Liberal hawks

Interesting article from World Affairs on the future of interventionism - although I don't buy Wolfe's argument that "a successful intervention is more problematic than a failed one." Surely, a successful intervention and post-intervention reconstruction means a population that is (more) secure, well-fed and politically represented, and therefore the vast majority would have no truck with any radicals/insurgents trying to destroy the relatively happy status quo?

However, he makes an important point about state sovereignty being preferable to anarchy, and the utilitarian compromises that state-building requires. I would argue this also applies to our more day-to-day foreign policy dealings - see Hillary Clinton's comments today regarding China.* If international cooperation is to happen at all, we can't go around criticising everything another state does that we find unpleasant - perhaps we need to focus on the greater good. See also Paul Kagame's government in Rwanda (as discussed with ST and RA, thanks!) - essentially an authoritarian regime, and one that is guilty of significant human rights abuses, but also probably the most efficient government in Africa in terms of the population being largely safe, nourished, etc etc. Is the pay-off worth it? Personally, I think that IN THE SHORT-TERM, it probably is. That doesn't mean that we should all, as observers or campaigners, turn a blind eye - we need the Alison des Forges of this world - but in terms of official state foreign policy I think it is probably pragmatic to recognise the necessity of such murky moral compromises and unpleasant choices. As Wolfe says: "Sometimes that will mean leaving dictators in place and recognizing that the same sovereign structures that make it possible for tyrants to oppress their own people also make it possible for them to begin to make incremental improvement in the lives of their countrymen." Ugh. Of course one has to keep a close eye on the oppression/improvement balance...

* Currently grappling as to whether I agree with Hill - very interesting question as to whether tackling climate change is more important than securing the human rights of Chinese/Tibetan/Taiwanese citizens in the here and now...