The Case for Interventionism

At last, America and some of its closest allies decided to strike against the heavily armed rogues who, since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, have disrupted international shipping in the Red Sea. The enemy forces in Yemen are not acting on their own, but are in league with other—and far more powerful—enemies of the West. In these years, we are witnessing political polarization both nationally and internationally. As the totalitarian (super)powers grow in strength, the tyrants of the smaller countries are clearly encouraged to imitate the barbaric style and join the war against civilization; the rogues of the world become bolder and bolder.

The world of today has famously been compared to a village. Modern means of communication negate the immediate effect of geographic distance, creating an illusion of proximity. Wherever people settle down to live, they qualify as citizens of the same “global village.” The analogy (due to Canadian philosopher Herbert Marshall McLuhan), which originally avoided ideological bias, might nowadays seem designed to convey a sense of community. Accidentally, it harmonized with Western optimism, including democratic activism, in the 1990s. In the meantime, further moral connotations have been added to the original prophecies of media theory.

The so-called “globalization,” as driven by technological development, has made virtual neighbors of people around the globe, supposedly laying the foundation for a relationship that goes well beyond the exchange of information. Social justice activism, anti-capitalism, and postcolonial revanchism as a consequence of “virtual proximity,” predictably based on allegations of Western culpability, however, represent the arbitrary dictates of an ideological (socialist), belligerent approach.

Vital to communication and collaboration, including customization, on a global scale, the information technology has boosted international trade and travel. By the same token, it might have been expected to promote the cultural integration of humanity and counter isolationism, serving the long-term interests of civilization. So far, however, it has provided nothing like a guarantee against systematic disinformation, persecution of political dissidents or ethnic minorities, and tyranny in general. On the contrary, the enemies of the West have known how to make skillful use of it in their war strategy.

For decades, America has been accused of taking on the role of the “world’s policeman.” With an ironic reference to its recent history, it has even been likened to a gun-slinging sheriff from the Wild West. The “self-appointed sheriff” accusation is malicious, of course. Made by those who usually gang up against the rule-based world community (international order), it suggests that America, denied any privilege of judgment on account of its democratic institutions, should hold back; it’s in no position to claim moral supremacy and interfere with the political organization of other states—a message as relativistic as it is absurd.

Unlike America, the leader of the free world and a prosperous democracy built on the unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the states that challenge American interference in internal affairs are—without exception—led by tyrants. In principle, their governments (ranging from hybrid to authoritarian regimes) are illegitimate. They are all enemies of the open society and the rule of law. Frankly, they are an unmitigated menace to humanity.

If we go along with the game, so to speak, and elaborate on the village analogy, we have to acknowledge that some families down the street are faring better than others. Here and there, love and trust are prevailing, while selfishness, envy, and discord sow division elsewhere. In secret or less so, a family tyrant keeps abusing his wife and children. Vain and possessive by nature, admitting neither shame nor remorse, he assumes a defiant attitude, denies all charges, and rejects any outside interference. As far as he is concerned, his family is his rightful property; it is not appropriate for others to judge him.

Should the village sheriff, say, at the behest of troubled neighbors, show up on his doorstep, the family tyrant would characteristically resort to lies and assure that everybody inside was fine. On the other hand, he would be reluctant to open his home for inspection. Likewise, neither members of the free press, nor other independent observers, are willingly invited into tyrannical states. It requires the use of force, e.g. a military invasion, to have full access, uncover the crimes, and end injustice. It might be termed “military policemanship” in the world community.

The global village, which we happen to live in, is, unfortunately, crowded with family tyrants. They come in all shapes and forms, depending on the historical context of their ascendance and personal ties. However they present themselves to the world, ingratiating or intimidating, at the end of the day, they stay in power thanks to violence and threats of violence.

In the village council of the world, officially named the General Assembly of the United Nations, where they address each other from the podium in a style no less verbose than deceptive (usually with a narcissistic appetite for drama), the tyrants make up the majority. Accordingly, by a majority vote, but with the appearance of an Orwellian theater of the absurd, the council tyrants may rule that “freedom is slavery,” “peace is war,” and “ethnic victimhood is racism.” In contempt of justice, they accept no global judge or law enforcer.

The truth is, of course, that the world—the “global village” if you like—badly needs an incorruptible policeman prepared to enforce law and order. Otherwise, anarchy and terror are likely to spread at the expense of human dignity and self-determination, corrupting civilization. If there is nobody around to guard the righteous and uphold justice, the “rule by the strong” becomes absolute—marking the rise of tyranny.

Imagine a world without a democratic superpower, a world left to the savage whims of tyrants! In the absence of America as we know it, the world would become a playground for evil forces. No other country in the West has the religious-moral self-assurance, financial (taxpayer) ability, or military strength to undertake the task of “global policing” on behalf of the free world. It is, indeed, a great burden to lift. However, given the self-doubting, hesitant attitude of the Europeans, everything ultimately depends on “the Land of the Free.”

International law prohibits the “unprovoked” violation of national sovereignty. Therefore, America cannot kick in doors as it patrols the global village. Practice should reserve armed intervention for cases where an illegitimate government—directly or by proxy—draws first blood.

In the West, we deceive ourselves by pretending that governments without democratic institutions are our equal partners in the international community. Case in point: The desire of Arab oil states to do business in the Western world, including buying up profitable industries, successful football clubs, and even esteemed news media. Not to mention, the potential political impact facilitated by subsidies to Western universities (from money earned via overpriced oil production), fails miserably to wash the blood off their hands. Unwavering sponsors of religious extremism, they remain enemies of the West—and a pariah.

In light of the painful experiences from Afghanistan and Iraq, we must once and for all abandon naive expectations that we can transplant Western ideals of freedom to any other part of the world. Where the alien culture is hostile, rigid, and bent on thwarting any change, whatever the availability of social media, it makes no practical sense to intervene to command civilized manners. Rules stand in the way of military intervention to protect the victims of tyranny. If we had the guts, however, we could actually show our contempt by refusing trade.

In times of both war and peace, the eternal struggle for human freedom and justice goes on. The survival of civilization requires our courage as citizens of the global village to confront the tyrannical enemy, whatever his ideological affiliation, and defeat him. The alternative is dystopian. It would be hell on earth.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.