Andrew Lilico: Why I am not a "liberal Conservative" in foreign policy

I believe in duty-driven imperialism. This isn’t quite the same as being a neo-con, as I shall explain in a moment, but since the difference relates to what happens after one topples wicked, corrupt and oppressive regimes, I wasn’t expecting it to result in any practical disagreement between myself and the Conservative leadership (whom I understood until only a couple of weeks ago to be, for practical purposes, straightforward post-Iraq neo-cons of the Rumsfeld (you can intervene to destroy oppressors but you shouldn’t imagine you can build a democracy afterwards) type, as opposed to the pre-Iraq Wolfowitz (by creating a democracy in Iraq, we can create a virtuous domino effect across the Middle East) type). Alas! I was wrong.

Belief in duty-driven imperialism has two components: the "neo-con instinct" and the "you break it, you own it principle." Here is how I understand the neo-con instinct: If you lived in a country with no police force, and your neighbour regularly beat up his wife and children, and you were bigger and stronger than he were and could go round and stop him, what should you do? Perhaps you would say the following:

"So long as he sticks to beating up his family inside his own house, he is no threat to me. If I go round to stop him something may go wrong and he might hurt me, or his family may get hurt during my fight with him. Furthermore, other people in the street may come out and complain and I shall get a bad reputation as a bully. So best to leave him alone unless and until he represents any material threat to me."

If this is your attitude, then I shall call you a "realist". I shall also think you selfish and dishonourable.

Perhaps, instead, your attitude is to say:

"The problem in this situation is that there is no law, and no police to enforce it. What we need is to establish a government of the people in the street so that bad behaviour like this won’t be tolerated. However, unless and until such a government is created, I have no right to go round interfering."

If this is your attitude, then I shall call you a "believer in collective action". I shall also be astonished at you - you really think that it is only the presence of formal law that makes it right for you to protect the vulnerable from the wicked? Further, in the case of world government, I shall consider you naïve - for world government would be as undesirable as it is (mercifully) unlikely. And lastly, in practice we know what the results are of this approach, for we have seen them in Srebrenica, in Rwanda, in Darfur. This is the policy that our Party leadership now advocates, under the name of "liberal Conservatism". (Our MPs, of course, don’t believe in this at all — they were big fans of Blair. But, Alas!, our leadership appears to have decided that easy popularity rules over being right, at least in terms of the official position. In practice, of course, it is just inconceivable (thankfully) that any Cabinet containing Michael Gove would take this view.)

What I shall call the neo-con instinct is the view that, if I am good and strong and can do something to prevent oppression, then it is my duty to do so - even if it is not necessarily in my own material interest to act. The Editors would probably prefer to describe this as the "liberal interventionist" instinct, and we needn’t fuss over words here. The practical results of liberal interventionism can also be seen - in Sierra Leone, in Kosovo, and in Iraq.

Now neo-cons believe in other things that I do not. For example, neo-cons believe that democracy and self-determination should be high on the agenda for states that are invaded. I do not. I believe in the "you break it, you own it" principle. To my mind, the single greatest error in Iraq was when the US flag was taken down. What that said was:

"We are not here to rule; we aren’t in charge; if you have problems, don’t come to us; it isn’t our job to make the power work, to ensure that you have food, to prevent looting, to stop burglary and murder, to judge between brothers in their disputes over inheritance or between neighbours in their disputes over where the garden fence goes; we won’t guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, a fair trial of the accused, or any other liberties; we are just destroyers, and we aren’t staying to tidy up afterwards."

Furthermore, if you don’t have your flag raised when you’re there, you can’t take it down when you leave.

In contrast, I believe that you should only destroy a wicked, corrupt, or oppressive regime if you are going to replace it with something better. And I believe I know what that something better should be - a liberal state. The great American error, which has its origins in America’s founding myth, is the belief that everywhere is like America in the following sense: if you take away the chains of oppression and fear (and perhaps of want, also) then, spontaneously, the People will combine to form a congress and constitution that will express their desires for freedom, self-determination, democracy, due process, capitalism and the rule of law.

