Realism and the Humanitarian Crisis: A Realist Perspective on Intervention and Human Security - Aishvara Michelle

To begin with, I explain that Realism as the Foundation of Modern Politics in International  Relations (Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Morgenthau) emphasises the following assumptions:  Politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature itself; Politics is a concept of  Interest expressed in the form of power; and The concept of interest does not mean expressed  in the form of power that is fixed and once and for all. Realists argue that with regard to war  and conflict: as long as the international system is based on militarily sovereign nation states,  violence will continue to be used to resolve international conflicts. In line with this thinking,  security considerations will continue to be used as the main basis for relations between states.  Because the above conditions constitute a stable system, this situation will remain unchanged  as long as there is no force capable of bringing about change. 

Security refers to an atmosphere or condition free from danger, fear, and anxiety. The concept  of human security was first introduced by the UNDP, which includes economic security, food  security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and  political security. Meanwhile, according to Sharbanaou Tadjbakhsh and Anuradha M. Chenoy,  human security is the protection of individuals from risks that threaten their physical and  psychological security, dignity, and well-being. (Mumtazinur & Yenny Sri Wahyuni, 2021)  For realists, the military is an important part of the security approach in maintaining  sovereignty. The realist approach to security views the state as the object of security and the  international system as anarchic. Therefore, states secure their sovereignty by increasing their  military capabilities, supported by their weapons, based on political calculations. In line with  developments in the global political constellation, this has an Impact on security issues, such  as: humanitarian crises, human rights, failing states (Somalia, Iraq), terrorism and the clash of  civilisations, conflicts between countries and the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and  non-traditional security issues. (Idjang Tjarsono, 2020)

Realists argue that humanitarian intervention by a country is not purely altruistic but rather  based on calculations of profit and national interests. One relevant example is the intervention  in Donbas, Ukraine. The humanitarian aid provided by Russia in Donbas is seen as a tactic to  maintain Russian influence in Ukraine, not purely for humanitarian purposes. (Cem Boke, 2019)  

According to the realist perspective, military interventions identified with the label  "humanitarian" are tools in foreign policy to strengthen the Interests of the state. A prominent  example is the intervention in Somalia. Although the Intervention in Somalia was initially  successful, the “Black Hawk Down” incident, which was detrimental to US interests, resulted  in the withdrawal of troops and left the country mired in prolonged conflict. (Putri Widhyastiti  Prasetiyo, 2024) Finally, regarding the Rohingya crisis, realists consider that the response of  the UN and other countries is not based on sincere humanitarian motives, but is influenced by  geopolitical considerations and national interests, which explains the lack of large-scale  intervention. (Devi Rohma Rameliah, 2023) 

In conclusion, from a realist perspective, humanitarian crises are viewed as both the result and  a tool of inter-state power politics. This theory emphasises national interests, state security and  the struggle for power, rather than ethical issues or individual welfare. Intervention in  humanitarian contexts is not solely driven by morality, but rather by considerations of a state’s  national interests. Realism assesses that in an anarchic international system, states function as  the main actors that continuously strive to survive and increase their power. Although human  security is claimed to be the goal, it is only used as an excuse to hide deeper political agendas.  Major powers will only intervene if it benefits them and will not take risks or incur costs for  crises that do not involve clear strategic interests. The concept of "human security,” which  emphasises individual welfare, is considered by realists to be an idealistic agenda that is out of  touch with reality. Unlike other theories, realism remains focused on state security and power  competition, rather than universal protection of individuals. The failure of past humanitarian  interventions is often used by realists to show that idealism is incapable of dealing with the  dynamics of power in the real world.

REFERENCES 

Hubungan Internasional, J. (n.d.). STRATEGI KEAMANAN DALAM PARADIGMA  REALIS Idjang Tjarsono 

Sri Wahyuni, Y. (n.d.). El-Usrah: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Keamanan Individu (Personal  Security) dan Qanun Hukum Keluarga: Tinjauan Konsep Keamanan Manusia (Human Security)  Mumtazinur. 4(1), 2021. https://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/usrah/ 

Rameliah, D. R., & Sagena, U. W. (n.d.). Krisis Keamanan Manusia Di Myanmar dan  Penerapan Konsep Responsibility to Protect. www.quora.com 

Cem Boke. (2019, April 11). Third-Party Intervention to Civil Wars: Realist, Liberalis, English  School Theoretical Perspectives 

Putri Widhyastiti Prasetiyo. (2024, December 4). The Discourse of Humanitarian Intervention  Following the 2021 Coup d’etat in Myanmar: Realism vs. Constructivism