of interfering with another polity (that is, political organization)
or with choices made by individuals. Interventionism is characterized
by the use or threat of force or coercion to alter a political or
cultural situation nominally outside the intervenor's moral or
political jurisdiction. It commonly deals with a government's
interventions in other governments' affairs–and is thus an aspect of
political philosophy, but it can also be extended to interventions in
others' cultures, religions, lifestyles, and economic activities–and
thus can fit into applied ethics, covering such issues as paternalism,
imperialism, and topics in business, medical, and environmental
ethics.
1. A Note on Methodological Considerations
The context of interventionism requires an epistemological
consideration. A methodological individualist will argue that it
involves interventions in the lives of individuals; that essentially
it does not matter whether the individuals are part of one's political
entity or belonging to another–interventionism applies solely to
individuals. A methodological holist on the other hand will identify
the object of interventionism as groups–cultural, political,
religious, national, and so on. Whilst the methodological
individualist will focus on issues that infringe or attempt to alter
individuals' rights or choices, the holist will draw attention to
issues affecting groups and their identities. Methodological
compatibilism holds that interventions do affect individual rights or
choices but individuals also identify themselves with groups who can
also be separately affected by interference. For example, demanding
that all female bank employees wear blue dresses affects the
individual's choice of clothes in the workplace but also interferes
with the banking corporation's right to determine its own standard of
dress.
2. What Does Interventionism Deal With?
Beyond epistemological considerations interventionism commonly deals
with the justifications of governments to interfere in (a) the lives
of its own civilian population–domestic interventions, and (b) the
activities of other nations–foreign interventions. In the case of
domestic interventionism that apparatus is the police force (or the
army acting as a domestic policing force as with the British army in
Northern Ireland 1969-date); in the case of international
interventionism it is the army. In either scenario interventionism
implies the potential or actual use of coercion.
Reasoning or persuading another group of people that a chosen policy,
or a certain tradition, is wrong either morally (given a certain
standard) or on consequentialist considerations (the policy will not
achieve what it's meant to achieve) are not examples of
interventionism. Reasoning includes all forms of rhetoric, example,
persuasion, exhortation, counseling, discourse, and so on. The other
group changes policy or tradition only if it desires –is persuaded– to
change. They do so voluntarily. On the other hand, it may be claimed
that in attempting to persuade others to change their minds is a form
of interventionism. But this definition then becomes too broad to be
of use–merely speaking to another or judging their behavior in the
absence of any threats, coercion, or force, cannot be termed
interventionist, for its goal is not to interfere but to explain
possible choices.
Breaking diplomatic relations also does not imply the use of force and
hence is not a form of interventionism. This is an essentially
peaceful attempt to alter another government's actions in effect by
removing acknowledgement of its international political status.
Voluntary decisions on the part of a people may change a nation's
values. Trading in goods and ideas can change a society, yet such
changes should not, for the most part, be deemed interventionist.
Changes in culture and language that result from the voluntary
decisions of many individuals cannot be tied to any form of
interventionism, for the policy of interventionism is a policy of
threatening or using coercion or force of some description. Whether
such examples exist is hard to ascertain, for commonly the expansion
of freedom of trade that has led to an exchange of ideas and hence of
cultures is historically almost universally connected with imperialist
policies that do aim at explicit forms of intervention. Following
World War Two (1939-45) when Western imperialism dwindled as a
political value, it can be argued that various societies (e.g.,
Taiwan, Malaysia) voluntarily took up what are referred to as 'Western
values' through the influence of non-violent commercial ventures.
However, critics may point out that previous military interventions
could be considered as necessary precursors to changes in the culture
of the people.
Coercion is a form of interventionism. Coercion implies offering
choices that normally would not be accepted, but which leave the
individual to choose the option preferred by the coercer, or by
default one that is less acceptable. For example: if a knife is held
to your throat and you are given the option to hand over your car keys
or die, you are being coerced; if a government demands that you open
up your borders to a free trade in opium or face armed conflict
(China, Opium Wars with Britain) your nation is being coerced.
Domestic interventions entail restricting the choices of individuals
or groups or altering their activities through legislative coercion.
Limiting freedom of speech or trade, restricting occupational access
to certain religious groups, or enforcing the draft are examples of
interventions in the choices of individuals or groups, while
increasing beer taxes are examples of altering choices through
legislative frameworks; failure to comply may incur penalties.
On the international level, interventionist activities involve
threatening, coercing, or forcing another group or nation to alter its
behavior or change its government or policies. International
interventionism can incorporate direct activities such as the use or
threat of war, as well as indirect activities such as assassination,
subversion, and economic embargoes of all descriptions (complete or
partial blockades, transport restrictions, etc.).