In my view, the American doctrines of self-determination and democracy have been a source of epic misery since the end of the First World War. Occasionally, the disasters Americans have misguidedly strewn about the world have come close to negating the excellent and virtuous contribution they have made through their willingness to sacrifice themselves to try to help by intervening.

I do not believe in self-determination, at all. And I believe that the proper role of democracy is as the handmaiden of liberalism, never its master. We have democracy because (a) once we have a sufficiently secure liberal state (but only then!) democracy allows for a peaceful change of rulers; (b) once we have a sufficiently sophisticated political class (but only then!) democracy is a legitimate expression of liberty; (c) if we have a sufficiently secure liberal state (with proper limits to the exercise of democracy), and a sufficiently educated and experienced voting class (but only then!) the threat to liberalism represented by democracy (which is always present, and always dangerous) is nearly offset by an appetite and respect for liberalism amongst voters.

When we replace foreign governments through our interventions, we should accept that we have a duty to provide a superior government instead. And the form that superior government should take should be, in the first instance, a liberal government. Democracy must wait its turn in the development of nations. That turn may not be more than a couple of generations. It might even be quicker - in a few cases perhaps less than one generation. In the meantime, the apparatus of liberalism should allow the expression of political preference through the press and other media, so that we as the liberal rulers can listen and learn.

I think this is a fundamental cleavage between my view and that of the American. He appears to believe that people should be able, through democracy, to elect themselves oppressive and wicked and corrupt and dangerous rulers if they so choose - after all, America can always invade again later, right? I consider this belief in self-determined disaster a collectivist notion of liberty - we are free to determine ourselves. In contrast, I believe in an individual notion of liberty - I want people to be individually free, even at the expense of their collective freedom. It is better if there is no democracy, but I impose freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process for prisoners, and other liberal freedoms upon people against their collective will.

Thus, we have a duty to assist the oppressed of the world, even when that is not in our national interest and even when they, collectively, would not like it afterwards. We will be hated when we invade, and hated when we stay; our blood and treasure will be spent on matters that do not further our national interest; and sometimes our interventions will go wrong, causing the deaths of many. So be it. Honour and duty demand nothing less.

Deep down, our leadership, which witnessed the disasters of belief in collective action and the triumphs and failures of the neo-cons, must know that I am right. Whatever foolish things they say now, I hope that when the moments come that decisions must be made (as surely will be the case many times in the next Conservative government), they will court Honour and Duty instead of the applause of the Realist or the seductions of Collective Action.

Comments

[William Norton]

Another excellent article, with a commendable absence of Whigs. As a blue water Tory, though, I'd like to have seen more discussion of the option of buying foreign countries rather than invading them. Probably cheaper.

[Robert Thompson]

The comparison of tyranny in a foreign country and domestic violence leaves one major question unanswered. If there are many houses in the street where domestic violence is taking place, upon what basis does he decide in which domestic dispute to intervene? As no country has the resources to intervene everywhere, how would he decide which country to invade? Draw names out of a hat perhaps?

Surely, the only sound basis for foreign intervention is the defence of the British national interest.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Well in that case I will have to be comfortable being described as selfish and dishonourable.
I simply do not believe that we should be risking the lives of our servicemen and women when Britain or its interests are not being threatened.

[Peregrine]

Andrew
What happens when after you have “sorted out” your bad neighbour, your other (not so bad but not good) neighbours start to shun you? What if the owners of your local Indian or Chinese takeaway refuse to take your custom? What happens when some of your own family start complaining that you are spending too much time sorting other people’s problems out?

I think I sit between your duty-driven imperialism and the collectivist view, I would gather a few mates up before I went round and we would give ourselves a fancy name; something like Neighbours Against Terrorizing Others.

[Andrew Lilico]

Robert@10:19

The fact that we cannot prevent all the unpleasantness in the world at once does not absolve us from doing what we can. We should work our way through the list of oppressive neighbours, beginning with those easiest to stop who are beating their families most viciously. There will usually be judgement calls about who is best to go to next, and which intervention creates the greatest risk that all my neighbours might gang up against me. But again, the fact that we have to make a call and that someone might dispute our priorities is not an argument for not acting at all.

