I'm thinking of writing a motion for next year's Conference...

So, having vented my spleen just a little, one does have to move on. And I have an idea, in that I have an interesting platform as a member of FIRC (which does, now I think of it, have the ring of a group of shadowy figures bent on world domination). After all, I have notional credibility as a commentator on international affairs in the Party.

Why not write a motion on something that interests me then?

That something is intervention abroad, what criteria should be applied, what changes to governance are necessary and how might they be resourced. More than a decade ago, I came up with a similar document for Americans for Democratic Action, albeit a much simpler one than I'd want now, which laid down the core criteria for intervention in the internal affairs of other sovereign states.

Now, before you reach for your smelling salts, dear reader, I'm not a natural interventionist. More harm has been done in recent years by botched interventions in the affairs of countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria than could be stated in a simple blog entry, yet as a country which still has a reputation for decency and fair play, we could play a valuable role in world trouble spots.

So, I welcome any suggestions of people I should talk to, or ideas that might be added. Think of it as an informal policy working group with an unusually narrow focus.

And now, time to read the drafting guidance for policy motions as produced by Federal Conference Committee...

Some thoughts in advance of Federal International Relations Committee

So, word has got out that I resigned as Secretary of the Committee, and "Liberator" has reported the story in their usual style. If you're interested, and I'm not sure that the resignation of a minor figure on an obscure internal party committee is particularly newsworthy, you can read the story there. However, my first meeting since then takes place this morning, and I ought to let you know what I'll be focussing on there.

My aim since being elected to the Committee at the end of last year has been to try and enable it to fulfil its functions and comply with the Party's Constitution. It isn't glamorous, but it is important - drafting standing orders, creating process sufficient to deliver key goals, that sort of thing. And, naturally, that work is ongoing.

And now, my attention turns to policy. Federal International Relations Committee is expected to advise the Party, and the Parliamentary Parties, on international and European policy, and I'm keen to make us relevant to the debate. That means developing policy in conjunction with Federal Policy Committee, it means drafting and submitting motions to Party Conferences, it means looking at potential future issues and considering how a liberal response would look.

We aren't alone in that. Word reaches me that the "Your Liberal Britain" team are looking into the creation of a number of committees, focusing on particular policy areas. There are also specialist groups in the Party, such as the various "Friends of" groups and the Liberal Democrat European Group, which have an interest in elements of international policy.

And so, I'm proposing the formation of a Policy sub-committee, tasked with coming up with new policy ideas, studying current priorities and seeking a clearer picture of what we should be doing in terms of a response. It would also take a lead on drafting resolutions for debate at ALDE Party and Liberal International Congresses, using our time more effectively and in a more organised way.

At the moment, FIRC doesn't really consider policy in an organised way - there just isn't enough time and, in any event, good policy making is organic and evolutionary, rather than impulsive.

Apart from that, we've got a very busy agenda, with three ALDE guests participating in the meeting - Timmy Dooley and Henrik Bach Mortensen, two of Ros's fellow Vice-Presidents, and Bart Somers, a prominent liberal mayor from Mechelen, in Belgium. There'll be planning for the forthcoming ALDE Party Congress in Amsterdam in early December, and a delegation is being put together in anticipation.

We'll also be talking about the future of Brussels and Europe Liberal Democrats, who are undergoing something of a remodelling following a large increase in their membership. A lot of work has been going on behind the scenes to come up with a structure that allows them optimal autonomy whilst addressing key compliance issues, and I'm hoping that a way forward will emerge this week.

So, much to do, and much to be getting on with...

Syria: the agonies of a liberal sceptic are as nothing to those of the Syrian people

It's dark in Syria right now, in every sense. The horror that is everyday life in most of the country has unfurled itself before our very eyes as key regional players have intervened in pursuit of their own agendas to the detriment of ordinary Syrians.

