On Interventionism

If you are unfamiliar with the term, interventionism occurs when a state or group of states interfere with the domestic issues of a nation. It is a tool that has been widely used to manipulate states’ actions and future directions. While some people rally in support of this measure, it has often proved to be quite unsuccessful at actually bettering the lives of the citizens it swears to defend.

We often sit on one side of the news. One narrative. One idea. It is this maneuver that makes us think that ultimately, when there are complicated situations in global affairs tied to unfit rulers, the solutions and responses are simple. Intervention should take place. A true and infallible way for nations to finally do better. But, with interventionist measures being taken for the second time in the first two months of the year, where are we heading? And what happens to the people left behind?

We like to think politics are simple, a jigsaw puzzle that will be clear as soon as you place just one piece in it. But the reality is that politics encompasses far too many moving, complicated pieces for it to ever be that simple. One measure, like intervention, is often insufficient to achieve lasting stability and thinking it will is misguided.

In January, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was removed from power and taken into custody justified by the regime's connections to drug trafficking. Later on, at the end of February, military strikes against Iran shook the nation and killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali. This attack came with shifting justifications ranging from preemptive action against threats to the need for a different regime. In the case of both nations, it appears that little consideration was given to the institutional frameworks these nations will need to rebuild. Both were branded as security threats, subjected to intervention and, as a result, their citizens now face highly uncertain futures.

This pattern is not new. If we consider the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya during this millennium, even though their regimes were quite different from Venezuela’s and Iran’s, the approach was similar. These nations are a testament to what happens when these interventionist measures are not taken seriously or handled with the care that they require. When there are no functioning bureaucratic, fiscal and security institutions during and after interventions, instability reigns supreme and reconstruction becomes nearly impossible. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were all left to collapse in the aftermath of interventionism. For both Venezuela and Iran, the main question now is whether these nations and their citizens will be able to rebuild without the guardrails needed to weather this instability.

National support for interventions is divided; some welcome an overdue change in their country while others fear for their future and the future of the nation. The idea that a state is abandoned without support and left to fend for itself after the actions of another continues to trouble many onlookers. Displaced families, collapsed economies and prolonged conflict are just some of the consequences that come with interventions—consequences that are evident but rarely acknowledged in our media narratives. I, like many, do not know where we are heading in international politics, but we should demand more from those who make these decisions: more accountability, better plans, genuine commitment to rebuilding. We owe this and more to the people whose lives are disrupted in the process.