Lazy, simplistic and stupid

Murray the "central issue of our time" is the "new imperialism" of Anglo-American forces, which apparently stretches from Iraq to Afghanistan, to Lebanon, but also includes Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

This is the first time that I have seen the UN-authorised force in Bosnia included in what is now becoming a familiar list and I am curious about it. Andrew has previously written that Britain should not take military action outside the UN Charter and I broadly agree with him.

International law is not perfect, but it is the best system that we have got. Even when they have been motivated by good intentions, most of the interventions that have taken place in disregard of this framework in recent years have probably done more harm than good.

Genocide of Srebrenicia

But both the Bosnian and Afghan operations were authorised by the UN and I am wondering about the logic of Andrew's argument? Does he think that the UN should not have responded to the genocide of Srebrenicia?

Was the problem during the Rwandan genocide that there were too many UN soldiers rather than too few? For Andrew the democratically elected government of Afghanistan does not deserve support because the country still suffers from corruption and human rights violations, but by that logic the UN should also pull out of most Africa. I am writing this piece near to the Burma-Thai border having spent the week discussing land and property rights with the Burmese democracy movement.

They do not expect to be freed from their military dictatorship by the international community any time soon, but they do welcome the more assertive role that the UN has recently displayed towards the human rights situation in their country. Does Andrew consider this to be another example of western interference?

There is a serious debate to be had about the future of UN peace-keeping operations. There are now more chapter VII interventions taking place in the world than ever before. Increasing their effectiveness is a key challenge as is persuading countries to commit troops and resources.

Lessons from past

This is particularly the case where there is a risk of casualties and western public opinion clearly plays and important role in these discussions. We need to learn the lessons of the successes and failures of previous operations. It is also important to discuss the costs of non-intervention in particular crises, given the de-stabilising impact that these often have beyond their own borders.

But trying to reduce the complexity of every individual conflict to a simple question of "whose side are you on" contributes little - although Andrew's claim that Hizbullah is now backed by "the Latin American left", did at least make me laugh.

Andrew repeatedly refers to his world view as a "touchstone" and a "fault line" running through British society and politics. He even throws in some casual accusations of racism against his opponents, as if all supporters of humanitarian interventions are secretly nostalgic for the British empire.

In fact his own view is profoundly nationalistic and seems to be based on an appeal to shut out all the problems of the world at the English channel. I have written previously about how both the "anti-imperialists" and the "liberal hawks" share a similar disregard for those on the receiving end of humanitarian crises if they do not fit within their own particular ideological framework. But Andrew's analysis is worse than the "politics of the guilt-trip". It is lazy, simplistic and stupid.

(The Guardian)