The use of force is an age-old phenomenon that is well known across the entire world. Ancient history records tribes, kingdoms, and empires rising against one another for various reasons. Therefore, the use of force between belligerent political entities predates the rise of the nation-state. Nonetheless, with the rise of the nation-state, the use of force, and the statutes that purport to govern it have evolved massively. In the contemporary world, the circumstances that surround the use of force have become quite complex.
Arguably, due to the devastating damages that resulted from the use of force, international organizations such as the UN developed statutes to govern the use of force between states. As such, while it was legal to resort to the use of force in ancient times, today, states are strictly prohibited from expressing aggression towards their counterparts. The UN Charter provides elaborate guidelines that govern the use of force between states.
However, despite the existence of such checks and balances, the world still witnesses numerous cases of aggressive confrontation between states. As noted earlier, the reasons behind these confrontations are diverse, and so are the ramifications that accompany them. Notably, confrontations of this nature have increased in the wake of the Cold War. This trend appears to be consistent with the assertion made by Benvenisti (677) that the conclusion of the Cold War caused a significant instability in the peace and overall security of the world.
This instability seems to be the reason behind America’s extensive involvement in the use of force against or in aid of other states across the world. Benvenisti (679) observes that since the end of the Cold War, America has been a party to several forceful confrontations in various countries such as Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Yemen. This observation begs an important question about why America is the only nation that features in almost all the conflict situations that arise across the world.
With the end of the Cold War, it would be plausible for America to shift its attention to dealing with salient national issues. However, it instead chose to increase its international presence across the world (Benvenisti 679).
Given these observations, this essay explores America’s increased involvement in the use of force on the international scene in the wake of the Cold War. In so doing, the essay anticipates casting some light on the factors that motivated America’s forceful endeavors despite the massive criticism that they evoked across the globe.
An Overview Of The Use Of Force
The use of force can be construed as the use of coercive measures by states to achieve desired outcomes. These measures can range from coercive means of peacefully resolving disputes to full-scale military confrontations between belligerent states (Necula 124).
In all cases, the underlying common denominator is the existence of a dispute. Essentially, the use of force becomes handy in the face of a dispute that has defied all the possible peaceful means of conflict resolution. As such, Necula (124) considers the disputes that call for the use of force as the highest level of conflict escalation.
Typically, the most alluring means of curbing the escalation of conflict into dangerous proportions is the peaceful settlement of the underlying dispute. This approach forms the fundamental principle behind the operation of international law, which is enshrined in The Charter of the United Nations (Necula 124). Nonetheless, nations still find themselves on conflicting paths that call for the application of forceful means of conflict resolution.
George (par. 1) opines that both history and recent experience have explicitly shown that diplomacy is not a panacea to all the conflicts that nations encounter. A nation that chooses to apply diplomacy in all conflict situations involving it eventually suffers significant damage to its interests.
Intriguingly, the same author observes that a careful analysis of history reveals that this approach has proved ineffective in a notable number of cases (George par. 1). As such, the decision to use force often depends on the circumstances surrounding a conflict situation because in most cases, each of these situations turns out to be unique.
As already hinted, the peaceful coercion can take many forms. These include retaliation, reprisal, and severance of diplomatic ties (Necula 125). These three approaches are the most common peaceful means of coercing a target nation to either stop perpetuating an undesirable act or start doing a desirable action that is expected of it. Retaliation occurs when one state or a group of states chooses to respond to a legal but unfriendly act by another state (George par. 5).
The response can entail directing a similar act at the said state or another equally damaging act. Established statutes such as the proportionality and reciprocity rules require that the consequences of retaliation be equal in magnitude or less, but should not exceed the consequences of the initial act (Greenwood 7). Hence, both acts ought to be legally acceptable within the confines of international law.
For instance, in 2010, the Federal Republic of Russia decided to declare a Romanian diplomat a persona non grata and asked him to leave immediately. Romania responded with a similar measure against a Russian diplomat (Necula 125). The acts of both nations are friendly but are unfriendly. Arguably, Russia had its reasons for acting as it did. Romania, on the other hand, only acted in response to what Russia had done.
