfill this obligation. For instance, the UNHCR, acting as facilitator, setting norms, providing support, and often operating on the ground arrests the situation by facilitating refugees escape from danger and protect them in exile, Poor countries subject to refugee flows from neighboring states have become increasingly unwilling to bear the economic, environmental, political, and security costs of hosting large refugee populations.
On the other hand, the intervention alternative is not promising, where the record of actual interventions to suppress violence and restore peaceful relations among peoples at war within their own societies is not encouraging (Laban and David 1980, p. 160-81). Intervention is costly, in financial, political and human terms and so the will to intervene, even in the face of horrific violations of human rights, seems to have faded away. Despite this, the humanitarian impulse remains strong in public sentiment throughout the industrialized democracies that expresses through civil society. Academics and statesmen have often supported the idea of limiting humanitarian intervention only to situations in which vital national interests are at stake. Humanitarianism has to be smart, effective as well as compassionate. This may mean at times confronting painful trade-offs between short-term and long-term goals. A commitment to rescue does not preclude the political and diplomatic hard work that must go into bringing about peace, and then helping war-torn societies achieve reconstruction and reconciliation.
Effective Cooperation in Crisis Management
Political and security problems and their solutions are linked and influence each other. Humanitarian action is not far from being solely a question of international charity but can support peace and reconciliation. In return, it depends on political and military action to end human suffering to move closer to peace. On the other hand, there is a need for further re-thinking of the concept of threats to international peace and security as a basis for collective action. Emphasis is also given to the recognition of the dependency as well as the potential of humanitarian action that should not make it subservient to interests in the political and security realm. Humanitarian action should, therefore, be used neither as a fig leaf nor as a scapegoat. Although humanitarian presence can have a moderating effect on receptive authorities, its agencies cannot provide protection against virulent attacks on the security of people, and it is this protection which, although needed most, remains in short supply. Also, preserving the integrity of humanitarian action means recognizing fully the impartiality with which it focuses on the material and protection needs of the victims on either side of conflicting states.
Therefore, the researcher finds out that humanitarian intervention distinguishes humanitarian impartiality from the question of political neutrality, a distinction which may pose serious practical challenges in integrated operations and bring painful moral dilemmas when dealing with heinous acts. It also aims at recognizing humanitarian impartiality without hiding behind it because of reluctance to choose sides against unacceptable behavior or objectives. It can also be viewed as a means of drawing clear lines when for the sake of negotiations on peace and stability where certain human rights and humanitarian interests may be sacrificed at the altar of morality. Humanitarian actors should not be left to muddle with unresolved political questions in the transition from war to peace as these are difficult issues given the realities and dilemmas with which states have to operate, but they must be tackled in the interest of effective humanitarian action and peace.
The ongoing reform process pointed to the embattled states offers a crucial opportunity to define clearly the United Nation’s role, including its humanitarian function as complementary to its essential role for peace and security (Weil and Carola 2001, p. 79-116.). Recognizing the danger states now pose to their own citizens in the name of security, however, forces the state to use humanitarian intervention as a remedy for this problem. On the contrary, states are themselves the problem, and, consequently, state-led military interventions will not result in less human right violations around the world, but indeed, state humanitarian interventions will themselves cause human rights abuse, and exacerbate the future danger states will pose by increasing their size and aggrandizing their militaries. What is needed in order to accomplish the goal of reducing massive human rights violations the conscience of mankind is the very least, a reduction in the size and power of states, or what would be more effective, a breakup of the universal monopolization of the provision of defense services that states now possess.
The world’s leading nations fully support the UN’s essential role for peace – rather than engaging themselves in areas where their strategic interests are thin, the organization must be well equipped with a rapid military deployment capability. Such forces should not only be prepared to provide protection and to support the delivery of assistance in mega-crises but will hopefully also be mandated to separate and disarm armed elements in civilian refugee camps.