Oops, We Helped You Again

A Critical Assessment of the Concept of Political Interventionism and Its Dilemmas

Aliaksei Lepik for unsplash.com

The majority of us, I’m sure, have offered help to others. But sometimes, we are met with completely unexpected anger. I also think you have been provided with help more than once. And sometimes people go out of line and pressure you with stuff you didn’t ask for. This usually provokes annoyance, anger, and distrust in us, especially when this “help” from others only makes things worse. Initially, a good-intentioned situation turns into an argument. This mirrors global politics' oldest dilemma. For centuries, leaders have grappled with this paradox, proving there are no easy answers.

I suggest you stay with me to hear what theorists, public figures, and politicians have to say and gain an overview of the theory and debate to form an opinion yourself: how should you help others? And, more importantly, should you?

Theoretical ground: What is interventionism?

The official definition is usually stated as follows: Political interventionism refers to the deliberate interference by one state (or group of states) in the domestic or international affairs of another state, through coercive means, aimed at altering political outcomes. There is a term in economics called government intervention, but it refers to the process of the government controlling the free market and is not what is going to be discussed here. Additionally, political intervention is set apart from cooperation or diplomacy, which are usually done in tactful and respectful ways, while political interventionism uses threats, abuses one’s authority, and sometimes even resorts to military forces, only to pursue and pressure other countries into political changes.

However, not all interventions march in with tanks. Some come with papers, dollars, or foreign ideals.

Intervention can be executed in different variations, which highly affect the way it is perceived by the public. Scholars highlight four main types of interventionism: economic, military, and humanitarian intervention, as well as diplomatic and financial support. The first type involves using economic tools to influence another country, such as blockades and sanctions. It can be easily visible in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war when the EU imposed an import ban on Russian oil and gas to pressure the Kremlin to stop the war. The second type, military intervention, involves the direct use of armed forces by another country. An example of this type is happening right now in Yemen, as the US and UK are conducting airstrikes to stop Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping routes. The third type, humanitarian intervention, is usually done through the help of NGOs and organizations like the Red Cross. The UN has recently ended a peacekeeping operation in Mali (MINUSMA), aimed at stabilizing the country after a 2012 civil conflict. United Nations forces patrolled the streets to protect villagers, organized convoys, offered medical help, restored roads, and ran a few initiatives to support political participation and dialogue between the conflicting sides. The last type, diplomatic and financial support, is usually less noticeable by the general public but is still a powerful tool. The EU donating €19.5 billion in 2023 to support Ukraine and help it defeat the Russian oppressive regime, and China implementing a Belt and Road initiative aimed at establishing a worldwide distribution chain led by Xi Jinping are both examples of interventionism, though sometimes hidden behind economic incentives.

So, what is the debate all about? Isn’t helping people a good thing?

“There's nothing more frightening than a half-baked do-gooder who knows nothing of the world but takes it upon himself to tell the world what's good for it.”

― Eiji Yoshikawa, Musashi

It turns out interventionism, even though usually aimed at genuine help, is not as effective as thought at first glance. Indeed, the oil embargo on Russia didn’t change a lot in its political strategy but provoked even more heat between the Kremlin and NATO and an energy crisis in Europe, while the MINUSMA peacekeeping operation was terminated in 2023 due to its inefficiency in recent years. Throughout history, the majority of interventions have produced rather debatable results. Thus, a question comes to mind: Why is that? Why, even though people want to spread good, case after case, is there no substantial outcome?

As highlighted in academic work, the majority of interventions are destined to fail since they impose changes that come not from the core of the society but from outside. Interestingly, this concept was noticed far back in the 17th century. Politicians understood that people should be given space to develop their own self-governance and determine their way of life by themselves. This idea was expressed through a concept of sovereignty, stating that a sovereign country should be the one determining its internal affairs. Thus, even thought-out and deliberate interventions can risk fracturing society and disrupting its natural development. Here, one side of the argument emerges: There is no point in destroying the village in order to save it. After a trial-and-error process, the majority of politicians decide to stick to nonintervention and respect the sovereignty of the people. This, first of all, is easy: no action is needed for abstaining. Secondly, it saves governments a lot of money, as deliberate interventions can require billions of dollars. Lastly, there is no way things can be worse, thus no backlash and no problems.

However, is this really how we want things to be?