Reprisals, on the other hand, are necessitated by the decision of one state to direct an illegal, unfriendly act at another state or group of states (Necula 124). When the affected state chooses to respond with a similar act or a different act of equal magnitude and proportionality, it is said that the state has used a reprisal (Milojevic 610). It is usually applicable in cases where the victim state deems the available legal channels inappropriate (Art and Patrick 201).
An important factor in the use of reprisals is the legal perspective of the act committed by the offending state and the response of the victim state. Reprisals often take the form of embargos and boycotts. These acts have extensive economic ramifications for the involved states but are often more damaging for the offending state.
A recent example of the use of reprisals occurred in 2012 when the EU decided to impose an embargo on Iranian oil products and froze Iranian bank assets in all EU member states due to the country’s failure to meet its international obligations (Necula 126). The international system requires every nation that initiates a nuclear program to delineate its motives concerning the program to the international community because of the delicate nature of nuclear weaponry. Iran has been unwilling to do the same for a long time.
Alternatively, a victim state can opt to severe its diplomatic ties with the offending state and refuse to be a party to any negotiations with the state until a damaging action has been reversed and its consequences repaired where possible. This measure serves to damage the offending state’s interests in the victim state and closes any possible avenues for repairing the damage until the offending state agrees to the demands of the victim state. It involves the withdrawal of diplomats by the victim state from the offending state’s territory.
The victim state can further choose to expel the offending state’s diplomatic mission from its territory so that there is no open channel of communication between them until the dispute has been resolved amicably. A good example of the severance of diplomatic ties occurred between Colombia and Venezuela in 2010 when the latter deemed it the best way of dealing with the former’s decision to tolerate the establishment of bases by a Venezuelan rebel group in its territory (Necula 127).
Besides these three means of peaceful coercion, there are other auxiliary means of coercing states to comply with their international obligations. These include exclusion from international organizations and peaceful maritime blockade (Necula 127). These two are applicable in circumstances where the actions of an offending state evoke outrage in the international community. For example, in 1939, the former USSR was forced out of the League of Nations as a response to its aggression on Finland (Necula 127).
Similarly, Cuba was expelled from the Organization of American States in 1962 following the rise to power of Fidel Castro, whose ideology was deemed inconsistent with the ideologies of the inter-American system (Necula 128). As regards peaceful maritime blockade, America’s actions against Cuba in 1962 and early 2012 are cases in point (Necula 128).
A peaceful maritime blockade is considered the last option in peaceful coercion because should the vessels of the offending state attempt to forcibly make their way past the designated blockades; the victim state is allowed under international law to use military force in self-defense (Greenwood 7).
Having considered these peaceful methods of coercion, it is important to point out that some disputes defy all of them and leave the concerned states with no option, but to use military force. This option also takes two forms. Sometimes, a state may threaten to use military force and achieve the desired outcome. In other circumstances, the actual use of military force turns out to be the only effective means of compelling another state to desist from an unfriendly act.
This last option seems to take preeminence over all the other methods of coercion whenever the use of force is mentioned. Incidentally, America has employed all these methods against various states across the world with varying outcomes. Nonetheless, this essay focuses mainly on America’s use of military force against the said states in the post-Cold War era.
Instances Of America’s Use Of Force In The Post-Cold War Era
Numerous examples of America’s involvement in the use of force in overseas countries have been recorded. However, there are a few notable examples that take preeminence over others. These main examples include the 1991 confrontation with Iraq to liberate Kuwait from an Iraqi incursion, the 2001 war in Afghanistan that followed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, America’s involvement in Haiti in 1994, and the 2003 attack on Iraq under premise that it owned weapons of mass destruction (Brands, Darren and Reynolds 158).
Iraq 1991
In the year 1991, America was forced to come to the aid of Kuwait following its invasion by Iraq (Grimmett 112). There was a disagreement over the oil resources that lay between the two states. Conflicts of this nature are common across the world, but Iraq’s decision to attack Kuwait was inappropriate.
Presumably, Iraq chose this course of action due to its perceived military superiority over Kuwait and the sheer lack of proper judgment by its leadership. As such, Kuwait’s plea for collective self-defense was timely as was consistent with the UN Charter (Grossman par. 4).