And, not unreasonably, most Syrians who are capable of fleeing have done just that, desperate to find a place of safety, flooding across the borders only to find themselves unwelcome in countries who cannot cope with the numbers of refugees and reduced to living in temporary accommodation without the means to sustain themselves, reliant in aid that has been given grudgingly if at all.

Tonight's vote in the Commons will do little to change that. Death will rain from the skies from any number of adversaries and those who have little enough to lose will continue to be the most punished. And yet, I find myself on the side of those who, like Tim Farron, have voted with the Government tonight.

It isn't because I wholeheartedly support either the Government or its proposals. I don't. I haven't been convinced by Philip Hammond - his narrow, petty-minded effort to score political points sullied the office of Foreign Secretary. It is because we have a responsibility to attempt to do something which might offer succour to those poor wretches inside and outside Syria who simply want to live in peace in their homes.

Ideally, our actions in Syria would create the conditions for safe zones where people can rebuild their lives and allow a diplomatic solution to the Syrian problem in parallel to the elimination of Islamic State in the region. And yes, I accept the inherent, possibly foolish, optimism in that statement.

As an active participant, we earn a right to influence the broader strategy, one more focussed and targeted on the real threat to us all. And, using our diplomats, we can and must work towards persuading Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia that dealing with Islamic State as a problem to be solved as opposed to an opportunity to be exploited is in all of our interests.

We also need to look upon air strikes as part of a wider response - supporting those countries currently hosting the overwhelming majority of refugees, cutting off the flow of funds and weapons, taking in the most needy of the displaced and providing them with care.

Tim has said that he intends to keep holding the Government to account, urging them to do more to support the humanitarian effort, and he is right to say that. It would be too easy to vote for action and then sit back and let them get on with it. We know that the Conservative administration has been slow to act and sometimes grudging in its compassion.

So, had it been me sitting on the green benches tonight, I would have voted yes. Not with unalloyed enthusiasm, indeed with regret. Our record in Middle Eastern affairs over the past two decades has been one to be embarrassed about too often. But a liberal foreign policy is not a pacifist one, and whilst I respect the deeply held views of many on my Party who believe this to be a step too far, I don't share them.

I want to see discussion of our goals, our strategy and our diplomatic effort in the public domain - we deserve nothing less. We, the people, in a properly informed democracy, need access to the thinking of those who guide us in matters of life and death, and given the risks that intervention entails, support is not blind.

It is the worst of times in Syria tonight. We owe it to the people of Syria to strive to make things better.

@ALDEParty Congress resolutions 2014 - The relations of the EU with Russia: towards a new security architecture in Europe

Of course, it is the liberal curse to always want to appear reasonable, and here is a demonstration of that urge. There is, of course, a catch, in that the proposers make no mention of territorial integrity - can it be right that, without some sort of independently verified democratic process, countries in the shadow of Russia must tolerate the loss of territory through illegal state action? Personally, I think not...

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party convening in Lisbon, Portugal on 20-22 November 2014:

Notes that

• since the end of the Cold War, the reaction in Russia to its loss of influence in former Soviet Union Republics has become increasingly defiant, its deliberate fanning of ethnic conflict and its military actions resulting in a series of so called "frozen conflicts";
• the enlargement of the EU and NATO towards the East has only strengthened frustration in Russia about the crumbling of its former sphere of influence;
• the wish of a large part of the Ukrainian people to strengthen ties with the EU was met with an aggressive reaction in Moscow, resulting in the annexation of Crimea and in deliberate actions to destabilise the Eastern part of Ukraine. The ensuing armed conflict having already caused more than 2,500 people killed and more than 800,000 refugees;
• on top of the strained diplomatic relations with Russia and the fear for a military escalation, a trade war looms between the EU and Russia, threatening to cause further damage to the already vulnerable economic situation;

Believes that

• it is in the interest of all on the European continent to leave the path of confrontation and to search for a de-escalation of the diplomatic, military and economic conflicts currently raging;
• a lasting stability on the continent cannot be achieved without the cooperation of Russia;