[Jonathan Powell]

Andrew:

Excellent article, but I would still class you as a neocon. You're forgetting 2 things: (1) neocons are not all of the same mind, and (2) Rumsfeld is not a neocon--he has always been a Kissenger realist who believes in a small, high-tech, military acting only in America's interest.

Thus, I would argue that many neocons, such as Bill Kristol and John McCain would largely agree with you about the "you break it, you bought it" aspect, and are much more concerned than the faux neocons like Rumsfeld and Cheney about maintaining order post-invasion. I think Kristol, in particular, subscribes to the notion of a benevolent American Empire which upholds the American view of individual rights across the globe.

However, I do think you have a point about the misguided appetite for immediate democracy amongst American neocons, so perhaps you should distinguish yourself simply as a "British neocon", free of the pro-democracy baggage which characterizes Americans but otherwise comfortably within neoconservatism's big tent.

Regarding the issue raised by Robert Thompson, I would argue that we should do what we can, as Andrew says, but the priority should be those neighbours/countries which are the greatest threat to our own self-interest. This is why Iraq/Iran should be a higher priority than Zimbabwe, for example.

[Robert Thompson]

We are not talking about our neighbours here are we though? We are talking about countries in Africa and Asia. As we won't be intervening in pursuit of the national interest, any decision to intervene will be an entirely arbitrary one, quite possibly based upon flawed or incomplete information. I do not believe that the public will allow British blood and treasure to be wasted clearing up someone else's mess unless they feel that it is vital for Britain.

Britain must surely come first in any foreign policy decisions and what you propose is an abandonment of this sound principle of government.

[Old Hack]

Two words: Over reach

We simply cannot solve every human misery in the world.

We have to look after number one. So for instance if that meant nuking Mugabe then so be it. But otherwise he's South Africa's problem, not ours.

Furthermore, at what point do we tool up for a big geo-political punch-up which would be needed for a military resolution in Burma for instance?

There are practical limits to what we can achieve either militarily or diplomatically.

At the end of the day you have got to look after your interests as best you can. That means good military and good diplomats.

At the moment we have underfunded and undermanned armed services plus Miliband.

[Moral minority]

A truly confused article. Lilico is arguing, like neo-cons, for freedom and democracy to be imposed by force, i.e. bullets and bombs. You cannot win the hearts and mind of the people by destroying their infrastructure, sanitation and healthcare.

Thank God that Ron Paul, through his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination is taking on the neo-con, "Israel first" cabal that has hijacked the GOP. Despite being largely ignored by the media, he raised an amazing $4 million dollars online yesterday.

[Tony Makara]

It is very easy to make the case for intervention from the comfort of an armchair. Many political commentators do this and often such calls gain momentum and develop a dynamic which in turn influences politicians. This is a dangerous game, a game that costs lives and destroys nations.

Intervention, if it is necessary, should be carried out through the auspices of the United Nations and not undertaken unilaterally. Having to go through a body like the UN qualifies any such intervention.

The Jews, known for their timeless wisdom, have a saying which states "Before you start something always think where it might end" That is advice that everyone should take. It is all too easy to sleepwalk into a situation of intervention, seduced by concepts of valour and having the moral high ground.

[Deputy Editor]

"A man was walking along the beach one evening and saw a little boy throwing starfish that had been washed ashore by the tide into the sea. He thought the boy was silly in trying to save the starfish, as he knew it was impossible to throw every single one of the starfish back into the sea, with the tides washing them up. The boy picked up a starfish, looked at the man and said, 'But sir, it matters to this one.' After saying that, he threw the starfish back into the sea."

[Andrew Lilico]

Old Hack@11:50

Our options are not: (A) Solve every human misery in the world; (B) Look after number one. There is also, for example, (C) Do what we can to alleviate the suffering of those in foreign parts, even when it is not in our own interests to do so.

[Editor]

Tony Makara: "Intervention, if it is necessary, should be carried out through the auspices of the United Nations and not undertaken unilaterally. Having to go through a body like the UN qualifies any such intervention."

Genuine question, Tony: Given that China and Russia have to approve in order for the UN to decide that some action is legitimate, do you not agree that we need an alternative to the UN?

I'm sure the people of Darfur and Rwanda will agree.

