The case for liberal interventionism

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's trip to the United States on Thursday and Friday once again highlighted the importance of both countries having an internationalist foreign policy and there is no doubt that Mr Blair has played an important role in convincing the US to remain engaged in world affairs.

Both Mr Blair and President George Bush called on the international community to give its full support to the new Iraqi government and in a foreign policy speech on Friday Mr Blair spoke about the values of democracy and reform of the post-World War II institutions, such as the United Nations and International Monetary Fund.

Mr Blair came to office in 1997 determined to give a new dimension to British foreign policy, one that would involve the great powers intervening in foreign conflicts on the side of freedom - with or without United Nations approval - in order to prevent mass murder. This was a bold, and correct, step forward and Mr Blair did not hesitate to use military force in places such as West Africa, the Balkans and Afghanistan when this was necessary.

In April 1999 Mr Blair gave a landmark speech in Chicago which outlined a policy of interventionism that the Prime Minister has pursued ever since, which broadly implied that military intervention on humanitarian grounds was justified. The speech was made at the height of the war against Serbia by NATO over Kosovo, in which Mr Blair played an important role in convincing both NATO and President Clinton to participate.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Blair's liberal interventionism was - and still is - one of the most attractive features of his New Labour government, especially when one compares this to the previous Conservative government's very cautious approach to conflicts, such as the one in Bosnia. The new policy showed that armed interventionism is not simply a question of defending narrow selfish self-interests but is a matter of doing what is right for the common good, which after all is also in Britain's - and the international community's - long-term interest. Sticking up for freedom and democracy and stopping genocide are certainly noble causes and Mr Blair deserves credit for this.

However, it is not always possible to engage in military action abroad, nor it is always possible to impose democracy on a country which has no history of democracy and has a complicated ethnic mix. I am, of course, talking about Iraq. Unfortunately, the Iraq war has greatly discredited liberal interventionism and has turned out to be a disaster. The reason why the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown had nothing to do with imposing democracy or freedom or getting rid of a brutal dictator, although under different circumstances these are perfectly valid reasons for military action.

The reason why Mr Bush and Mr Blair invaded Iraq was because they said Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a supporter of Al-Qaeda terrorism. This has proved to be incorrect. To make matters worse, there was absolutely no post-war planning strategy which has led to an almost failed state on the brink of civil war, an increase in terrorism and to Iran's influence in Iraq and to Britain's and America's reputation hitting rock bottom. As Anthony Cordesman, an American strategist, remarked: "We essentially used a bull to liberate a china shop."

There is no doubt that the Bush administration made monumental mistakes in the conduct of its post-war strategy in Iraq and it is indeed unbelievable that his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was never sacked as a result. Although the formation of a new Iraqi government is welcome news, the situation in Iraq is still very fluid and little progress seems to have been made in the battle against the insurgents. The worst news is that the coalition forces seem to have failed in their battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

All this will obviously make it very difficult for public opinion in both the US and Europe to support the need for military intervention in other situations. The answer, however, is not isolationism or to retreat from internationalism. Yes, the Iraqi fiasco has severely damaged the credibility of liberal interventionism but the challenge for the critics of the war in Iraq is to criticise the mistakes committed while at the same times rejecting isolationism and embracing what is essentially an honourable doctrine.

President Bush is right in saying that America needs to respond to terrorism, tyranny and nuclear proliferation with great determination and Mr Blair is correct in supporting him. Mr Bush's failures are often to do with the way he carries out such a policy and that is what we should be criticising, not the principle of internationalism.

It is true that Mr Bush is lying low in the opinion polls and it is also true that Mr Blair - his closest ally - has almost become a lame duck Prime Minister with many his own MPs calling on him to step down, which means that both could be tempted to retreat into isolationism. During last week's meeting, however, they gave no indication of such a move, and this is to be welcomed.

Montenegro goes it alone

What was left of Yugoslavia - Serbia-Montenegro - is no more. A majority of Montenegrins last Sunday voted for their country to break off completely from Serbia and to become an independent sovereign nation. Montenegro's goal, like so many other former Communist East European countries, is to join both the European Union and NATO.

The vote in favour of independence - 55.4 per cent - was reasonably large but just over the minimum 55 per cent threshold set by the EU for international recognition. The result should come as no surprise to most observers.

The so-called union between Serbia and Montenegro was a very loose confederation which had little jurisdiction except in foreign affairs, trade and defence. Montenegro had even supported the nato attacks on Serbia in 1999 over the Kosovo crisis. Both countries were de facto independent, with different currencies and different laws - the federal parliament hardly ever met.

Montenegro's Prime Minister, Milo Djukanovic, has always been in favour of independence and ironically it was the EU which had persuaded him to enter into some type of union with Serbia in an effort to stabilise the region after the wars that had engulfed most of the other former Yugoslav republics in their quest for independence. However, the EU finally gave its blessing to Montenegro's pursuit of statehood when it realised that Serbia-Montenegro had no future as a single state.

One of the arguments for Montenegro's independence was that Belgrade's refusal to hand over war crimes suspects and the lack of an agreement over Kosovo's future was hindering Serbia-Montenegro's chances of joining the EU. So it was better to break off from Serbia and take one's chances at entering the EU - and NATO - as an independent country. This is clearly understandable.

One hopes that Montenegro will now adopt a mature position with regard to its independence and comes to an amicable settlement with Serbia. Montenegro is different from the other countries that have broken away from Serbia and the people of Montenegro are ethnically very similar to the Serbs. Both countries are Slav and Orthodox and should remain close friends.

This latest move will no doubt hurt Serbian pride somewhat, but nothing can be done about that. What is important is that Serbia now co-operates with the EU in bringing suspected war criminals to justice so that one day it will find its rightful place in the EU alongside its former Yugoslav republics, including Montenegro.