|
Tags: Replaced Visual edit |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| In liberal and bourgeois discourse, military intervention is often discussed through abstract language such as "security", "humanitarianism", "democracy", "development", "stability", "peacekeeping", or "self-defense". However, to anti-imperialists, intervention must be analyzed according to its class character, imperialist role, effect on self-determination, relationship to national liberation, and material consequences for the people affected. | | In liberal and bourgeois discourse, military intervention is often discussed through abstract language such as "security", "humanitarianism", "democracy", "development", "stability", "peacekeeping", or "self-defense". However, to anti-imperialists, intervention must be analyzed according to its class character, imperialist role, effect on self-determination, relationship to national liberation, and material consequences for the people affected. |
|
| |
|
| Military intervention is not politically identical in all cases. An imperialist invasion to seize territory, impose a puppet regime, crush socialism, or open markets is not the same as an anti-fascist intervention against a genocidal occupying power, or an internationalist intervention requested by a revolutionary government fighting apartheid or counterrevolution. However, because imperialist states frequently use humanitarian or democratic language to disguise domination, anti-imperialists generally treat foreign intervention with suspicion unless its liberatory character can be clearly demonstrated. | | Military intervention is not politically identical in all cases. An imperialist invasion to seize territory, impose a puppet regime, crush socialism, or open markets is not the same as an anti-fascist intervention against a genocidal occupying power, or an internationalist intervention requested by a revolutionary government fighting apartheid or counterrevolution. However, because imperialist states frequently use humanitarian or democratic language to disguise domination, anti-imperialists generally treat foreign intervention with suspicion unless its liberatory character can be clearly demonstrated.. |
| | |
| == Definition ==
| |
| An '''invasion''' is a form of military intervention in which armed forces enter, attack, or occupy another territory. An '''occupation''' is a prolonged form of military or political control following invasion or intervention. Military intervention can also occur without a formal invasion, such as through bombing campaigns, naval blockades, military advisers, proxy armies, covert action, sanctions linked to military pressure, aid programs, or support for coups and counterinsurgency.
| |
| | |
| The word "invasion" describes a military act, not by itself the political character of that act. For example, the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France in 1944 and the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 were both invasions in the military sense, but they had opposite political meanings. One was part of the defeat of fascist occupation; the other was a genocidal fascist war of conquest.
| |
| | |
| Military intervention therefore has to be judged politically, not only linguistically. The question is not simply whether foreign force entered a country, but what social force the intervention served, who was harmed, who was strengthened, and whether it expanded or destroyed self-determination.
| |
| | |
| == Invasion and intervention ==
| |
| "Invasion" and "intervention" are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not identical. An invasion usually refers to the direct entry of armed forces into a territory. Intervention is broader and can include direct invasion, military aid, advisers, airstrikes, proxy armies, covert action, sanctions, aid conditionality, or support for coups and counterinsurgency.
| |
| | |
| The political question is therefore not only whether foreign force entered a country, but what class and geopolitical project the intervention served. A military intervention may defend an oppressed people, assist a revolutionary government, defeat fascism, or stop genocide. It may also destroy self-determination, overthrow a popular government, defend imperial interests, protect private property, or impose colonial and capitalist domination.
| |
| | |
| In this sense, intervention is comparable to nationalism. Nationalism can be progressive when oppressed nations use it against colonialism and imperialism. It can be reactionary when imperialist, settler-colonial, or fascist states use it to dominate others. Military intervention has to be judged in the same concrete way.
| |
| | |
| == Anti-imperialist analysis ==
| |
| | |
| === Self-determination and national oppression ===
| |
| Self-determination is a central principle in anti-imperialist politics, but it is not an abstract slogan that applies equally to oppressor and oppressed forces. The right of oppressed nations to self-determination is progressive because it means liberation from colonialism, imperialism, occupation, apartheid, or national oppression. The "self-determination" of settler-colonial or imperial groups, however, can become reactionary when it is used to preserve domination over another people.
| |
| | |
| For example, Palestinian self-determination is an anti-colonial demand because Palestinians are a colonized and occupied people whose land, sovereignty, movement, and return have been denied. By contrast, Zionist claims to "Israeli self-determination" are not politically equivalent when they are used to justify settlement, apartheid, occupation, military domination, and the denial of Palestinian self-determination. In that case, the language of self-determination becomes a shield for settler-colonial power.
| |
| | |
| The same distinction appears in other contexts. Indigenous self-determination against settler states is not the same as settler claims to rule Indigenous land. Colonized peoples fighting empire are not the same as imperial states claiming the right to dominate colonies. A revolutionary movement struggling against occupation is not the same as a colonial power defending its occupation.
| |
| | |
| Self-determination therefore has to be analyzed according to concrete social relations. The key questions are: who is oppressed, who is oppressing, who controls land and resources, who is being denied sovereignty, and whether the political demand expands liberation or protects domination.
| |
| | |
| === Imperialism and counterrevolution ===
| |
| Imperialist interventions are interventions carried out to preserve or expand the power of imperialist states, capitalist property, colonial domination, military alliances, or corporate access to resources and markets. They are often justified through language such as "democracy", "human rights", "security", "anti-terrorism", "development", or "stability".
| |
| | |
| Counterrevolutionary interventions are interventions aimed at destroying socialist, communist, anti-colonial, nationalist, or popular movements. They may be carried out directly through invasion or indirectly through coups, proxy forces, death squads, sanctions, aid conditionality, non-governmental organizations, intelligence operations, or political funding.
| |
| | |
| Anti-imperialists therefore do not judge intervention only by whether it is violent in the immediate military sense. A coup, a proxy war, a sanctions regime, or a development program can function as intervention if it is used to reshape another country in the interests of imperialism and capital.
