Here is part of a comment on a previous posting of mine on Western policy in the Balkans:

It isn’t the US’s or the UK’s business to "achieve stability or long-term solutions" in the Balkans, the Middle East, or anywhere else.

The sooner these two moralising countries (whose own morals in foreign policy are to say the least dubious) stop arrogating to themselves the role of "liberal interventionism" (or meddling in other people’s affairs), and allow other countries to decide their own destinies, the sooner the world will become a more peaceful place.

This view is heard a lot in different forms. It tends to be espoused by progressive people who for whatever reason are unimpressed with ‘Western’ society and its achievements, or by people who are relaxed about Western successes (and failures) but fear that cack-handed implementation of such interventions in practice does more harm than good.

What I dislike about the argument is that we should do nothing but watch "other countries decide their own destinies" and that if we do this the world will become more peaceful.

Two claims run together there, with a third implicit:

  • Normative:  that the process of other countries ‘deciding their own destinies’ in itself is legitimate or at least efficient
  • Practical:  that in fact it leads to greater peace
  • Moral:  all things considered, best to let the chips lie where they fall and leave the victims of this approach to suffer, preferably not on TV

Western intervention in Korea was a massive success and saved millions of lives. North Korea’s ravings show just what happens when obnoxious isolated regimes are left to scheme away for far too long.

Was it really acceptable to Do Nothing while roaming bands of officially sponsored gangsters tore Yugoslavia to pieces, not far from Rome?

What is so great about what happened in Zimbabwe when Mugabe stole his election, or what is happening in Iran now?

Is the Middle East more or less peaceful now thanks to long decades of stagnant Arab-style National Socialism?

What if a country’s internal chaos allows international terrorists and gangsters to set up shop there and start exporting terror/gangsterism to us?

Is it OK to let a man thrash his spouse in the privacy of his own house?

If not, why is it OK to let a dictator murder thousands of his own people in his own country?

* * * * *

Last night I caught the end of a TV programme about the deep genetic links between people all round the planet as revealed by DNA tracings from Early Man as assorted migrations took place down the millennia. It ended with a touching appeal to our ‘common humanity’.

Those who believe that the West should not intervene need to think about dumping those wishy-washy notions, including all development assistance too.

And if the issue comes up that the West ‘owes’ money to less developed countries for holding them back through trade and other policies, what about the debts owed to them by Moscow who boosted in so many places utterly incompetent Cold War era governments which wrecked local economic prospects for ever?

The evil of denying countries the benefits of simple compound interest growth?

In short, I do believe that ‘liberal interventions’ can be justified on practical and moral grounds alike (Note: which is not to say that every time an issue arises a new intervention is justified – be selective and smart).

But justifying an intervention is one thing.

Doing it well is another, including by sustaining the effort for the length of time required to make a strategic difference without metamorphosing into part of the problem yourself.

And that tends to be where the problems really start…

Remember one of my first-ever posts on Muddling Through Somehow (MTS and non-MTS)?

Meddling Through Somehow anyone?