Calls on

• the European Commission to manage the negative consequences of the trade conflict with Russia for the European economy, inter alia by encouraging the geographical diversification of energy supplies and by further trade liberalisation;
• the European Union and its Member States to strive for a military de-escalation in Ukraine via negotiations with Russia;
• the European Union and its Member States to favour broad negotiations with Russia on a new security architecture in Europe which must lead to a solution for the conflict in Ukraine and the so-called "frozen conflicts". This solution to be based on these principles: it should follow the model of the Helsinki Final Act comprising both security, economic development and human rights; it should respect the sovereignty of all countries concerned; it should settle the geographical limits of possible NATO and EU enlargement for the next 10 years.

@ALDEParty Congress resolutions 2014 - We need a stronger Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union - now more than ever

It would be fair to say that the role of Federica Mogherini, the European Union's nearest equivalent to a Foreign Minister for Europe, is not seen as being terribly credible. In fairness, I've always sensed that the big nations, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, are quite happy to have it that way, but if you really want Europe to have a voice that is listened to on the world stage, something is going to have to change. 

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party convening in Lisbon, Portugal on 20-22 November 2014:

Notes that

• the Treaty of Lisbon created the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, whose role is to conduct the foreign policy of the European Union;
• the High Representative of the Union also has a duty of representation. He or she conducts political dialogue with third countries and is responsible for expressing the EU’s positions globally;
• EU Member States have committed themselves to a Common Foreign Security Policy for the European Union and the European Security and Defence Policy aims to strengthen the EU's external ability to act through the development of civilian and military capabilities in conflict prevention and crisis management;

States that

• to tackle the challenges a multipolar, complex and quickly changing world is facing, the EU needs to act as a common force on the world stage;
• issues such as climate change, lack of social and economic opportunities, breaches of human rights, lack of democracy, rule of law and market economy all need leadership from the EU
• since the Treaty of Lisbon was adopted, there has not yet been a common understanding of what position a Common Foreign and Security Policy would have for the Member States;
• the absence of a strong and united European voice has been highlighted during the recent crisis caused by Russian aggression in Ukraine;

Calls on the EU Member States and the institutions of the European Union to strengthen the role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy so that it will be clear to everyone that the High Representative represents the will and understanding of all member states;

Further calls on EU Member States and the institutions of the European Union to support the High Representative in order to

• strengthen its common policy towards and dialogue with Russia in order to speak with a unified voice;
• develop and pursue a clear strategy to act proactively in the Middle East, taking into consideration the threat caused by ISIS and the situation in Syria and the rest of the region affected.

@ALDEParty Congress resolutions 2014 - Strengthening the Global Role of the European Union

Meanwhile, the Finns from Suomen Keskusta offer some proposals for who we should be talking to and why...

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party convening in Lisbon, Portugal on 20-22 November 2014:

Notes that

• the European Union is the leading global actor in the fields of trade, development and environmental policies and has a key role in ensuring the stability of the global financial system;
• these policy areas are strongly linked into each other and they have growing strategic importance for the EU;
• in these policy areas we can play a positive global role by promoting the common interests and the common values and ideals of mankind - the fight against poverty; environmental, economic and social sustainability all over the world; democracy, human rights and equality as the basis of social sustainability;
• at a global level we can create transatlantic partnerships with the United States since our basic values and interests in these policy areas are close to each other. In development policy we already have close cooperation launched at the Washington Summit in November 2009. Similar partnerships can be created in the fields of trade and the environment;
• the EU has traditionally close ties with the ACP countries and other developing countries, these must be further enhanced;
• China and other emerging countries have growing influence on global development; our dialogue and cooperation with them must be strengthened;

Stresses that

• the European Union can strengthen its global role by coordinating its action in different policy fields and by setting clear strategic goals;
• the EU can counterbalance the role of other global players by creating partnerships with like-minded countries;
• the EU can influence the policies of other countries and groups of countries through an open dialogue on the common challenges facing mankind;

Calls on

• the ALDE Party to work for the strengthening of the global role of the EU. The EU should have a comprehensive global strategy as a central part of our external policies;
• the ALDE Member Party representatives in the European Parliament, in the national parliaments and the European Council to work for the strengthening of the global role of the EU.

