Objections to intervention suggest that pouring in more weapons will aggravate the conflict, or we cannot afford another war. But the central question, "when can Western military intervention in a sovereign state be legitimate?" is rarely addressed. The answer is, of course, never.
Firstly, any idea that direct military
intervention is carried out to address the interest for suffering civilians is
rubbish. Past interventions in Korea, Vietnam and Cuba have all been about maintaining
Western political and ideological domination throughout the world. Secondly,
when the West or the US in particular, has funded forces to overthrow
legitimate governments, as in Angola, Nicaragua and Chile, the only rationale
was to preserve and pursue Western economic interests with people enduring unimaginable
horrors. Thirdly, recent Western military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya
have been based on lies and caused untold suffering, the deaths of hundreds of
thousands and, again, serving largely to maintain Western ‘superiority’.
Does anyone really believe that Western
military intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, will begin to solve the
problems of the oppressed people? far from it. Many of the weapons in use were
supplied by the West, and not least, by the UK, one of the biggest arms exporters
in the world. And who supplied many of the ingredients for Assad’s deadly toxic
weapons which could not have been produced within Syria? Western intervention
has been ongoing for decades and still the Syrian people suffer.
The truth is that when an oppressed
people seek self-determination over their future and turn on the source of
their oppression it will be bloody and messy. Foreign intervention simply makes
it worse, whilst crushing that self-determination. This is not to say that the
West should not engage in humanitarian intervention. Millions are suffering in
squalid refugee camps and the West’s vast wealth could be used to alleviate
that suffering and the burden imposed on poorer countries.