14
Of course, if there is a swift and successful conclusion to the Libyan intervention — Col Gaddafi deposed, cheering crowds in Tripoli — then liberal interventionism will get a boost. But success could be just as much of a snare as failure. Each successful intervention will prompt demand for the next one — and there will be no shortage of possible candidates. Indeed that question 1s already being raised by the sight of the Syrian government shooting its own citizens. Yet, the more demands that are placed on the western powers, the more it will be evident that there is a growing mismatch between ambition and resources. That gap could, one day, be filled if the Brics and other rising powers change their attitudes to liberal interventionism. But there is very little sign of that happening. The Chinese government, with memories of Tiananmen Square in 1989, is deeply wary of the idea that foreigners have the right to intervene to prevent human rights abuses in a sovereign nation. The same goes for the Russians, with their record in Chechnya. India, Brazil and South Africa are democratic countries with no need for a contingency plan to shoot their own citizens. But their colonial histories incline them to take a sceptical view of the motives of western powers that seek to use military power around the world. They are also all emerging powers that are not yet used to thinking globally. By contrast, Britain and France have maintained the instinct to think globally, without the resources to back it up. Even the US, by far the world’s pre-eminent military power, is signalling strongly that it is losing the will to be the world’s policeman. In the Victorian age, the British once sang — “We don’t want to fight, but by Jingo if we do/ We’ve got the ships, we've got the men, we’ve got the money too.” The Libyan intervention feels like a last reprise of that old tune, rather than a bold statement for a new age.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030043