Conflict Perceptions Drive Humanitarian Military Interventions
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SAVING OUR WESTERN NEIGHBORS: HOW REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS & CONFLICT PERCEPTIONS DRIVE HUMANITARIAN MILITARY INTERVENTIONS A dissertation presented By Sidita Kushi to The Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the field of Political Science Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts March 2018 1 SAVING OUR WESTERN NEIGHBORS: HOW REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS & CONFLICT PERCEPTIONS DRIVE HUMANITARIAN MILITARY INTERVENTIONS A dissertation presented By Sidita Kushi ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University March 2018 2 ABSTRACT Humanitarian military interventions characterized the political atmosphere of the 1990s – legitimizing the phenomenon in which third-party actors use force to end intrastate abuses. While calls for humanitarian military intervention remain numerous, the phenomenon itself is laden with grave skepticism given the large “selectivity gap” in mission patterns. While states and institutions appear to enforce the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in reaction to some internal conflicts such as Kosovo, Bosnia, and Libya, they withhold similar policy options in cases of more intense armed conflict, as in Darfur, Syria, and Myanmar. Much of the research focuses on dichotomous explanations – suggesting that either ethical norms or geopolitical strategies guide patterns of such third-party interventions, but I demonstrate that the “selectivity gap” of humanitarian military interventions is primarily driven by variations in regional institutions and conflict perceptions. Such regional dimensions lead to more probable pathways of intervention within the West, founded upon value-based institutional resources as seen within NATO and EU structures. This project contributes to both theoretical and empirical debates within international relations and security studies. It introduces a new dataset that offers the first quantitative and systematic analysis of humanitarian military interventions, including 1,110 observations of intrastate armed conflict between 1987-2016, paired with a range of international responses, non- responses, and key theoretical variables. In addition, it introduces an Intervention Index that accounts for the intensity of military interventions across different cases of humanitarian crisis. The aggregated models founded upon this data highlight the importance of regional neighborhoods and conflict perceptions in activating third-party responses, leading to three novel pathways of humanitarian intervention. Using original-language NATO, US, EU, and Balkans archival records and leadership dialogues, I then process-trace how conflict perceptions across Western audiences 3 – from narrating a distant crisis as either civil war, systematic killings, ethnic cleansing, or genocide – altered international policy responses in Kosovo, Libya, and Darfur. Ultimately, by bridging levels of analysis and comparing several crises, I show how a conflict with favorable perceptions, occurring with a Western neighborhood interlinks with liberal norms and institutional security, activating the missions and resource-pooling of several Western organizations. Once a threshold of humanitarian suffering is met via the existence of an internal armed conflict, powerful states and coalitions will intervene depending on: 1.) whether the conflict occurs in the Western neighborhood; 2.) whether it is denoted as an identity civil war; 3.) and whether the target state is democratized. A Western region coupled with no perceptions of identity-based civil war prompts the greatest odds of humanitarian intervention. Such conclusions carry strong theoretical implications on the role of norms, ethics, and interests in international politics, as biased by region. The findings also offer vital implications for leaders, scholars, and non-governmental actors advocating for or against international military intervention as a policy choice. