Neo-Colonialism Disguised as U.S. Humanitarian Intervention
Neo-Colonialism Disguised as U.S. Humanitarian Intervention
Introduction
When we discuss “failed states” or fragile states, we tend to undermine some of the causes and contributors to their conditions. As we were shown in class, a failed state, though nuanced in definition, can usually possess common characteristics ranging from human rights abuses, civil war, lack of economic development, lack of political control, and many more. Somehow, discussion of how we can “fix” these “failures” overlook how many of the big powers– the United States, UK, and China– have contributed to the political, economic, and social unrest globally. All having engaged in extremely racist and harmful colonialism in heavily concentrated areas considered to be failing–while these failed states might be considered “sovereign” or “independent,” there is a large possibility that their fragility is a consequence of its historical path of forced dependency on its former colonial states.
A Decolonized Perspective
However, despite these contributions (whether it may be through political coupes, funding to civil wars, etc.) the US and UK deeming themselves “models” have engaged in various humanitarian aid projects in failed and fragile states such as Haiti, Somalia, the DRC, and others. Yet, I argue that these “humanitarian” influences of “developmental aid” and “support” are supposed to disguise themselves from their underlying neo-colonial implications.
The humanitarian interventions we so often see through charity non-profits or even larger examples like NATO’s intervention in Liberia are sheer examples of the “continuation of the colonial project” in these “failed” states. With these projects, attempts to “save” countries amidst social and political unrest are actually a way for superpower countries to change the environments and structures of states without the consent of the people. Yet, because it seems like we are helping others, we justify our interventions. For example, in the article “Every Option in Afghanistan Was Bad,” Grossman points out the complexities that have come with the U.S. intervening and the controversy over how our decision moving forward with Afghanistan is so significant not only to its people but the government as well. Deaths and displacement of many civilians in Afghanistan are constantly trying to be justified but were there other options the U.S. could have engaged in from the beginning that could have achieved the same goals the U.S. sought to accomplish? Whether it may be because we value democracy and therefore support cases in which the U.S. intervenes in countries to try and “protect democracy,” we are imposing what we believe is right to further develop our own country. Who are we to decide that we are the model countries should go after when we have issues our country has failed to resolve yet?
Haiti
U.S. intervention in Haiti shows the nature and possibly detrimental effects neo-colonialism has on fragile states. Haiti’s security and economic situation has progressively gotten worse over the past couple of decades. Dictatorships, military coups, natural disasters, poverty, and corruption have plagued the state and its people. For decades, the U.S. has played a large role in Haiti and its politics with many US administrations funding and backing up various coup d'états. Early intervention from 1915 where the U.S. invaded Haiti as a way to “stabilize” the country after a presidential assassination, led to the deaths of thousands of people and forced the implementation of a labor system that targeted poorer darker-skinned Haitians. Now, living in a time where the resulting government of Haiti was influenced by a more recent intervention–Operation Uphold, Democracy from the U.S–Haiti has become a state dependent on international organizations for funding and budgeting. This involvement “set the stage for the crisis now enveloping a nation of 11.5 million people.” So after President Moise was assassinated earlier this year, the question regarding how the US should intervene became a controversial topic. However, considering past interventions from the U.S, we should take this as an opportunity to support Haitian-led initiatives coming from Haitians themselves in trying to aid the state.
So What?
There is a real need to engage more with this concept of neocolonialism and how it’s been camouflaged with humanitarian intervention and aid from international organizations. We must be willing to critique our governments and these seemingly “good” charity organizations and how they interact in fragile states. There needs to be more accountability, especially in the U.S., on how we have contributed to the fragility of some of these states. In doing so, perhaps we can discover new solutions to help the development of other countries that drive away from the savior narrative.
Links I used!
Your blog post was fascinating. Your blog post raises a similar point to that of Caities being that western intervention tends to not be a good thing. In many ways it seems that as you mention we have just disguised methods of the past like colonialism under new ways to make it seem more acceptable in the modern world. Would you say that Western nations and the US should simply be hands off with these nations or is there something else they can do?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment! I think in order for Western countries to be involved in foreign humanitarian affairs, there needs to be a sense of accountability (explicit too), to how we have continuously engaged in imperialist/colonialist actions in the states that are fragile. There needs to be more communication between the people we intend to help and the organizers to generate ideas that would benefit the people and hopefully, in turn, help whatever issue we are trying to tackle. I understand these may be tactics that empower Western nations, but I also think many of these Western nations need to also allocate these resources and attention to their own citizens and crises that are similar to the fragile states, but are covered up being defacto actions and systemic issues.
DeleteGabby, I really enjoyed reading your blog post. I completely agree with your argument of powerful countries disguising neo-colonialism through what seem to be helpful interventions. Many organizations do impose their ideals and beliefs with their support and aid in these developing countries. It is so interesting how you use the term “model country” and it completely supports your argument that the US as a country thinks it has the right to interfere due to feelings of nationalism. The savior complex that powerful countries take on has shown to further damage the developing countries.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input! I agree, the savior complex is very powerful in imposing/forcing ideals onto a country (even if unintentionally). I understand there is a genuine want to help, but we need to reevaluate our actions and consider areas of intervention that is less disastrous and is supported by the people we are trying to help!
Delete