I am, I suppose, a bit of a liberal interventionist. I believe in a model whereby the international community defines certain behaviours as unacceptable, agrees on a range of possible sanctions, and then enforces them based on principles of evidence, justice and international law.
It's the word 'enforce' that presents us with the tricky bit. Enforcement means action, because unless you actually demonstrate that you really mean it, those minded to break the rules are encouraged to believe that they might well get away with it.
Last night, the Government showed poor judgment in calling a fairly meaningless, and probably unnecessary, vote on potential future action against Syria, a motion which positively invited a 'political' Opposition amendment, and was then lost to a coalition of the Labour Party, government rebels and minor parties.
In doing so, Parliament has effectively, although perhaps accidentally, turned its back on the cause of liberal interventionism in the case of Syria.
Oh yes, we've hardly been consistent in our approach. We only tend to engage with the approval of the US, but someone has to lead, and big countries with sufficient military capacity are required to demonstrate the existence of a big stick.
But, as a liberal, albeit perhaps an old-fashioned one, it's no good talking about the rights of man if, when push comes to shove, you only mean it when it's easy or convenient.
So, perhaps now would be a good time to take stock of our place in the world, and our obligations towards it?
1 comment:
It depends what you mean on 'liberal' interventionism really.
It would perhaps be liberal to send in an SAS team to remove key figures in the government and thereby save many lives.
It would be liberal to seize weapons to prevent them being used on civilians.
I'm not so sure that air based attacks and artillery are exactly what I'd call a liberal intervention though.
It never ceases to amaze me how naive people can be about armed conflicts. Wars are never simple and uncomplicated, and our intervention, just as in other conflicts would not have been simple or uncomplicated either.
Once you are a at war with a country, the scope creeps, and suddenly you have the situation, as in Iraq where it is impossible to leave without destabilising the country.
It is actually worse in Syria though, because they are already in civil war, and have been for two years. The level of hate and resentment there amongst both sides is at fever pitch.
Whether you are killing civilians, government soldiers, or rebels, you are still killing someone - someone with brothers, sisters and parents to mourn them. People having their family killed tend to get angry - hence they fight back and continue the war.
The best way to end a civil war is to negotiate a cease fire - not join in by dropping more bombs. Which is why the UN's approach and international law is clear - you cannot get involved in an armed conflict unless the security council votes for it.
Since it is unlikely Russia and China would support this intervention, and there is no threat to us as a nation state from Syria, our intervention would by definition, be illegal.
So, I think MPs made the right choice. Not attacking the Syrian army is NOT the same thing as doing nothing, and there are plenty of other ways we can help the civilians there through aid and diplomacy.
In any case, it's sort of a moot point if the Americans are going in anyway. We don't need to say 'me too' just to look like we are supporting them.
Post a Comment