Political realism vindicated?

Revolution has long enjoyed an exalted status in art and literature, in the popular consciousness and in popular culture, and, I daresay, amongst academic theorists. Whether the widespread suspicion of, and near absolute moral presumption against, foreign humanitarian intervention can be reconciled with the romance of rebellion has been the focus of my inquiry. At the risk of disappointing the reader I will not draw any broad, sweeping conclusions as to whether or not this asymmetry is defensible. What I will say is that if the sharp contrast in our attitudes towards insurrection and intervention is to be defended, it must be on the basis of a rather narrow set of considerations.

The objections most routinely advanced against foreign intervention – that it is imperialistic, paternalistic, hypocritical, selective, unlawful and improperly motivated – are only cogent when formulated as objections that rest ultimately on either ‘prudential’ considerations – to do with costs and consequences – and/or what might be called ‘internal’ considerations, to do with the fiduciary ties between the intervening state and its own citizens. If we are prepared to concede that a people would be justified in rising up violently against their government, then unless we have reason to believe that foreign intervention on their behalf would be a predictable failure, excessively costly, or internally illegitimate, we have no good reason to oppose it. Curiously, this might be seen as a (partial) vindication of political realism – the school of thought associated with amorality in international affairs.