General goals of international interventionism include attempting to
change: governments (e.g., Iran, 1979); people's expectations of
governmental activities; general attitudes of just conduct not held as
appropriate in the wider international community (e.g., South African
Apartheid). Specific goals can include changing a state apparatus or
its personnel (the government), to remove a particular statesperson or
group, to change specific or general policies, to alter cultural or
political beliefs, or even to alter patterns of economic and
population distributions.
3. Arguments for Interventionism
Utilitarian or consequentialist prescriptions are open-ended: they
could support interventions either generally or in particular
circumstances, depending on expected results. Other positions offer
more principled cases for interventionism, for example on
epistemological grounds, political realism or rights analyses.
a. Epistemological Reasons
Intervening can be justified on grounds of the government possessing
better knowledge than individual agents, or from paternalistic
reasons, which presume the target agents are incapable of making
informed choices themselves. To that extent, governments may legislate
a range of programs from ensuring that people take out adequate
insurance or invest sufficiently into pensions to requiring health
checks or continued education; or economic interventions could be
justified on the grounds that economic agents (investors,
corporations, banks) do not act in the long term interest of the
nation, whereas civil servants who are deemed above the profit motive
can take the longer view (as held by John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946,
for example).
b. Political Realism
Political realism is defined by the primacy of national interest in
international affairs. This can be viewed as either a moral duty or as
a description of the ruling state of affairs. Policy prescriptions
involve pursuing interventions as they benefit the national interest.
The theory implies that states should be left alone to seek and to
defend their own interests. In the realist tradition, of which there
are many shades, such supporters include Thucydides, Machiavelli, and
Hobbes.
Political realism offers a broad interventionist doctrine that can
justify intervening for reasons of economic profit as well as for
balance of power considerations. The history of the British Empire
provides many examples of both justifications (Cf. its interventions
in European politics in the War of the Spanish Succession 1702-13 and
the War of the Austrian Succession 1740-8), whilst post-war US foreign
policy offers more recent case studies (Vietnam War 1961-73 and the
Gulf War 1990-91). It is captured by Thucydides' description of the
Pelopennesian War, that it was Spartan "fear of Athenian growth" that
caused the war. Realists often invoke consequentialist concerns
regarding the developing international state of affairs–that should
the foreign power to grow unchecked, a war would ensue, or economic
resource bases would be lost, or an invasion could occur. The
Schlieffen Plan, prior to the First World War (1914-18) is another
useful example of balance of power considerations.
Political realism assumes that interests are to be maintained through
the exercise of power, and that the world is characterized by
competing power bases (nation states [Hegel], for example, or classes
[Marx]). Political realism is essence reduces to the ethical principle
that might is right.
c. Rights Theories
Some claim that rights only pertain to individuals, and that nations
and governments only acquire any rights or privileges by virtue of the
civilians giving them power. Rights theorists thus argue that
individual rights supersede or 'trump' the rights or privileges of
governments. On this basis, interventions in support of rights are
morally justifiable. For example, if a foreign government tyrannizes
its civilians, an intervention to support their rights can be
justified, for the moral status of rights does not end at political
borders. However, what needs to be considered is at what point do
rights violations justify an intervention, or would an intervention do
more harm than good? Second is the argument from hypocrisy–can a
nation be justified in intervening in another's affairs when it does
not have a clean slate of its own? Finally, given that rights are
being violated, is a government guilty of moral failure if it fails to
intervene, and if so, is that moral failure a failure of its duty or
of virtuous behavior?
4. Non-Interventionist Doctrines
Non-interventionism is the theory that one does not have any moral
justification in intervening in others' affairs. On a rights based
analysis, or from Kantian considerations of duty, this may be
considered an absolutist prohibition on the grounds that it either
violates others' rights to freedom or respect due them as individual
moral entities. Consequentialists may infer from evidence that
interventionism is always counter-productive and should not be
practiced. In contemporary ethical analysis, a rule utilitarian may
claim that since interventions never work (an empirical, testable
hypothesis), ethical considerations aimed at maximizing the greatest
good for the greatest number should employ non-interventionism on
principle. However, act utilitarians may agree that historically
interventions have not worked, but that does not mean that they will
not in a future situation, and hence non-interventionism should not be
held categorically.
