How do governments make difficult decisions about foreign policy? How do they decide that interventionism is the correct course of action? The United Nations (26 June 1945) unequivocally expresses the principle of sovereign equality for its members. The right of a state to govern its own domestic affairs without external interference is regarded by critics of regime change as the foundation of a peaceful world order.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/five-foreign-policy-stories-watch-2023
http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/142289
It seems to me that one of the prime movers for a political decision to intervene is self interest. Acess to valuable resources like fossil fuels has driven intervention in the Middle East for example. In the case of the Ukraine war there is perceived threat to wider international security. Sometimes a desire for regime change is an underlying, often denied, reason. All possibly justifiable, but definitely self interest.
Surely the prime mover should be protection of life? Humanitarian interventions seem to be most justifiable. Yet often they don't seem to be as strong a trigger as self interest. It all depends on Politics.
Politics is the process for making official government decisions. It usually comprises the governmental legal and economic system and the social and cultural system. Politics supposedly reflects the values of the society. The question is, whether those values are fully shared by populations. The world is polarised between democracies & totalitarian regimes, with authoritarian regimes in the middle.
To intervene or not to intervene, that is the question. History shows that to commit massive financial & human resources to a destructive war is a recipe for disaster. Look at the two world wars. Look at Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq. Hardly resounding successes. The costs were enormous.
Personally I don't think we have any choice but to support Ukraine. Given Putins meglaomania, if he were to be allowed to win this war it would radically & negatively affect the whole of Europe. In addition, unprovoked aggression into sovereign territory should be challenged. Then there are the thousands of alleged war crimes & crimes against humanity committed by Russia & the many arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court.
Ukraine is not a member of either the ICC or NATO. They are not a member of the ICC because they have not ratified the Rome Statute. They are not members of NATO because one of the three main criteria for entry into NATO is a nation
must demonstrate a commitment to democracy, individual liberty and
support for the rule of law. While Ukrainian leaders say they have met
that threshold, some American and European officials argue otherwise. I imagine that if & when Ukraine has any sort of real victory in this war, membership will follow.
Given that the UN motto is "Peace, Dignity and Equality on a Healthy Planet" I'm not at all convinced of their effectiveness. The Veto power of China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom & Russia effectively stymies decision making. Russia is by far the biggest user of the veto. There are many instances of UN failures & corruption.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0018ljw/sign/the-whistleblowers-inside-the-un
All in all humanity seems to have got itself into a complete morass as far as effective Foreign policy decision making goes.The dilemmas are complex. Politicians can be hidebound by their own & their nations self interest. Altruistic & humanistic thinking seems to get lost in the process. Short term expediency wins.
The losers are the populations seen as collateral damage.
No comments:
Post a Comment