Other People’s Wars

  • Paul D. Williams

Abstract

On 22 April 1999, Tony Blair suggested that ‘the most pressing foreign policy problem’ Britain faced was to identify the circumstances in which we should get actively involved in other people’s conflicts’.1 Although Blair did not specify what exactly he meant by ‘other people’s conflicts’ his speech was primarily concerned with other people’s wars. Using NATO’s Operation Allied Force in Kosovo as the springboard to define his position on military intervention more broadly, Blair warned his American audience that in an age of accelerating globalisation, noninterference and isolationism were no longer credible policy options. The ideal of non-intervention had served its purpose but now needed to ‘be qualified in important respects’ including when genocide and ethnic cleansing were taking place. For Blair five questions could help decide when military intervention was appropriate: ‘First, are we sure of our case? … Second, have we exhausted all diplomatic options? … Third, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation, are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake? … Fourth, are we prepared for the long term? … And finally, do we have national interests involved?’2 Interestingly, rather than answering the question of which

Keywords

Foreign Policy Security Council Military Intervention Peace Operation Operation Enduring Freedom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    Chris Brown, ‘Selective Humanitarianism: in defence of inconsistency’, in Deen K. Chatterjee and Don E. Scheid (eds), Ethics and Foreign Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 35.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    See Nicholas J. Wheeler and Tim Dunne, ‘Good international citizenship: a third way for British foreign policy’, International Affairs, 74: 4 (1998), pp. 847–70.Google Scholar
  3. 9.
    Michael W. Doyle, ‘Kant, Liberal legacies and foreign affairs, Part 2’, Philosophy and PublicAffairs, 12: 4 (1983), p. 330.Google Scholar
  4. 10.
    Michael W. Doyle, ‘To the Editors’, International Security, 19: 4 (1995), pp. 180–1.Google Scholar
  5. 12.
    Kampfner, Blairs Wars, pp. 349, 351. For a similar approach to explaining the UK decision to invade Iraq in 2003 see David Coates and Joel Krieger, Blairs War (Cambridge: Polity, 2004).Google Scholar
  6. 13.
    Peter Hennessy, ‘The Blair Style and the Requirements of Twenty-First Century Premiership’, Political Quarterly, 71 4 (2000), p. 390.Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    See Paul Williams, ‘Who’s making UK foreign policy?’, International Affairs, 80: 5 (2004), pp. 911–29.Google Scholar
  8. 22.
    Mark Curtis, ‘Britain’s real foreign policy and the failure of British academia’, International Relations, 18: 3 (2004), p. 285.Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    See Simon Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Ian Brownlie and C.J. Apperley, ‘Kosovo crisis inquiry: memorandum on the international law aspects’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49 (Oct. 2000), pp. 878–905; IICK, Kosovo Report (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  10. 30.
    Adam Roberts, ‘The so-called “right” of humanitarian intervention’, Yearbook of Lnternational Humanitarian Law, 3 (Summer 2001), pp. 49–51.Google Scholar
  11. 31.
    See Simon Chesterman, ‘Hard cases make bad law’, in Anthony Lang (ed.), Justlntervention (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), p. 53.Google Scholar
  12. 37.
    William J. Durch Victoria K. Holt, Caroline R. Earle, Moira K. Shanahan, The Brahimi Report and the Future of UN Peace Operations (Washington DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, 2003), pp. 122–8.Google Scholar
  13. 45.
    See Tom Woodhouse and Alexander Ramsbotham, ‘United Kingdom’, in David S. Sorenson and Pia Christina Wood (eds), The National Politics of Peacekeeping (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 95–113.Google Scholar
  14. 47.
    See Mary Kaldor, Old and New Wars (Cambridge: Polity, 1999) and Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge: Polity, 2003).Google Scholar
  15. 64.
    See, for example, Robin Cook, Hansard (Commons), 7 Dec. 1999, cols 695 and 697, 14 March 2000, cols 159–60, 19 July 2001, col. 444; and Cook’s list of actions in FAC, Relations with the Russian Federation: Third Report, 1999–2000 (London: TSO, HC-101, 28 Feb. 2000), para. 19.Google Scholar
  16. 65.
    Nick Paton Walsh, ‘Russian troops terrorise farmers as Chechen war crosses border’, Guardian, 26 June 2003 and Denber, ‘Glad to be deceived’.Google Scholar
  17. 66.
    Vanora Bennett, ‘A war in a faraway land that Putin wants to cover up’, Times, 25 Jun. 2003.Google Scholar
  18. 69.
    Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962), pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
  19. 70.
    See Neil Cooper, ‘Conflict goods: the challenges for peacekeeping and conflict prevention’, International Peacekeeping, 8: 3 (2001), pp. 21–38 and ‘State collapse as business: the role of conflict trade and the emerging control agenda’, Development and Change, 33: 5 (2002), pp. 935–55.Google Scholar
  20. 71.
    See John Dickie, The New Mandarins (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004), pp. 170–3.Google Scholar
  21. 72.
    Private Military Companies: Options forRegulation (London: TSO, HCP 577, 2002).Google Scholar
  22. 73.
    Cathy Newman, ‘Straw backs stricter controls on mercenaries’, Financial Times, 12 Feb. 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 76.
    David Isenberg, A Fistful of Contractors: The Case for a Pragmatic Assessment of PMCs in Iraq (BASIC Research Report 2004, Sept. 2004), p. 45 at www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004PMC.htmGoogle Scholar
  24. 80.
    Isenberg, A Fistful of Contractors, pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paul D. Williams 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul D. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations