I've been thinking on and off about the various strains of thought within 'the left', generally speaking (in which I include liberalism), on how different peoples ought to interact with each other. A lot of today's ideological conflicts within western foreign policy boil down to this: When, if ever, should we overthrow dictatorships? What is the balance between supporting freedom everywhere and respecting other people's choices?
Inside are some musings on two major viewpoints within the left, a bit of history, and a few thoughts for implications, although this is more of a theoretical than a practical political diary.
I'll broadly use the term "internationalism" to mean the position that free people ought to support free people elsewhere overthrow their oppressors. I'll use "egalitarianism" for the view that people ought to mind their own affairs and allow others to mind theirs. Note of course that there are a lot of nuanced views within and across both general positions.
If we go back to the earliest period that could be sensibly described by the term liberalism, then internationalism was for various reasons the standard view. Generally this is because the world was broken by those in power into kingdoms, fiefdoms, and so on, for the benefit of the ruling class. The liberals then naturally opposed such divisions, and did not feel like their activities ought to be constrained by them. More romantically, there was the view that free people everywhere had a right and duty to help out their oppressed brethren. This was the theory under which American revolutionaries traveled a decade later to France to support the French revolution, for example.
Moving into the 19th century, Socialism took up a largely similar view: Nationalism was the enemy, and workers of the world should unite in each others' support and feel free to ignore borders in doing so. In practice, opinions here got much more splintered: This was the theory under which the Soviets set up puppet states in Eastern Europe and invaded Afghanistan, both controversial actions within the broader Socialist community.
Moving into the 20th century, this view was transformed somewhat into something that might be called "state internationalism", with the formation of the League of Nations, and later the United Nations. Under this view, states collectively could intervene in each others' affairs, subject to some procedural mechanisms. In practice, this is a sort of hybrid between pure "state internationalism" and a sort of realpolitik that tried to balance the major powers to keep them from fighting each other. That leads to additional splintering of views: Does international law have paramount position, or are there times when higher ethical concerns trump it?
Moving later into the 20th century, an opposite view emerged, largely out of anticolonialism: People ought to govern their own affairs, and let others likewise govern theirs. Under this theory, it is not the business of the West to try to impose its cultural or moral standards on the rest of the world. If Iranians, for example, want a theocracy, that is their business; if they don't want a theocracy, they may overthrow it themselves, and again that's their business.
I think these general philosophies represent a lot of the disagreement in the left over how to view and what to do about various groups. For example, take Iraq.
To a classical internationalist, the situation is pretty clear: The Ba'ath party was a fascist dictatorship, in both the historical sense (they were formed in 1943 with German assistance), and in the practical sense. Therefore the global antifascist struggle must include supporting their overthrow. The main internal disagreements here are over how and when. In some cases, like World War II, how to fight fascism is pretty clear. In others, like Iraq, things are more murky, and people split over whether, for example, force is justified.
To an egalitarian, the situation is equally clear: the Ba'ath Party was an anticolonialist movement, and the West has no business stepping back in and telling the Iraqis that they replaced the colonial British government with the wrong replacement. If Iraqis don't like Saddam, it's their business to overthrow him, and we shouldn't meddle. A slightly moderated version of this argument holds that regional intervention from peoples of similar backgrounds is legitimate: So the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc., as western nations, can all meddle in each other's affairs, but not in Iraq's. Likewise, perhaps the Arab League can legitimately meddle in Iraq's affairs, but NATO can't.
A few wrenches to throw in the mix are minority groups. For example, classically internationalists supported freedom struggles of minority groups who were ruled by other groups; in this case, that would include the Kurds, whose territory is split up between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Egalitarians sometimes support such struggles as well; one could view the Kurdish independence struggle as a sort of anticolonialism, perhaps as a remnant of the Ottoman Empire's colonies. Others, needless to say, see things otherwise.
In any case, I think it's a difficult set of issues, but important to distinguish the fundamental positions from the current ones. In the current situation, most of us can agree that Bush is not pursuing the Iraq war either competently or for the right reasons. The danger is falling into a reflexive position, though: Mine is the opposite of whatever Bush's is. This diary is a meagre attempt to start looking towards a different view: What if "we", broadly speaking, were in control of the U.S. government, and were acting for the right reasons? What would be the right things to do?
Incidentally, those interested in these sorts of things at a deeper level may want to read some issues of Dissent magazine, whose varied authors cover basically all spectrums of these viewpoints. (No, this isn't an ad; I have no affiliation with them.)