opinionWar

When Allying with Evil Makes Sense

Muttering about the importance of never compromising, Rorschach leaves the Antarctic palace, intent on telling the world of how Ozymandias has killed millions of people in a hoax extraterrestrial attack to unify the planet and avert nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. As he leaves, however, Rorschach is confronted and killed by Dr. Manhattan after it becomes clear that he will not back down from his threats. Unlike the other Watchmen, Rorschach was unable to accept that a world of peace and stability is better than one in which a wrong is committed for the greater good. As the masked vigilante solemnly remarked, Evil must be punished. Dr. Manhattan and the other Watchmen, however, pragmatically come to accept that while they may not agree with Ozymandias’ ruthlessly utilitarian methods, they must stay quiet and uphold this noble lie to ensure enduring world peace.

Sorry if I have ruined the finale of Alan Moore’s 1986 classic graphic novel, Watchmen, for anyone. Following events of the last few weeks, however, it is worth considering the philosophy behind it – whether liberal democratic societies can accept evil actions if they serve a greater geopolitical good in the long run. Such internal deliberation has been caused by the debate in Britain regarding whether its right to mourn the passing of Saudi Arabia’s autocratic ruler, King Abdullah, through acts such as sending David Cameron and Prince Charles to Riyadh and the lowering of flags over government buildings. Indeed, such decisions have caused a stir across the British political spectrum, criticism from human rights groups and even drawn figures into the fray including the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, in the realm of geopolitics, exactly what options are there in handling regimes which commit evil acts? I propose three broad options.

First, do what I term as pulling a Wolfowitz and invade the evildoing state to introduce democracy or provide military support to rebels already there. The potential benefits of this option are clear. Direct military action would remove the regime and a free and democratic society could emerge thereafter, provided that the correct conditions are put in place. Even if we were to dismiss quagmire-like debates regarding the relative merits of Responsibility to Protect in relation to Westphalian sovereignty, however, practical issues facing such a move are evident. The biggest issue in pulling a Wolfowitz is that the West is often too complacent in believing that democracies can simply take root in states with no history of democratic rule and a vastly different culture. Certainly, endeavors such as the Iraq War and the 2011 Libyan intervention were not doomed to fail, but ensuring that the power vacuum created through the removal of a regime is not filled with destabilizing forces requires meticulous planning and flawless execution.

Making a deal with the devil is often necessary from a practical point of view when intervening or stepping away could create more suffering in the long term.

The second option, cut ties and openly criticize a regime’s evil acts, with the possibility of implementing sanctions. This option provides a seemingly comfortable middle ground between intervention and non-intervention should the state be not enough of a pariah nor harmless enough to invade without the conflict escalating, but unimportant enough to cut ties with. Whilst this may be the case, however, it is often the worst of both worlds from a practical perspective. The regime is not removed directly and sanct