In praise of interference

During the short election campaign period leading up to Polling Day in Singapore on January 2, 1997, there was an unexpected twist. An official of the US State Department in Washington DC made a (rather mild) comment about the election strategy of the ruling Peoples' Action Party. She said, in connection with the PAP's campaign promises to upgrade housing estates in constituencies that voted for them, and warnings that opposition constituencies would degenerate into slums for lack of upgrading, that the US government believed that citizens should be free to exercise their voting rights without fear of retribution.

Immediately, the Singapore government accused the US State Department of interference in the domestic politics of Singapore. The Prime Minister said he was furious when he heard about the US official's remark.

The opposition parties said that the official's words were so mild that they did not constitute interference. Yet by this position, they accepted the overall concept that interference in domestic politics is a no-no; it just so happened that in this instance, it wasn't interference.

Well, you can accuse me of being an iconoclastic radical, but my position is: so what if it is interference? What is so sacrosanct about the idea of national sovereignty?

One of the mantras that we repeat in modern politics is that nations are sovereign, meaning they have complete freedom (in theory) to do what they want, and to act in their own interest. An extension of this idea is that internal affairs are off-limits to foreigners. The citizens of a nation decide how they will structure their domestic politics, and it is inappropriate for outsiders to influence the process or the outcome of their internal set-up.

It is actually a very recent idea in terms of human history, no more than 200 years old, coming about in parallel with the spread of nation states.

The best argument in favour of this idea is the sheer practicality of it, in terms of peaceful international relations. Without this restraint, big powers, or even smaller, but nosy powers, can distort the politics of other countries to suit their own interests, not necessarily the interest of the people of the smaller country.

But what if the interests of the individuals of a country are not being served by the constitutional set-up or the ruling government within that country? What if a government is acting oppressively to thwart justice for its own citizens?

Think for example about Tiananmen, when unarmed Chinese protestors were shot at and crushed under tanks, think about the decades when South Africa was under apartheid, with strictures so tight that blacks and other minority groups were systematically disenfranchised and disadvantaged economically.

What about the regime in Myanmar today? What about North Korea?

At what point does a convenient practice -- keeping quiet about other countries' domestic politics -- become immoral abdication of our responsibilities as humans? Or for that matter, simply unrealistic?

In the late 20th century, with news and issues that cut across borders and friends and relatives across oceans, the reality is that all of us have a matrix of loyalties that are not confined to our own country. For better or worse, most of us have an ingrained sense of attachment to people of the same ethnicity or religion, wherever they may be. Others place importance on issues like the environment, or cruelty to animals. Above all, many of us have political ideals we hold dear, and in heightened situations, we naturally want to lend support to others who aspire to the same ideals, but who are trampled upon.

There is something ethically dubious when we say that concerned individuals or organised groups cannot criticise and apply pressure on governments which act abusively. Some little voice tells me that it may be more for the convenience of incumbent governments to have such a rule. It's not so obvious that it is always for the good of the common person that foreigners may not interfere. So I say, get rid of that outmoded concept.

But that is not to say that I condone a degree of interference that itself undermines the right to an informed choice by the citizens of a country. Clearly things like covert action, bribery, flooding a place with arms or drugs must be beyond the pale -- though it is happening anyway, even now.

It is the civilised kinds of help -- like criticism of boorish behaviour by governments, organisational assistance, even funding for disadvantaged groups, provided it is transparent and accounted for, which our present notion of non-interference forbids.

We are one world, and in painfully small steps, people all over this planet are beginning to form connections and loyalties across boundaries. The concept of domestic politics being completely out-of-bounds to others will be increasingly incompatible with the global consciousness that is evolving.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None