# “Humanitarian intervention”: All you need to know By **Spatial** (6 September 2025) ## 1. Introduction Western imperialist wars follow set patterns. One common strategy is described as “humanitarian intervention”. By now it is so frequently relied upon that we can outline step-by-step the tactics it employs. ## 2. Atrocity simulation “Humanitarian interventions” in target countries are often preceded by Western-backed protest movements. Frequently, these movements use violence and attempt to provoke the authorities into a violent crackdown. Curiously, the protest movement confronts the government on plainly disadvantageous terms. Often, with no real chance of success unless outside forces come in to rescue it from defeat. > [!infobox|left] > ### Tank man prevents tanks from *leaving* Tiananmen Square >  > ![[Tank man traffic.jpg]] > ##### TOP: "Tank man" raw footage > ##### BOTTOM: Image showing direction of traffic > | <font color=008B8B>Blue</font> | Tiananmen Square | > | ---- | ---- | > | <font color=008B8B>Red</font> | Direction of the tank column | > | <font color=008B8B>Yellow</font>| "**Tank man**" | The crackdown, or likelihood thereof, is then used to demonise the government targeted by the Western powers for removal. Treatment of protestors is then leveraged for propaganda purposes in an act of “political jiu-jitsu”.[^2] Perceptions of a current or imminent atrocity are further enhanced by systematic media censorship of the provocative acts which prompted the crackdown. So is the role of foreign influence operations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy.[^10] As such, the target government’s response is then framed as an “unprovoked” or “disproportionate” attack on “peaceful protestors”. Such assertions are often contradicted by the evidence, though this evidence is usually concealed or downplayed. The simulated atrocity is then conveyed by the mainstream media to Western populations as a pretext for “humanitarian intervention” against the “authoritarian regime”. ## 3. Justification Notably, such “humanitarian interventions”, unless authorised by the UN Security Council, are completely illegal under the *United Nations Charter*.[^4] Absent this authorisation, “humanitarian interventions” amount to acts of “aggression”, known as the “supreme international crime” under international law.[^5] For this reason, when pushing for humanitarian intervention, Western politicians appeal to subjectivist concepts like “values” and “morality” rather than objectively-assessable criteria, like law. A further drawback of using legal justifications is that while a legal argument may be convenient in the *present*, even a legal principle crafted specifically to justify a particular intervention may act to constrain or delegitimise a *future* intervention. > [!infobox|left] > ### Colin Powell's speech at the UN Security Council (5 February 2003) >  > *Powell's speech failed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to authorise the use of force against Iraq. By this point, however, the decision to invade had already been made.* Insofar as legal justifications *are* forthcoming, they are developed by government lawyers, hired academics and advocates. Though these arguments are asserted to be legally correct, they are kept from actual scrutiny and are not tested by an independent court or tribunal for their validity.[^12] In this way, Western imperialism grants itself an effectively unfettered discretion to use economic coercion and lethal violence against the target state. Such methods are professed to be “targeted”, but in practice they are usually indiscriminate. Mass-casualty events often result,[^7] which in turn are falsely attributed to the target state, which is, in reality, exercising its lawful right to self-defence.[^6] The subjectivist justifications upon which the intervention is undertaken are essentially unreviewable. And they become practically irrelevant once the attack is underway and facts on the ground established. ## 4. Aftermath Once the intervention is underway, mainstream criticism is finally permitted. Yet, the underlying premise upon which the operation was launched is rarely challenged. Criticism instead dwells on the *conduct* and *result* of the operation, and whether it lived up to its professed "noble" ideals. > [!infobox|left] > ![[FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq - The New York Times 1.pdf]] > ###### "From the editors; The *Times* and Iraq" > | Paper | *New York Times* | > | ---- | ---- | > | Date | 26 May 2004 | By contrast, materialist analysis of the intervention and its motives is rarely acknowledged, and often censored. Rather, the aforementioned noble ideals are simply presumed to be the reason the operation was launched. This position is maintained even when the claims used to justify the intervention are shown to have been fabricated. Statements from government officials are treated as being conclusive of their actual motives,[^11] even if these officials have already been caught lying about their intentions, and have clear political, personal, and often legal incentives to conceal their own wrongdoing. Such whitewashing is necessary to maintain the ideological integrity of “humanitarian intervention” as a policy instrument within the Western imperial superstructure. The concept is thereby cleansed, renewed, and kept available for deployment when the next imperial intervention occurs. # Notes [^2]: Gene Sharp, quoted in *NonSite* ([10 May 2019](https://nonsite.org/change-agent-gene-sharps-neoliberal-nonviolence-part-one/)). [^4]: *United Nations Charter* art 2(4), Ch VII. This rule is also customary international law with *jus cogens* status. See also Oliver Dorr, ‘Use of force, Prohibition of’ in *Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law* (Oxford Public International Law, updated August 2019) at [2]; *Military and Para-military Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v USA)* ICJ [1986]. Note that even where the Western powers obtain UNSC approval for intervention, they often exceed the scope of their mandate, as was the case in the 1990s Gulf War and the 2011 intervention in Libya. [^5]: See *Rome Statute* art 8 *bis*. The prohibition on aggression has customary international law status. Its description as the “supreme international crime” originated at Nuremberg, see University of Chicago Law School ([accessed 6 September 2025](https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/closing-impunity-gaps-crime-aggression)). [^6]: See *United Nations Charter* art 51. [^7]: For instance, Hickel et al estimate that Western economic sanctions have killed 38 million people since 1970 alone. This does not include the millions killed in Western wars of aggression in countries like Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere. See *Al-Jazeera* ([3 September 2025](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/9/3/us-and-eu-sanctions-have-killed-38-million-people-since-1970)). [^10]: *Washington Post* ([22 September 1991](https://archive.is/20230627143405/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/09/22/innocence-abroad-the-new-world-of-spyless-coups/92bb989a-de6e-4bb8-99b9-462c76b59a16/)). [^11]: This tendency also prevails among self-described “realists” like Mearsheimer and Walt. In his book *The Great Delusion* (Yale, 2018) Mearsheimer takes it as a given that the purpose of Western imperialist interventions is to “spread democracy”. Likewise, Walt the same year published a book called *The Hell of Good Intentions* (Farrah, Straus and Giroux, 2018). ”Good intentions” are thus presumed and not questioned. [^12]: An example of this is the manipulation of the "responsibility to protect" ("R2P") doctrine. Though some Western imperial powers have claimed that this gives them a right to undertake "humanitarian intervention" to protect foreign populations, they still must do so in accordance with the *United Nations Charter* - see UN Doc A/Res/60/1 (24 October 2005). Hence R2P is **not** an exception.