“It's all very well for us to sit here in the West with our high incomes and cushy lives, and say it's immoral to violate the sovereignty of another state. But if the effect of that is to bring people in that country economic and political freedom, to raise their standard of living, to increase their life expectancy, then don't rule it out.”

― Niall Ferguson

The opposite opinion, however, also has solid ground to stand on: it is inhuman to refrain from helping those in need. Political interventions still help people in desperate situations. From a swift Indian action to prevent a coup attempt in the Maldives in 1988, potentially saving thousands of lives, to the EU mission in Armenia (EUMA) that successfully brought stability to Armenia and Azerbaijan borders, interventions have proven that they can bring peace. It was indeed noticed that diplomatic and economic interventions in the past have reduced the risk of war.

However, the process of developing a successful intervention is complicated; you can’t just march into the country and propose peace, love, and good vibes. You have to be thoughtful about the time frame and specific locations, make sure that the tools and incentives used are culturally appropriate and historically accepted by people, and propose dialogues and communication to provoke systematic changes. All details have to be thought through, as even minor things can blow the whole operation. As an example, in 2001 in Afghanistan, the US dropped humanitarian aid in yellow bags that were the same color as cluster bombs falling on the region earlier, which made some people approach unexploded bomblets while looking for aid. A rather unfortunate coincidence. The number of successful interventions, even though high in the 20th century, has been declining due to increasingly complicated objectives, which require extensive preparations and research.

And here, we are assuming that people are pure angels, filled with virtue.

“What begins as a rescue can end in occupation.”

— Michael Ignatieff

People are not always good. The biggest reason why interventions fail is actually because it was not about making them successful in the first place. People are skeptical about receiving aid, as it is often hard to tell whether the country wants to help or dictate its rules. When politicians forget about doing good and get distracted by potential gains, it starts looking like empire-building, doesn’t it?

We thought that colonialism and worldwide leadership were things of the past. This is true, but not because they have stopped, but because they were renamed. France was recently a center of neocolonialistic debate after its actions in Niger in 2023. Disguised under peace-bringing operations to settle down a jihadist coup, France tried to protect the uranium mines. French actions and its refusal to leave Niger have proposed a series of protests, claiming France to be a neo-colonist, focused on profits from uranium and not on bringing peace. It should be acknowledged that the coup is a controversial event itself, as Nigeriens turned to the Russian Wagner Group for help and marched with the flags of North Korea and Russia. However, this can be seen as a desperate act of disagreement with French interventionism.

There is another global actor who, however, has taken a subtler approach. China chose a path of diplomatic and financial incentives (which are also considered a type of intervention, as we discussed previously) to reach its goal of being a cultural, political, and economic center of the world. China tries to promote cooperation and dependency of other countries on it, whether it is through manipulating its currency and trade balance for decades or through partnerships aimed at development, such as the Belt and Road Initiative. China also gives out loans for development, which promotes financial dependence on lenders. In addition to that, it supports global initiatives that align with Beijing's goals and norms but undermines those that contradict its interests.

There are a few examples of colonialism spread through intervention. The last time someone tried to achieve global leadership through such means was during the US-USSR Cold War. Both tried to intervene in the other countries to spread their ideologies, but disguised it as help. What was learned from that experience? Neither the communist nor the capitalistic party truly grasped the complexities of the cultures and systems they were trying to remake, thus violating the concept of sovereignty and causing immense amounts of political, economic, and societal conflicts worldwide. Whether China will learn from past mistakes, only the future will tell; however, we already see the signs of an unsuccessful strategy with an emerging trade war, probably leading us to yet another failed intervention in human history.

To help or not to help? That is the question…

Is there a way to make a uniform approach? Well, if you genuinely want to help others, then commit fully and be ready to sacrifice time, energy, and thought. Put yourself into others’ shoes, understand them and their views, and analyze their world. If you offer help to feel good about yourself or to possibly gain something in the future, then don’t. Doing something for others out of selfish reasons is the worst thing you could do.

Thus, the main takeaway is that doing impactful good is hard. This is why so many people, communities, and countries refrain from helping: there is too much to think about, and even after that, success is not guaranteed. In addition, people are skeptical of a sudden desire to help, as too many cases have hidden personal greed under good intentions. However, I will leave it to you to decide whether this means that the attempts and efforts to help those in need stop or continue with even more strength.