America’s use of force against Iraq was therefore justified by the fact that it sought to stop Iraq’s aggression in Kuwait. However, the willingness of America to respond almost immediately to Kuwait’s plea was later deemed as having been inspired by the desire to protect or advance its interests. As noted earlier, America’s actions in the post-Cold War era were cleverly calculated. In this particular case, a superficial observer would conclude that it sought to bail Kuwait out of the prevailing problem.
However, such a notion may not entirely be true. The underlying cause of the conflict was oil, and whether or not Iraq took control of the oil reserves that were under dispute was inconsequential.
An issue of immediate concern to America at the time was the instability that the war would cause in the global oil market. Further, it is arguable that after aiding Kuwait to oust Iraq from its territory and facilitating new demarcations between the two countries under the auspices of the UN, America had the upper hand in advancing its interests in the country as well as the region.
Therefore, America was driven by its interests when it chose to promptly respond to Kuwait’s plea for assistance from the international community. The success of the mission did not only stand to benefit Kuwait but also benefited America by strategically positioning it as a reliable friend. Such a deduction is made based on the events that unfolded later on.
For example, in the Balkan region, America waited for three years before taking action against Serb forces, which were committing morbid atrocities against Muslim civilians (Grossman par. 16). Also, it only focused on inhibiting Serb forces from killing Muslim civilians but ignored the devastating atrocities of Croatian forces against Muslim civilians and Serbian civilians (Grossman par. 16).
Haiti 1994
In another example, in the year 1994, America was presented with a humanitarian crisis that was escalating to dangerous levels in the Republic of Haiti (Grimmett 128). After an electioneering period, the military regime that had been in power became adamant in handing over the reins of power to the legitimately elected government (Dellinger 107).
America’s mission in Haiti was multifaceted since it involved humanitarian relief, peacekeeping, and the installation of the democratically elected government (Grimmett 130). America’s military moved in with pomp and ousted the military regime, thus, paving the way for the installation of the democratically elected government. In short, the mission was a success.
Nonetheless, an important question arises about whether America had any hidden motivation in this case as well. An analysis of the circumstances surrounding the involvement of the American military in this mission does not reveal any hidden motives or underlying benefits. Arguably, the proximity of this nation to America and the possible implications of a humanitarian crisis within such a distance were the main motivations that facilitated the intervention.
The American people would not have excused their government if it had allowed Haiti’s situation to deteriorate further. Therefore, this case appears to be an example in which America chose to use force to protect the interests of the Haitian people with the promise of no benefit other than world peace and security.
Afghanistan 2001
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the American government launched a massive incursion against Islamic insurgents (the Taliban) in Afghanistan (“BBC History: The War in Afghanistan” par. 1). The incursion was dubbed Operation Enduring Freedom and was augmented by Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Afghan Northern Alliance (“BBC History: The War in Afghanistan” par. 1).
The Taliban had permitted Afghanistan to become a terrorist haven because Osama Bin Laden, the then de facto leader of the Al-Qaeda was living in Afghanistan (“Afghanistan, 2001–present” par. 3). As such, the primary objective of Operation Enduring Freedom was to topple the Taliban regime, find Osama, and stop terrorist groups from operating in Afghanistan (Tams 360).
At the start of the war, it enjoyed massive support since the events of September 11 were still fresh in the minds of the international community. America and its allies launched a massive attack that toppled the Taliban regime in only two months (“BBC History: The War in Afghanistan” par. 3).
Since then, the battle shifted from ousting the Taliban to preventing their insurgency. The Taliban proved to be resilient, and to date, they have not stopped trying to regain their lost glory. Nonetheless, in 2006, the control of the security situation was handed over to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) (Greenwood 129). Therefore, the American forces that still exist in the country offer their services under ISAF.
Intriguingly, despite ousting the Taliban between October and December 2001, America found it increasingly difficult to manage the situation in Afghanistan. It facilitated the installation of a new government under the leadership of Hamid Karzai in the year 2004, but the situation did not get any better (“BBC History: The War in Afghanistan” par. 4). The budget for managing the situation in Afghanistan kept growing after the initial objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom had been achieved.
