Comment on Lieven

An email from Professor Chris Brown, posted with his permission:

I very much agree with your sentiments here, but there is, I think, a more fundamental objection to Lieven's analysis, which focuses on the importance of motivation in such cases. Suppose I am being attacked on the street by a gang of muggers, and some passers-by come to my assistance. How important is their motivation for doing so? They might help me because they believe that it's the right thing to do, or because they think their heroism will win them popular esteem, or even because they enjoy the prospect of a fight - but from my point of view, surely, the important thing is that their intention is to stop me being robbed and beaten up. From Lieven's perspective presumably I am being rather short-sighted here; I - and third-party observers - ought to inspect the motives of my rescuers to make sure that they are pure in heart. If they aren't (and very few people, and no states, are actually pure of heart) then their actions should be condemned and opposed (even if the result is that I am robbed and beaten up).

This distinction between motivation and intention is important in Darfur and in many other similar cases. In fact, I don't believe that most of the people who want to see intervention in Darfur are actually motivated by imperialist ambitions, but even if they are, if their intention is to stop the killing, and if no one with purer motivation is prepared to act, then they deserve support. Of course, if the motive for action is reprehensible then there are likely to be adverse consequences further down the line, but, as far as one can tell, the people of Darfur are prepared to take this risk, on the quite understandable principle that it's better to be a living victim of imperialism than a dead victim of the Janjaweed.