Non-interventionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-interventionism or non-intervention is a foreign policy that holds that political rulers should avoid
alliances with other nations but still retain diplomacy and avoid all wars unless related to direct self-defense.
An original, more formal definition is that non-interventionism is a policy characterized by the absence of
"interference by a state or states in the external affairs of another state without its consent, or in its internal
affairs with or without its consent".[1]

This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state as well as
the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[2]

Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson, who both favored non-intervention in European wars. Other proponents include United States
Senator Robert A. Taft and former United States Representative Ron Paul.[3]

Non-interventionism is distinct from and often confused with isolationism. Proponents of isolationism differ
from proponents of non-interventionism through their advocacy of economic nationalism (called also
protectionism) and immigration reduction. Non-interventionism is a policy in government only and thus does
not exclude non-governmental intervention by organizations.

Contents
1 History
2 Nonintervention by country
2.1 China
2.2 New Zealand
2.3 Sweden
2.4 Switzerland
2.5 United States
3 Decline of non-intervention
4 See also
5 References
5.1 Bibliography
6 Further reading

History
The norm of non-intervention has dominated the majority of international relations, and can be seen to have
been one of the principal motivations for the US's initial non-intervention into World Wars I and II, and the
non-intervention of the liberal powers in the Spanish Civil War, despite the intervention of Germany and Italy.
The norm was then firmly established into international law as one of central tenets of the United Nations
Charter, which established non-intervention as one of the key principles which would underpin the emergent
post-World War II peace.

However, this was soon affected by the advent of the Cold War, which increased the number and intensity of
interventions in the domestic politics of a vast number of developing countries under pretexts such as
instigating a "global socialist revolution" or ensuring "containment" of such a revolution. The adoption of such
pretexts and the idea that such interventions were to prevent a threat to "international peace and security"
allowed intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Additionally, the UN's power to regulate such
interventions was hampered during the Cold War due to both the US and USSR holding veto power in the
United Nations Security Council.
Nonintervention by country
China

Mutual non-interference has been debut as one of China's principles on foreign policy in 1954. However, over
the last six decades, while China has never explicitly strayed from rhetorical support for non-interference, it has
frequently not practiced what it preached by involving border conflict with Vietnam, India and Korea. After
Chinese economic reform, China begins to focus on industrial development, thus actively avoiding military
conflict over the last three decades.[4] As of February 2017, China has only used its veto eleven times in UN
Security Council.[5] Observers have noted a preference for China to abstain rather than veto on resolutions not
directly related to Chinese interests.[6]

New Zealand

In recent years, New Zealand has become largely non-interventionist. No military support, apart from medical,
was given for the first Gulf War, although SAS troops were provided for the war in Afghanistan. Engineers
were provided in Iraq after conventional hostilities in the war had ceased. In the Pacific Islands, New Zealand
has been involved in humanitarian interventions in the Solomon Islands and East Timor. However, those
interventions were non-coercive interventions at the request of the nation being intervened upon. These
activities are known as "peace keeping".

Sweden

Sweden has remained non-interventionist since the backlash against the king following Swedish losses in the
Napoleonic Wars; the coup d'etat that followed in 1812 caused Jean Baptiste Bernadotte to establish a policy of
non-intervention that has remained since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815.

Switzerland

Switzerland has long been known for its policy of defensively armed neutrality.

United States

In December 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World
2013", had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind
its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."[7] This was
the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, one which pollsters began
asking in 1964.[8] Only about a third of respondents felt this way a decade ago.[8]

Decline of non-intervention
Since the end of the Cold War, new emergent norms of humanitarian intervention are challenging the norm of
non-intervention. This is based upon the argument that, while sovereignty gives rights to states, there is also a
responsibility to protect its citizens, an argument based upon social contract theory. Under this ideal, states can
be justified in intervening within other states if that state is failing to protect (or if it is actively involved in
harming) its citizens.[9]

This idea has been used to justify the UN sanctioned intervention Operation Provide Comfort in Northern Iraq
in 1991 to protect the Kurds, and, in Somalia, UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II from 1992 to 1995 in the absence
of state power. However, after the US "Black Hawk Down" event in 1993 in Mogadishu, the US refused to
intervene in Rwanda or Haiti. However, despite strong opposition from Russia and China, the idea of the
responsibility to protect was again used to justify NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and the 2011 military
intervention in Libya.
This new norm of humanitarian intervention is not universally accepted and is often seen as still developing.[9]
This new norm of humanitarian intervention is not universally accepted and is often seen as still developing.[9]
In all of the UN-sanctioned cases, the arguments were further couched in Chapter VII threats to international
peace and security. It has been suggested that this newly emerging norm is used to justify the action of states
only if they want to act, rather than creating a duty of states to intervene.

See also
Interventionism
Isolationism
A Few Words on Non-Intervention by John Stuart Mill
International relations theory
Prime Directive, a non-interventionist principle in the fictional Star Trek universe
List of anti-war organizations
List of countries without armed forces
List of peace activists

References
1. Hodges, Henry G. (1915). The Doctrine of Intervention (https://archive.org/stream/doctrineinterve01hodg
goog#page/n24/mode/2up). p. 1.
2. Carpenter, Ted Galen. The Libertarian Reader. pp. 336344. ISBN 0-684-83200-3. Non-intervention is
usually defined either as the determination by a nation to refrain from interfering in the affairs of other
nations or those of its own political subdivisions or as the refusal or failure to intervene in the same. Non-
interventionism is not to be confused with isolationism, a political policy which sometimes carries with it
laws that mandate a breaking of ties between the inhabitants of one political subdivision and another.
3. Conquest, Robert. Stalin: Breaker of Nations. Great Britain: George Weidenfeld & Nicholson Limited,
1991. Page 122.
4. Brown, Kerry. "Is China's non-interference policy sustainable?" (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-c
hina-24100629). BBC. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
5. Security Council - Veto List (http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/veto). Retrieved 13 April 2017.
6. Global Policy Forum (2008): "Changing Patterns in the Use of the Veto in the Security Council" (http://w
ww.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm). Retrieved 30 December 2008.
7. Healy, Gene (10 December 2013). "It's not isolationist for America to mind its own business" (http://was
hingtonexaminer.com/its-not-isolationist-for-america-to-mind-its-own-business/article/2540441).
Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
8. Lindsay, James M.; Kauss, Rachael. "The Public's Mixed Message on America's Role in the World" (htt
p://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/commentary-by-james-m-lindsay-and-rachael-kauss-of-the-council
-on-foreign-relations/). Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
9. Evans, Gareth (2004). "When is it Right to Fight?". Survival. 46 (3): 5982.

Bibliography

Wheeler, N.J. (2003) "The Humanitarian Responsibilities of Sovereignty: Explaining the Development of
a New Norm of Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes in International Society" in Welsh, J.M.
Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online, pp. 2950.
Walzer, M.J. (2000) Just and Unjust Wars New York: Basic Books, pp. 86108.

Further reading
America's Tradition Of Non-Interventionism, Chris Leithner
Non-Interventionism, OnPower.org
"A Noninterventionist Revival", by Michael R. Allen, Editor, Spin Magazine December 24, 1998:
http://www.antiwar.com/nonint.html

[---]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-interventionism&oldid=803456003"

This page was last edited on 2 October 2017, at 17:12.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.