Miliband justifies military intervention
David Miliband laid out the case for military intervention overseas in a speech at Oxford University last night.
Speaking at St Hugh’s College, the foreign secretary explained Britain could use aid, financial and economic links and the lure of membership of international organisations to encourage fledgling democracies in the right direction.
He said there would be some cases where “hard power” like targeted sanctions, security guarantees and military intervention “will be necessary”.
“While we must deploy different tools in different situations, flexibility of means must be combined with consistency in our goals,” Mr Miliband said.
“In extreme cases the failure of states to exercise their responsibility to protect their own civilians from genocide or ethnic cleansing warrant military intervention on humanitarian grounds.”
The foreign secretary described the 1990s as a time when “neoconservatives” became more eager to use force to promote democracy than the left.
This “strange” period saw the left divided over its moral qualms about military intervention but Mr Miliband believes these days are now over.
“The goal of spreading democracy should be a great progressive project; the means need to combine soft and hard power,” he added.
“We should not let the genuine debate about the ‘how’ of foreign policy obscure the clarity about the ‘what’.”
Tony Blair’s Labour government attracted ongoing criticism over its decision to invade Iraq allied with Republican US president George Bush, but Mr Miliband suggested the UK would continue not to worry about the implications of using military force.
With British forces overseas in both Iraq and Afghanistan that legacy continues to affect prime minister Gordon Brown’s administration. The foreign secretary is determined to maintain the UK’s commitments to these countries, however.
“It is surely right that we consider carefully how best we can support fledgling, fragile democracies, as we are doing in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sierra Leone,” he finished.
“We can be clear about the desirability of government by the people and clear that without hubris or sanctimony we can play a role in backing demands for democratic governance and all that goes with it.”