Nation building and America - a philosophical disconnect

In recent weeks, the sheer scale of the failure of the West in terms of building what might be recognised as functioning democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq has become ever more painfully obvious. I've become suspicious that the problem lies with the American attitude to constructing a civil society, combined with the failure of Europe to provide an alternative example.

If you are genuinely intent on changing a nation for the better, you really do need to understand the social construct of that nation. Why does it favour democracy over dictatorship? Does religion play a greater or lesser role in cultural and social life? What factors impact on social cohesion? I sense that recent American administrations, especially Republican ones, have failed to grasp the importance of proper research, and in some cases, really don't care that much. After all, American democracy has proved to be such an example to the rest of us... with its inclusiveness (the amount spent by British political parties in 2005 wouldn't fund a gubernatorial race in California), transparency (voting machines with dubious codes, recounts decided at the pleasure of the Supreme Court rather than by actually counting ballot papers...) and plurality (how many different political parties have elected someone to the national parliament in the last fifty years?).

And yet the view is that a democracy must look vaguely familiar. This flies in the face of all of the evidence, and tends to be honoured more in the exception anyway. For example, Singapore is considered to be a democracy and it is, after a fashion. One party has been in power since independence, and tends to respond badly to even the most rudimentary challenge from a barely tolerated opposition. India is the world's largest democracy yet can be somewhat chaotic in terms of practice.

On the other hand, until very recently, the men of Appenzell in Switzerland met in the town square, swords in hand, to debate the issues of the day, and that was cantonal government. Democracy develops best when it has examples to be influenced by, when debate emerges from within, rather than by being imposed by outside forces.

If we must insist on invading a country to 'improve' it, we need to be far more honest about what we hope to achieve, and how we propose to do it. The debate over whether or not to invade Iraq was a farce, with both the Bush administration and the Blair government promoting different reasons for doing so depending on what polls showed to be popular from week to week. They failed to convince their own people as to their sincerity, so how did they think that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq were going to buy into the supposedly bright new future?

In the places where democracy has flourished in the past two decades, there has either been a tradition of democratic government (most of Eastern Europe post-1989 and South America come to mind) or democracy has come about after the emergence of popular movements. In the latter case, it tends to emerge slowly, as in Jordan and other more liberal Middle Eastern nations.

However democracy emerges though, it tends to do best where the local populace have a genuine say in how it is constructed, rather than where they have a model imposed upon them by an outside, rather unsympathetic force. And that is where Europe needs to do more. If we are to rely on the Americans for muscle, then we must provide the means to build viable, representative civil societies, teaching people the basic building blocks of democracy, encouraging diversity of the press, helping to build education systems for the young, and providing them an example, to follow or not according to local taste. Why not provide university education to the potential leadership of tomorrow, so that they can go back to their countries and work to build freer communities. We used to do that quite successfully in the days leading up to independence in our former colonies with, admittedly, mixed results.

But most of all, we have to set an example in the way we manage our democracy. I firmly believe that one of the key reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union was the increasing inability of the Communist Party to suppress the messages coming from the West. Once it became clear that the democracies were not the terrible places that Poles, Rumanians and Ukrainians had been told to expect, expectations emerged that the control economies could never meet.

By your actions, ye shall be judged, and not necessarily by the people you might expect. The building of civil societies isn't glamorous, and it isn't quick. But in the long run, it is cheaper, safer and more likely to protect our people from the threat of terrorism. Not so much a war on terror as a campaign against ignorance, conformity and oppression...