[R-G] Miliband: UK has moral duty to intervene

[Anthony Fenton]

Presumably, Ralph is rolling in his grave.

...

Miliband: UK has moral duty to intervene

Mistakes in Iraq 'must not derail efforts to spread democracy'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/12/foreignpolicy.iraq? 
gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

British foreign secretary will warn of China's impact on world  
democracy. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, will today set out the  
clearest exposition yet of Labour's recast foreign policy when he  
will argue that mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan must not cloud  
the moral imperative to intervene - sometimes militarily - to help  
spread democracy throughout the world.

He will warn that the rise of China means that the world can no  
longer take "the forward march of democracy for granted", and that  
Britain must unambiguously be on the side of what he describes as  
"civilian surges" for democracy.

In a speech in Oxford today entitled The Democratic Imperative,  
Miliband will say that he believes the debate about the Iraq war "has  
clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world. I  
understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep  
concerns at the mistakes made." But he will add: "My plea is not to  
let divisions over those conflicts obscure our national interest,  
never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy."  
Miliband, who is due to travel to China in a fortnight, will also  
argue that people inside China and outside are rightly concerned  
about the next stages in its political development.

Among a string of practical proposals to support democracy, the  
foreign secretary will suggest:

· encouraging economic openness as a means of tackling corruption and  
increasing transparency, including in China;

· a new round of provincial elections in Iraq, to help to bind in  
former insurgents who want proof of their local influence, and the  
chance to join the Iraqi security force;

· organisations like the UN or Nato should consider offering  
"security guarantees" to new but fragile governments, conditional on  
them abiding by democratic rules;

· support for "civilian surges" for democracy led by "literate,  
better-educated people able to access information and communicate  
with others".

The foreign secretary will argue that fostering democracy in the  
Middle East "is the best long-term defence against global terrorism  
and conflict".

He will also warn that the spread of democracy is far from  
guaranteed, and that since the millennium, "there has been a pause in  
democratic advance ... countries with new democratic systems are  
struggling to establish roots.

"After the end of the cold war it was tempting to believe in the 'end  
of history' - the inevitable process of liberal democracy and  
capitalist economics. Now with the economic success of China, we can  
no longer take the forward march of democracy for granted."

Miliband's broad-ranging speech reflects his deep concern that a  
combination of factors, including widespread distaste for the  
American neo-conservative movement, disillusionment at the practical  
failures in Iraq, and a feeling that some underdeveloped countries,  
such as Kenya, are simply too tribal for democracy, is storing up a  
powerful isolationist mood in Britain.

The foreign secretary, who has just returned from Afghanistan and  
Bangladesh, believes there is an urgent need to restate the case for  
the universal value of democracy.

He will argue that interventions in other countries must be more  
subtle, better planned, and if possible undertaken with the agreement  
of multilateral institutions. But "we must resist the argument of the  
left and the right to retreat into a world of realpolitik".

Miliband believes that in the 1990s "something strange happened.

"The neo-conservative movement seemed more certain about spreading  
democracy around the world. The left seemed conflicted between the  
desirability of the goal and its qualms about the use of military means.

"In fact, the goal of spreading democracy should be a great  
progressive project; the means need to combine both soft and hard  
power. We should not let the debate about the how of foreign policy  
obscure the clarity about the what."


[...]

"[T]he usage of Fascism as a reference point tends dangerously to  
obscure the less extreme alternatives to it, which do not require the  
wholesale dismantling of all democratic institutions, the total  
subversion of all liberties, nor certainly the abandonment of a  
democratic rhetoric. It is easily possible to conceive of forms of  
conservative authoritarianism which would not be 'Fascist,' in the  
old sense, which would be claimed to be 'democratic' precisely  
because they were not 'Fascist,' and whose establishment would be  
defended as in the best interests of 'democracy' itself. Nor is all  
this a distant projection into an improbable future: it describes a  
process which is already in train, and which also, in the condition  
of advanced capitalism, more likely to be accentuated than reversed..."
...
"Historically, labout and socialist movements have been the main  
driving force for the extension of the democratic features of  
democratic societies...But their performance of this role has been  
very substantially and very negatively affected by the constantly  
more pronounced ideological and political integration of social  
democratic leaders into the framework of capitalism."

  - Miliband, Ralph. The State in Capitalist Society, New York, Basic  
Books Inc., 1969,  p. 272, 273.