Abstract
The use of military force has long represented a key foreign policy schism on the left and the legacy of two unpopular wars has widened this schism. Whether it is Libya today, or Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda or the Balkans over the past two decades, military intervention on humanitarian grounds provokes fierce debate among progressives.How do international obligations and the moral imperative to protect the innocent relate to the rights and expectations of other states and their citizens and the demands of domestic politics and policymaking?Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy makes the case for intervention, applauding the principles behind the UN's Responsibility to Protect and arguing that popular anger at the war in Iraq should not be allowed to trump international shame at events in Rwanda.By contrast, Dan Smith of International Alert expresses deep reservations, highlighting the need for humility when using lethal force in another sovereign nation and arguing that the duty to intervene comes only with the capacity to do so.Finally, Michael Harvey places the debate on progressive interventionism in the wider political context of traditional and new thinking on the British left and Labour's foreign policy for the future.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