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project is directly attributable to the support and encouragement of my family, friends, and advisors. I am indebted to Dr. Mai’a Davis Cross, who tirelessly read my lengthy chapter revisions and provided nuanced feedback, alongside wise advice for the academic life. I could not have asked for a better advisor. I am also grateful to Dr. Natalie Bormann for redirecting my thoughts to the bigger picture – to why it all mattered. Special thanks go to Dr. Kirsten Rodine-Hardy for bringing me back from those “impostor syndrome” moments. To Dr. Thomas Vicino, Dr. Denis Sullivan, Dr. Michael Tolley, and the other wonderful professors in the Political Science Department, thank you for supporting my academic career from day one of my studies as a wide- eyed master’s student. To my heroic parents, Shpresa and Edmond, I am eternally grateful for your love, wisdom, and sacrifices. You risked it all in a foreign land for the sake of your young children. Your bravery and hard work made it possible for me to pursue these intellectual dreams. Thank you for raising your daughters to dream big and constantly ask why. To my sister, Odeta, you know that I could not have done this without you. You are my best friend and lifelong support system. Thank you for editing my academic jargon time and time again, listening to my boring presentations, and keeping me going during the most challenging times. It would be impossible to adequately acknowledge here all the people who have contributed to this dissertation. Among my amazing friends at Northeastern University, a special thanks goes to Jarvis for reminding me to relax and have a bit of fun even in the busiest of days; Aeshna for those essential coffee breaks, pep talks, and delicious baked goods; Ian for being the best co-author one could ever ask for; Maria for indulging my nerdy side and obsession with maps; Kate for the laughs 5 amidst academic stress; Summer for the job market talks and fashion choices; and Serge for encouraging me into this adventure almost a decade ago. To Ben and Matt, I look forward to walking with you in May. Thank you all for the brunches, bottomless coffees, venting sessions, and most of all – solidarity. We’re all in this together. I am profoundly grateful for my “7” life friends, Diane, Kate, Laura, Hayley, Penninah, and Amy, and for my best friend Sarah. Your friendship throughout the decades is worth more to me than I could ever put in words. A nostalgic thanks goes to Çuçi, my cat of 16 years, who always put a smile on my face with his sassy antics. I’ll miss you. Lastly, I acknowledge the many brilliant humans across the globe who may never have the same opportunities to showcase their talents and ideas – whether due to war, discrimination, poverty, or geography. I hope that this project brings us a tiny step closer to a kinder, more just world. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 5 Table of Contents 7 List of Tables 9 List of Figures 10 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 12 Chapter 1. Introduction: Where Do Humanitarian Military Interventions Happen? 14 1.1. Research Question and Approach 18 1.2. Patterns and Definitions 26 1.3. Significance and Contributions 30 1.4. Chapter Overviews 31 Chapter 2. Literature Review: Beyond Dichotomies of Power Politics and Human Rights 35 2.1. Historical Context of Military Humanitarianism 38 2.2. Theories of International Relations 43 2.3. Empirical Perceptions of Humanitarian Military Interventions 66 2.4. Regional Variables as Distorters of Selectivity 72 Chapter 3. Methodology: Generalizations of Selectivity and Regional Nuance 80 3.1. Brief Theoretical Framework 80 3.2. Concepts and Variables 82 3.3. Hypotheses: Three pathways of intervention 111 3.4. Research Design: Mixed methods 118 Chapter 4. Models of Intervention: Region, Conflict Perception, and Interests 123 4.1. Model Specifications 123 4.2. Patterns in Aggregated Intervention Data 125 4.3. Testing Hypotheses 151 4.4. Remaining Puzzles 162 7 Chapter 5. Intervention in Kosovo: Western Institutions and Transformed Perceptions 164 5.1. Background and Timeline on Kosovo 168 5.2. Standard Explanations of NATO Intervention: Human Rights vs. Interests 174 5.3. Beyond Standard Explanations: Conflict Perceptions and Region 184 5.4. Conclusions 213 Chapter 6. Intervention in Libya: National Interests and Regional Demands 216 6.1. Background and Timeline on the Libyan Crisis 221 6.2. Standard Explanations of NATO Intervention: Human Rights vs. Interests 227 6.3. Favorable Conflict Perceptions as Promoters of Western Regional Interests 236 6.4. Conclusions 244 Chapter 7. Non-Intervention in Darfur: Civil Wars in Bad Neighborhoods 245 7.1. Background and Timeline on the Darfur Crisis 247 7.2. Standard Explanations of Non-Intervention: Interest in Status-quo 259 7.3. Ambiguous Conflict Perceptions in Bad Neighborhoods 265 7.4. Conclusions 281 Chapter 8. Conclusions and the Future of Humanitarian Interventions 285 8.1. Key Drivers of Intervention 286 8.2. Key Drivers of Non-intervention 288 8.3. Policy-making against Regional Selectivity 292 8.4. Contributions and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention 293 References 297 Appendix 323 8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Unit of Analysis – Armed Intrastate Conflict 85 Table 2. Dependent Variables – Interventions 107 Table 2b. Dependent Variables Continued – Interventions 108 Table 3. Independent Variables 109 Table 4. Descriptive Statistics 126 Table