Socialism and Internationalism

Socialism and Democracy

The most disturbing movement away from socialism under the Blair governments was in international policies and action. Socialism is about peoples being able, democratically, to take decisions about their own lives. Governments should be elected by the people, not imposed by external forces.

There was no case for military intervention in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan. We were not invited in as a result of any democratic decision. For this reason it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the motivation, in the case of Iraq, was to gain control of that country’s oil.

The argument about weapons of mass destruction would not have held water, even if Iraq had had them. The most appropriate policy for halting the development of nuclear weapons is to campaign for their removal, giving a lead by getting rid of our own.

In the Middle East, the relevant action is to stop supporting Israel as a nuclear state. If Israel did not have nuclear arms, the argument against other countries having them would be much more convincing – and much more likely to succeed.

Socialism and Common Sense

Leaving aside socialism for a moment, let us consider the invasion of Iraq in terms of a common sense; a common sense which takes history into account. Millions of people alive remember Vietnam and many of them predicted the chaos, loss of life and financial cost of the Iraq project.

The United Kingdom’s experience of movements for colonial independence should have taught that democracy cannot be imposed by external forces. The same applies to USA intervention in, for example, South American states. Solutions are always political, as a result of negotiations, not military.

None of this means that socialism is anti-internationalism. Consider the difference it would have made if the hundreds of £ billions spent on killing people (in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries which have suffered military intervention) had been spent on fighting starvation and disease, and encouraging enterprise, in developing countries.

Instead of millions killed, millions of lives would have been saved.

The United Nations

A socialist approach to international policy would mean that, where there is a case for intervention – for example on humanitarian grounds – it would be under the auspices of the United Nations. This would prevent any country intervening to promote its own interests.

This policy would work only if agreed by countries with large armed forces. They will not be easy to convince. The challenge is to persuade them that, in the longer term, it is in their interests to support international control of any intervention in the affairs of another state.

The justification for intervention is most commonly humanitarian. However, it has to be accepted that there are circumstances where the use of force is necessary to achieve peace. An example is where a country is ravage by civil war. In such circumstances the crucial factor is that the United Nations force is constituted in such a way that it is accepted as neutral.