Kosovo, Iraq and Libya - the Blairite doctrine of 'liberal interventionism'

The crux of Blair’s polemic was that proactive foreign policy was essential in light of globalisation. Nations were becoming increasingly interdependent, with seemingly isolated incidents having widespread and indeed global effects. Conflict, poverty and economic tumult abroad had the potential to directly impact upon domestic affairs. Consequently, Blair opined that “these problems can only be addressed by international co-operation”. This meant in certain cases of foreign conflict, nations such as the US and UK were not only justified, but in some sense morally obliged to intervene.

The obvious example of the time was the US-UK led NATO intervention in Kosovo. The justification provided for the military action was that it was a response to the oppressive Milosevic regime and its programme of ethnic cleansing. Operation Allied Forces (or OAF) as it was known certainly came under criticism, hardly surprising considering the horrifically high number of civilian casualties. However, with the overthrow of Milosevic occurring a year later and Kosovo eventually becoming an independent nation – history may well look back at the intervention in a favourable light. If nothing else, OAF is, in spite of huge controversies, the closest thing there is to an example of successful liberal interventionism in recent history.

Indeed, if the Blairite mantra of liberal interventionism needed a case study, Kosovo was it. Four years later however, its relative success was to be forever overshadowed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Footage during the early days of the campaign of the toppling of Hussein’s statues provided a glimmer of hope for the US and UK that they would be viewed as liberators. Eight years after the so-called ‘Coalition of the willing’ so brazenly ignored the UN and invaded - the country remains fragile under continued US-UK occupation. Saddam Hussein may have been executed long ago, but Iraq’s transition into a democratic nation state in the mould of Serbia or Kosovo seems years in the future.

Cynicism is almost the default mindset when discussing Iraq. The invasion has served to underline claims of Anglo-American imperialism made for years by the likes of Noam Chomsky and John Pilger. These same figures criticised Kosovo in a similar light, but here their views were at odds with the general consensus created by the mainstream media. On Iraq however, that was not the case.

There is little doubt that it will be Iraq, rather than Kosovo, that will mark or indeed mar the legacy of Blair’s entire premiership, let alone his foreign policy. And yet, I suspect that Blair genuinely believes (even if many might not), that he was following the same doctrine he set out in 1999 on Iraq as he was on Kosovo.

Twelve years on, the core theme of liberal interventionism is as pertinent as ever – with the case of Libya being a perfect example. Unlike Iraq in 2003, Libya is in an unquestioned state of civil unrest. Unlike Iraq, there exists strong, organised, anti-government and pro-democratic movement within the country. And unlike Iraq, Libya’s leader, Colonel Gadafi is engaging in the killing of his people, with the force used set to escalate if there is no international response. And yet, such a response appears less and less likely.

The UN may have voted to impose economic sanctions, but Russian opposition has made military intervention extremely unlikely. Talk of implementing a no fly zone by David Cameron was greeted with blunt dismissal by US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates – hardly the most dovish figure in the Obama Administration.

The debate over liberal intervention has always been highly contentious, now it seems to have become a political taboo. This, with Libya in mind, is potentially tragic. The controversy surrounding the topic is entirely justified; there is certainly no room in international relations for hawkish meddling. Yet it is exactly that, hawkish meddling, which has meant that the debate over intervention in Libya has been taken off the table, when few would disagree that there is a far stronger case for it here than in Iraq.

Indeed, it appears the legacy of the Iraq war has, if possible, become even more toxic. It is this toxic legacy that has, at least in the short term, irrevocably damaged the interventionist cause. The interventionist case regarding Libya is by no means ironclad. However, as Gadafi looks set to unleash the full force of his military arsenal on the rebels then it is a case deserving careful deliberation, if nothing else.

As he delivered his speech so eloquently in 1991, Blair hoped that his words would help create a consensus around the concept of liberal intervention. The cruel irony is, twelve years on; it is his actions that appear to have destroyed it.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.