The article explores John Stuart Mill's perspective on interventionism, particularly in the context of the Syrian Civil War. It examines his attempt to reconcile humanitarian concerns, national self-determination, and national security in deciding whether to intervene in the affairs of other nations.
Mill advocated for non-intervention as the default norm, arguing that imposing liberty and democracy forcefully violates the principles of freedom and self-determination. He believed that genuine freedom emerges from an 'arduous struggle,' not external imposition. An analysis of historical data from 1815 onwards supports Mill's view, revealing a low success rate for interventions (only 12% resulted in improved governance).
Despite his preference for non-intervention, Mill identified exceptions: national liberation movements facing oppression, instances of imminent national security threats, and situations where humanitarian crises necessitate external intervention. However, the article notes that historical humanitarian interventions were often exploited for imperial ambitions. The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine is presented as a potential solution, though its implementation requires improved understanding of facts on the ground, increased accountability, and responsible state-building after intervention.
The Syrian Civil War serves as a complex case study. The article suggests that a 'Mill-ian' approach in 2011 would have favored non-intervention, focusing instead on assisting refugees and pressuring warring factions to negotiate. The current situation, with multiple external powers involved, highlights the challenges of applying Mill's principles in modern conflicts.