Do you really think that the US were willing to promote human rights when they invaded Iraq. It's convenient to always invade countries that happen to full of fossil ressources. At the same time, they sign pacts and alliances with nations that are treat their people like slaves. When it comes to foreign policy, America, like other moralizing Western Powers, are the perfect political example of double standard .
top of page
bottom of page
It depends on the context. At first, colonialism was a Leftist ideal - philosphers approved the promotion of their "enlighted" culture and believed that it was their nations' duty to spread that light abroad. From their perspective, it was for humanitarian purposes. However, from the counterinsurgents' point of view, it was a military intervention driven by financial and imperialist motives.
It is true that when you look at Iraq and Libya, it is a big mess - worst now than it was before. Same thing with France's intervention in Malia. While politicians assure French people that they are only willing to liberate and set free the Malian, it is quite unsurprising to find out that there are huge uranium mines in the region and that France is major nuclear power with ex-colonies in Africa.
I tend to agree with Realists, everything should be understood in the realm of interest. So, to answer your question, it depends on the justification: if a state justifies its intervention by acknoledging that it is driven by financial interest, I'm ok with that; if it claims that it is for humanitarian purposes, it can not be justified. How come a country like the US can find trillions to "liberate" foreigners from a foreign dictator in a foreign region while it can't, at the same time, find those same funds to solve its own citizens' issues (housing, healthcare, etc.).
Let's be realistic for a minute.