Consequently, the American people started voicing their reservations about Afghanistan due to an increasingly bloated budget and a growing number of casualties. In response to such concerns, NATO made it public that the foreign forces in Afghanistan would be withdrawn by the end of 2014 (“BBC History: The War in Afghanistan” par. 8). An issue of concern, however, is that Afghanistan remains in a state of turmoil with the Taliban wreaking havoc in an attempt to re-establish their rule.
Therefore, although the Taliban were ousted and Osama was later captured, what remains to be seen is whether the new Afghan government will prevent Taliban insurgency after the withdrawal of ISAF. At the moment, America’s decision to use force in Afghanistan stands vindicated. Also, the operation was an attempt to crash terrorism, which was a relatively new threat that imperiled vital American interests across the world.
Iraq 2003
In 2003, America was at war with Iraq again. This time the incursion was launched over claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and going by its history of aggression, world peace was threatened. Further, the country’s leader Saddam Hussein was not trustworthy in the eyes of America. Therefore, there were possibilities that the weapons could be used at any time against any country with devastating repercussions.
Alternatively, the country’s leadership could allow the weapons to get into the wrong hands. With such possibilities, America decided to take a proactive step and invaded Iraq without the support of the international community. The exact reason behind the invasion remains a moot point to date because, at the end of everything, ballistics experts did not find any sign of the said weapons (Greenwood 7).
This case of use of force is different from all the cases that have been discussed above. Here, America went to war with Iraq, toppled its government, and arrested its leader. Unlike the first confrontation, where America fought for the relief of Kuwait from Iraq’s aggression, this second confrontation can be seen as a move by America to settle old scores. Analysts have come up with numerous explanations for the war, but none has been universally accepted.
Therefore, the only plausible explanation for this war is that Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, was an obstacle to American interests in the Middle East. As such, America decided to defy the entire international system and neutralize the obstacle. Among all the cases of America’s use of force against other states, its invasion of Iraq in 2003 turns out to be the only time when it directly sought to address its interests.
This incursion raises a pertinent question about the effectiveness of the international system. Since America defied all the established rules and went ahead to invade Iraq, would the situation have been similar to another nation? The answer to this question seems obvious. It, therefore, clearly shows that America takes advantage of its superiority and consciously breaches international statutes because it is aware that no serious consequences will be forthcoming.
Reasons Behind America’s Increased Use Of Force In The Post-Cold War Era
According to Benvenisti (678), with the collapse of the USSR, America remained as the sole global power. Contrary to what many would think, its global responsibilities increased several folds instead of reducing. Conventionally, it would be plausible to assume that with the collapse of the USSR, America’s immediate threat had been eliminated. As such, the country would reduce its expenditure on global intelligence gathering and military endeavors. However, what happened was the exact opposite of what was expected.
Arguably, the bipolar orientation that existed during the Cold War was a lot easier for the two global powers that existed at the time to manage since each major power only focused on controlling its allies. In other words, this bipolar orientation facilitated mutual deterrence in which each global power not only inhibited its allies from engaging in unbecoming international acts but also ensured that such acts did not occur in its vicinity. Each major power influenced what happened around it.
After the disintegration of the USSR, it became the responsibility of America to monitor the safety and security of the entire world. America’s Cold War allies largely remained loyal to it, but notably, the former allies of the USSR and the increased defiance of rogue nations became a formidable challenge. As such, the country had to increase its international intelligence gathering activities and military presence to guarantee the security of its key allies as well as its security.
Further, the global political instability that was instigated by the collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the interests of Western nations unprecedentedly. The Soviet Union collapsed at a time when the global economy was making a critical transition. International trade was gradually taking over as the key driver of economic growth.
Consequently, it was paramount that America keeps a watchful eye on all emerging crises across the globe and intervenes promptly whenever necessary to guarantee global economic stability because its economy was increasingly dependent on the state of the global economy.
Specifically, the wellbeing of the American economy largely hinges on imported oil. As such, the country had to keep a watchful eye, especially on the Middle East to ensure that the frequent conflicts that characterize the region did not adversely affect its vital interests.
