Writing that it would be imprudent for Western countries to contemplate intervening in Syria, Patrick Cockburn says:
Britain, France and Italy have called for sanctions against Syria. But they should not do more because intrusive foreign intervention is likely to prove counter-productive. There are already signs of this in Libya. Justifiable action against impending massacre turns into imperial intervention. Nato air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi's tanks advancing on Benghazi have escalated into an air war, aided by foreign advisers on the ground, with the purpose of overthrowing the regime. In such an offensive the Libyan rebels, whatever their popular support and skill in media relations, may play only a walk-on part.
It is worth recalling that most Afghans were pleased when the Taliban collapsed in 2001 and most Iraqis were glad to see the back of Saddam Hussein in 2003. But it did not follow that the opponents of autocracy were united, had real support or were less corrupt or more competent than their predecessors. Nor were Afghans or Iraqis prepared to see foreign armies determine who should hold power in their countries.
I say nothing for my part about the wisdom or otherwise of an intervention in Syria. But a question I'm interested in is this: when does justifiable action for some humanitarian purpose 'turn into' imperial intervention? The answer one might think implied by Patrick Cockburn is: when it aims to overthrow the regime. However, what if only overthrowing the regime protects the people of the country against massacre and suchlike? And what if the regime overthrown or to be overthrown is not one that a majority there would, respectively, welcome back or want to see survive? Might the justified action in these circumstances remain what it is?