As a political-economical doctrine, non-interventionism includes the
economic doctrine of laissez-faire, which holds that governments
should not intervene in the economic activities of individuals or
corporations. Some thinkers, notably Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) have
extended the doctrine to moral issues too, arguing, for example, that
intervening in the plight of the poor only makes their condition worse
by creating an atmosphere of dependency, rather than leaving them to
independently struggle and find their own values. Other supporters of
the economic laissez-faire doctrine do not go as far as Spencer;
Friedrich von Hayek argues (Constitution of Liberty, 1956) that
governments do have responsibilities to the poor resulting from their
duty to provide a general framework to ensure the smooth operation of
the free market system.
On a broader view, non-interventionism is applied by John Stuart Mill
in On Liberty; he claims that responsibility to others only goes so
far as ensuring they know of the dangers that may befall them, but
does not extend to actually physically restraining those who would
knowingly injure themselves. In the international sphere, Mill ("Notes
on Intervention" Collected Works) argues for a policy of
self-determination: that other people be allowed to make their own
mistakes, and hence forge their own paths to freedom; intervening
paternalistically on their behalf will not be conducive to their
learning the value of freedom in its own right. Such a stance can be
used in a variety of issues including freedom of press and expression.
For example, John Milton in Areopagitica argues: "And though all the
winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in
the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt
her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put
to the worse in a free and open encounter?"
5. Legal Positivism and Non-Interventionism
In the international sphere, legal positivists are commonly
non-interventionists. Legal positivists, following Christian Wolff
(1679-1754), argue that nation states possess absolute rights to
political sovereignty and territorial integrity, which implies that
national borders be inviolable. Wolff writes: "Nations are regarded as
individual free persons living in a state of nature. For they consist
of a multitude of men united into a state. Therefore since states are
regarded as individual free persons living in a state of nature,
nations must also be regarded in relation to each other as individual
free persons living in a state of nature." (Jus Gentium Methodo
Scientifica Pertractatum Trans. Joseph Drake. Clarendon Press: Oxford,
1934, §2, p.9) The positivist theory of international relations
implies that interventions would violate international borders; this
position itself resolves into an absolutist doctrine that deems
interventions should never be condoned and more pragmatic positions
that permit some exceptions to the rule.
Positivist exceptions to non-interventionism emanate from humanitarian
considerations that overwhelm nominally sacrosanct national borders,
if the target state is violating basic human rights to such an extent
that it can no longer be deemed a proper representative of its people.
The type of interventionism supported depends on the theory of the
state entertained.
If governments are viewed as instrumental institutions that exist to
uphold the domestic rights of civilians, then a violation of its remit
can warrant an intervention on behalf of the citizens. Michael Walzer
in Just and Unjust Wars (1977) entertains this position, arguing that
only in extreme cases of rights violations "that shock the moral
conscience of mankind" (p.107), can interventions be supported. He
gives the examples of genocide, mass murder or enslavement. Rights
violations above this level, he implies, are not grounds for
interventionism (e.g., removal of free movement, freedom of the press,
etc).
A Hobbesian case for interventionism can be maintained by those who
consider governments the sole and proper moral and legal authorities.
Hobbes claims that individuals give up the rights that they possess in
the state of nature (except the right of self-preservation) to the
state (the 'Leviathan'). He argues the State should be obeyed, even it
is acting quite tyrannically, for the alternative –and the greater
evil– is the state of war in which justice and morality do not hold.
However, if a state acts to takes its civilians into the state of
nature by governing incompetently or unjustly then the people have a
right to form a new state. This allows the legal positivist to condone
interventions where governments have obviously failed in their
obligations and have brought war to the people through their
ineptitude.
The third possible justification for the positivist is when a
supra-legal body legislates in favor of an intervention. For example,
the United Nations has the jurisdiction to pass a resolution of
intervention, but it does not condone unilateral interventions.
Positivists draw parallels here between governments arbitrating in
domestic disputes and a world body acting to dissolve international
disputes.
6. Isolationism
Isolationism is the political doctrine of non-involvement in foreign
affairs. The state, it is argued, should confine its activities to its
own jurisdiction, and therefore, what happens abroad is of no concern.
Isolationism can be argued from a consequentialist perspective: that
getting involved would only make matters (whatever those matters are)
worse; or from an intrinsicist perspective similar to the legal
positivist case, that national jurisdiction (and hence moral and
political concerns) ends at the political borders.
7. Economic Interventionism
Government intervention in the economy was noted above. Whilst the
effects and the principles are the subject matter of economics,
philosophers can fruitfully examine the nature of the epistemological
arguments used in the debates which involve considerations of
methodological individualism versus holism, and a-priori versus
a-posteriori reasoning.
No comments:
Post a Comment