America, therefore, had to move with agility to keep both internal and external threats to particular countries in the Middle East at bay lest its oil supply be jeopardized. In this respect, Iraq had been a threat to the stability of the Middle East. This aspect sheds some light on America’s obsession with Iraq.
Another chief reason behind America’s increased use of force in the recent past is the emergence of the terrorism menace. The emergence of terrorist networks such as Al-Qaeda and its much-publicized dislike for America’s involvement in the East presented the country with a new and different type of challenge on matters of global security. Within only a short time of its existence, the threat of terrorism successfully transformed matters that were initially considered to be of economic interest to America into significant security interests.
Al-Qaeda’s mission was to champion the transformation of the Middle East into something close to Islamic federation that would be ruled under the auspices of Sharia law (Tams 365). Unfortunately, America turned out to be a stumbling block since its increased military presence in the Middle East undermined the group’s activities.
Specifically, Saudi Arabia was a point of contention between the two forces because America’s cordial relationship with the country permitted a huge presence of its troops in the country. For Al-Qaeda, this massive presence of American troops was offensive since it considered their presence in places of worship a desecration of those places.
The result of this conflict of interests was a series of systematic terrorist attacks on key American interests as well as the interests of its known allies across the globe. The most significant of the attacks occurred on September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and moved America to initiate a military incursion in Afghanistan (“BBC History: The War in Afghanistan” par. 1).
Alongside the terrorism menace, weapons of mass destruction have also proliferated among countries that have a predisposition for aggression. The matter is further aggravated by these countries’ sympathetic relationship with terrorists. It is believed that through this attachment, weapons of mass destruction can find their way into the hands of extremists who can use them against the world without stopping to think of the ramifications of their actions.
Consequently, America has been at the forefront in ensuring that weapons of mass destruction are only harbored by responsible countries, which cannot allow them to get into the wrong hands. This feat compelled it to use force in against Iraq in 2003. The incursion culminated in the impeachment of Saddam Hussein from power.
Most importantly, America’s involvement in the use of force in the post-Cold War period was driven by the desire to discharge its responsibility as the world’s sole superpower. With increased power comes greater responsibility. As such, America was under obligation to wield its military might for humanitarian purposes. Incidentally, the post-Cold War period has been characterized by a plethora of human-made humanitarian disasters.
America, in conjunction with its allies from Europe and other parts of the world, used force in several of these disasters to curb the atrocities that were ongoing against civilians. This responsibility resonates with the country’s quest for global economic stability because some of the humanitarian disasters if left unchecked, could adversely affect the global economy.
Therefore, for America, humanitarian intervention mostly had some other implications that a superficial observer cannot discern. Only in special cases such as the case of Haiti did America act without the promise of drawing substantial national benefits in the end.
Works Cited
Afghanistan, 2001–present. Web.
Art, Robert J, and Patrick M Cronin. The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2003. Print.
BBC History: The War in Afghanistan. Web.
Benvenisti, Eyal. “The US and the Use of Force: Double Edged Hegemony and the Management of Global Emergencies.” Tel Aviv University Legal Working Paper Series (2005): 12. Print.
Brands, H W, Darren J. Pierson, and Reynolds S. Kiefer. The Use of Force after the Cold War. College Station, Tex.: Texas A & M University Press, 2000. Print.
Dellinger, Walter. “After the Cold War: Presidential Power and the Use of Military Force.” University of Miami Law Review 50 (1995): 107. Print.
George, Alexander L. The Role of Force in Diplomacy: Continuing Dilemma for U.S. Foreign Policy. Web.
Greenwood, Christopher. “International Law and the Pre-Emptive Use of Force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, And Iraq.” San Diego International Law Journal 4 (2003): 7. Print.
Grimmett, Richard F. Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2008. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2009. Print.
Grossman, Zoltan. History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890. Web.
Milojevic, Momir B. “Prohibition of Use of Force and Threats in International Relations.” Teme 27.4 (2003): 609-637. Print.
Necula, Oana C. “The Line between Peaceful Settlement of Disputes and the Use of Force in International Law.” Acta Universitatis Danubius. Relationes Internationales 5.1 (2012): 123-132. Print.
Tams, Christian J. “The Use of Force against Terrorists.” European Journal of International Law 20.2 (2009): 359-397. Print.