[SG]

Are we now saying that all illiberal states should now be converted to liberal states? How (and when) should we decide whether to invade? What if, in seeking to create liberal states elsewhere, we destroy our own liberal state in the process?

[Robert Thompson]

Leaving aside all the arguments about the basis upon which foreign policy ought to be conducted for a moment, isn't this all pie in the sky stuff?

Our armed forces are massively over stretched fighting difficult wars on two fronts and likely to remain heavily committed to fighting the "war on terror" for the foreseeable future. Where then will the extra resources come for humanitarian intervention all over the world? As was said earlier, this is surely a recipe for massive over extension?

[Moral minority]

Around a million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the invasion, suicide bombings, murders etc. That, along with rendition and illegal torture, is Bush's and Cheney's disgusting legacy.

[Umbrella man]

Where do you get that one million number Moral minority?

[Tony Makara]

Editor, as you correctly point out there are problems with the UN and the machinations of major powers like China and Russia makes consensus more difficult. Rather than an independent alternative to the UN it would be better to work within the UN but with qualified support. It is was very hard for the US to gain the support of Russia over Iraq because the invasion was deemed to be unnecessary and unjustified.

[Jonathan Powell]

the neo-con, "Israel first" cabal that has hijacked the GOP.

There is no such cabal, and it's clear what you mean by this no matter how you dress it up. Why don't you take your paranoid, antisemitic conspiracy theories elsewhere.

[Chad Noble]

Tim,

I understand your frustration at the UN, but sidestepping Chinese or Russian opposition to action by creating a vehicle that removes their veto is not going to actually remove that opposition is it?

In fact, it could simply transfer it from the discussion table to the battlefield considering that vested interest would have driven the opposition in the first place.

Surely the UN's incompetence is due to conflicting interests which will persist if the UN continues or crumbles. The UN is simply a mirror for the corrupt world we live in, not the creator of it.

As for Andrew's article, I'd say that charity starts at home, and we have more than enough 'starfish' of our own piling up on the beach to worry about throwing back other countries' starfish.

[Simon Newman]

I think this article has a ridiculously over-inflated view of the West's power to solve the world's problems (ie, impose Western democracy) through violence. It's only fractionally more intelligent than the "everyone wants freedom/democracy" Wolfowitz version.

[Jon Gale]

Yes of course you have an obligation to intervene if your neighbour regularly beats up his wife and children.

But your neighbour is part of your community, your countryman, and it is happening under your nose. You are the man on the spot.

You do NOT have an obligation to intervene in domestic violence in communities on the other side of the planet. That is the obligation of their own neighbours/community.

And if your community elects a Committee to organise communal things, maintain order, promote, improve and look after your community, then that Committee is not obligated to provide the same services to all other communities in the world (at your expense), let alone engage in perpetual war against the wishes of its elecorate to do so.

[Andrew Lilico]

Robert Thompson@12:27

We choose our resourcing to meet our objectives and current commitments. Thus, you may be right that we would need a larger army/navy/air force to deliver the kind of programme I would prefer. In which case, we should get a larger army/navy/air force. But it would be the wrong way round to get a larger army first and then wonder what we fancied doing with it - don't you think?

[William Norton]

Robert Thompson: agreed, we should only intervene when it is in Britain's interests to do so, but the question still arises as to whether we have an interest in dealing with rogue states. If, say, there was an elephant in the room you have an interest in making it leave even if it isn't your elephant.

Tony Makara: relying on the UN is like waiting for the zookeeper to turn up and collect the elephant - but what happens if it's the zookeeper's day off? The view that a state can only act with UN sanction is as unhelpful as saying a state can always act unilaterally. In effect you're giving Russia and China a veto over Britain's use of force.

Old Hack: I don't think Andrew is proposing to act beyond our military capabilities. Overstretch would obviously be a factor in any decision to intervene anywhere, as would whether we were the best placed state to intervene (Zimbabwe, for instance, is really South Africa's primary concern).

[Umbrella man]

I wonder if Tony Makara is a EUrosceptic?

All EUrosceptics should be UNsceptics too.

They are both dreadful and inward looking multilateral organisations.