Human rights and Western wars: an interdependent relationship

Insight by Dalia Ismail

The lethal attacks currently being conducted by Israel in Lebanon, which in just one day caused over 558 deaths, including 50 children, and more than 1800 injuries (as of this writing, the number has already reached 1,640 deaths, including 104 children, and 8,404 injuries), come after a year of genocide in Palestine and repeated Israeli bombings throughout the region, accompanied by offensives led by the United States and the United Kingdom. These events represent one of the darkest pages in contemporary history, characterized by an inconceivable number of victims in a very short time. The mainstream narrative accompanying the war against Arab Muslims, portraying Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis as terrorists and threats to Israel and the West, serves to legitimize these crimes, making them appear, in essence, necessary.

This rhetoric, which justifies systematic violence, raises questions about the morality of many public figures who champion human rights, as well as the true motivations behind Western military actions. In this climate of brutality and dehumanization, the recent vote by Carola Rackete, a renowned environmentalist and human rights activist who is currently a member of the European Parliament for the Left group and a symbol of the fight against crimes perpetrated in the Mediterranean Sea against those attempting to reach European shores, becomes significant. Her decision to support lifting restrictions on Western arms use by Ukraine to directly target Russian territory appears paradoxical, especially since, if it were truly for the defense of Ukraine, the same would be done for Palestine and Lebanon. This scenario highlights the profound conflict between humanitarian ideals and the harsh realities of contemporary geopolitics, emphasizing the need for critical reflection on the ways and narratives that have accompanied the defense of human rights in the West in recent years.

The link between human rights and imperialist politics, namely the desire to extend one's political, economic, and cultural dominance over other territories, has deep roots. This relationship dates back to liberal internationalism, a political ideology born in the 19th century that promotes international cooperation and the protection of rights, but has often been used to justify imperialist wars and colonial occupations.

The interconnection between war, material interests, and human rights has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between genuine aid and military strategy.

In an era where colonial policies and narratives change form but not substance, it is essential to recognize how humanitarian practices intertwine with political violence.

Colonial Solidarity

According to the academic article The Geopolitics of Militarism and Humanitarianism by professors Killian McCormack and Emily Gilbert from the University of Toronto, militarism is not limited to the presence of armed forces but constitutes a network of values and practices that promote the use of force as a response to certain crises. Similarly, humanitarianism, an ethical principle of protecting people in danger, while appearing as a purely altruistic ideal, is often used to legitimize military actions.

Humanitarian discourses can, in fact, authorize military interventions, creating an apparent coherence between aid and violence. Military operations, presented as measures to protect populations from threats such as dictatorships, militias deemed terrorist, or religious impositions, raise questions about who truly benefits from such actions and whose lives are valued over others.

International humanitarian law, according to the two professors, has deep historical roots anchored in the concepts of civilian protection and the treatment of prisoners of war. After World War II, this legal field emerged with the goal of limiting the effects of war in the name of humanitarian principles. Various researchers and analysts criticize international humanitarian law, arguing that it does not merely mitigate violence but rather manages and regulates it, especially in conflict contexts.

The introduction of a "minimum humanitarian", a central concept in international humanitarian law, establishes the acceptable degree of violence through specific limits, such as the prohibition of direct attacks on civilians and the imposition of proportionality in military responses. This regulation does not eliminate the problem of violence but makes it compatible with international norms, giving a form of legitimacy to actions that, while causing civilian casualties, respect the established rules.

The management of violence through international humanitarian law thus creates a sort of moral compromise that allows belligerents to perpetuate acts of war, as long as they remain within defined boundaries. This implies that human losses are considered "acceptable" under certain circumstances, opening the door to justifications for the use of force, even when it causes significant harm to civilians and infrastructure, as has occurred in Palestine in recent months and recently in Lebanon.

In recent years, there has been an acceleration in the militarization of solidarity practices, with military operations generating new humanitarian crises, which directly involve Western states, such as the 2011 offensive in Libya and the resulting migration crisis.

Responsibility to protect

The responsibility to protect (R2P) is a principle of international law according to which states have an obligation to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. If they fail to do so, the international community is justified in intervening, even militarily, to ensure this protection. This doctrine emerged as a key tool for justifying the 2011 military aggression in Libya against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, with the intent of protecting Libyan civilians. However, as highlighted by Ilia Xypolia, a lecturer in international relations at the University of Aberdeen, the use of R2P has shown significant contradictions. The intervention, supported by UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, led to regime change but also to the collapse of political and social order in Libya.

Xypolia criticizes the application of R2P, pointing out how, behind the rhetoric of protection, geopolitical interests and power dynamics aimed at maintaining the influence of the United States and its allies in strategic areas are hidden. Although the operation was presented as a humanitarian response to Gaddafi's repression, it actually fueled instability and political fragmentation in the country. 

The humanitarian narrative that motivated the intervention found support not only among right-wing forces but also in sectors of the left, which saw the overthrow of Gaddafi as necessary for the protection of human rights and democracy.

The concept of R2P reflects a hierarchical vision in which the "civilized" have a duty to save the "barbarians" from their tyrannies. The intervention in Libya caused enormous suffering and turned the country into a battleground for numerous states with local interests, as well as between armed factions, fueling migration flows toward Europe.

The position of the Italian center-left, which supported the military aggression and then defended the rights of migrants in public speeches, represents a clear example of this contradiction. While proclaiming solidarity with those fleeing conflicts and persecution, the role of the West in creating these crises and in making agreements with states that violate human rights is ignored. This logic of "rescue" for the few, after oppressing millions in the Global South, perpetuates a cycle of exploitation and inequality. Therefore, the possibility of true self-determination for peoples is denied, creating a narrative in which the West stands as the savior, evading its historical and contemporary responsibilities in the power dynamics that affect the lives of millions of people.

The purely humanitarian discourse on immigration in Europe and the human rights violations in Global South states is problematic, as it tends to divide European public opinion between those who support welcoming migrants and those who advocate for their rejection. This dichotomy, though seemingly clear, is superficial and never addresses the structural issues that fuel migration, such as imperialist policies, conflicts, and the resulting economic crises. The result is a debate that focuses on who best manages the emergency, who has a more admirable ethic, and not on the rights of victims and global justice.