| |
| | |
| === Revolutionary and anti-fascist intervention ===
| |
| Not all military intervention is counterrevolutionary. Some interventions have been defended by communists, socialists, and anti-imperialists when they assisted anti-fascist struggle, defeated genocidal regimes, or supported national liberation against colonial or apartheid forces.
| |
| | |
| Such cases are usually judged by whether the intervention strengthens the independence of the oppressed people or replaces one domination with another. Even an initially defensible intervention can become reactionary if it turns into permanent occupation, plunder, annexation, or suppression of local self-determination.
| |
| | |
| The Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France, Cuba's military assistance to Angola against apartheid South Africa, and Vietnam's overthrow of the Khmer Rouge are often cited as examples where foreign military force can be defended by some leftists because of the forces being fought and the results produced.
| |
| | |
| === Invitation and political legitimacy ===
| |
| A common argument is that a military action is not an invasion if some local force requests it. This is insufficient. Nearly every intervention has local allies.
| |
| | |
| The United States intervened in Vietnam with the support of the South Vietnamese state. The Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan after requests from the Afghan communist government. Cuba intervened in Angola at the request of the MPLA government. Rwanda has intervened in Congo while backed by some Congolese factions. The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and was initially welcomed by some Iraqis who opposed Saddam Hussein. The Allied invasion of Normandy was welcomed by many French anti-fascists and resisted by Nazi occupiers.
| |
| | |
| Invitation therefore matters, but does not settle the issue. The decisive questions are: who invited the foreign force, whether that force represents a legitimate popular government or liberation movement, whether the intervention supports self-determination, what the foreign army does, and whether it withdraws or imposes domination.
| |
| | |
| A stricter liberal version of the invitation argument claims that foreign military action is not an invasion if the recognized government of the country requests or welcomes it. This also fails as a general rule, because recognition and state invitation do not automatically prove popular legitimacy or self-determination. The United States intervened in Vietnam with the support of the South Vietnamese government, but anti-imperialists still regard it as a foreign intervention because South Vietnam was a U.S.-backed anti-communist state fighting against the communist-led movement for national liberation and reunification. In such cases, the question is not only whether a government invited foreign troops, but what kind of government it was, whom it represented, whether it depended on foreign power, and whether the intervention strengthened or destroyed the self-determination of the people.
| |
| | |
| === Occupation and aftermath ===
| |
| The aftermath of intervention is often as important as the initial justification. A military action may claim to stop oppression, but produce occupation, state collapse, economic dependency, sectarian violence, or permanent foreign bases.
| |
| | |
| Anti-imperialist analysis therefore asks whether the intervention leaves behind stronger sovereignty and popular power, or whether it produces dependency, privatization, repression, partition, or long-term imperial control. A foreign intervention that begins with a defensive or humanitarian justification can become reactionary if it turns into occupation or domination.
| |
| | |
| == Types ==
| |
| | |
| === Imperialist invasion ===
| |
| An imperialist invasion is a military invasion carried out to expand the power of an imperialist state. It may seek territory, resources, markets, military bases, regime change, or geopolitical dominance.
| |
| | |
| Imperialist invasions often present themselves as defensive, democratic, humanitarian, or civilizing. Their actual result is usually the destruction of sovereignty, expansion of foreign military power, privatization, corporate access, or the installation of governments dependent on imperialist support.
| |
| | |
| === Settler-colonial invasion ===
| |
| A settler-colonial invasion is an invasion or conquest aimed at replacing, displacing, or subordinating Indigenous peoples and taking their land for settlers. Settler-colonial invasion differs from ordinary military conflict because the goal is not only victory over another army, but the transformation of land, population, law, and sovereignty in favor of settlers.
| |
| | |
| === Fascist invasion ===
| |
| A fascist invasion is an invasion carried out by fascist states for conquest, racial domination, anti-communism, or imperial expansion. Such invasions are among the clearest forms of reactionary and genocidal war.
| |
| | |
| Fascist invasions are not simply wars between states. They are often wars of extermination, racial hierarchy, slavery, anti-communism, and colonial domination.
| |
| | |
| === Counterrevolutionary intervention ===
| |
| Counterrevolutionary intervention is military, political, economic, or covert intervention aimed at destroying a revolution, socialist government, national liberation movement, or popular reform process. It may be carried out directly through invasion or indirectly through coups, proxy forces, death squads, sanctions, sabotage, aid programs, media operations, or political funding.
| |
| | |
| Counterrevolutionary intervention is usually justified as the defense of democracy, order, religion, markets, property, national security, or human rights.
| |
| | |
| === Humanitarian pretext ===
| |
| A humanitarian pretext is the use of humanitarian language to justify imperialist intervention. Imperialist states often claim to intervene to protect civilians, stop dictatorship, defend women, provide aid, prevent atrocities, or promote development, while the actual result is regime change, state collapse, occupation, sanctions, dependency, or expanded imperial control.
| |
| | |
| Humanitarian intervention can also appear through non-military institutions. Aid programs, development agencies, and NGOs may provide real relief to people in crisis, but they can also function as tools of imperial influence when they are tied to political conditionality, regime-change networks, counterinsurgency, market restructuring, or the weakening of socialist and anti-imperialist governments.
| |
| | |
| === Development intervention and USAID ===
| |
| The [[United States Agency for International Development]] is often presented by liberals as a benevolent humanitarian institution that provides food, medicine, disaster relief, democratic assistance, and development aid. In this liberal view, USAID represents a "good" form of intervention because it appears non-military and is associated with charity, public health, education, and civil society.
| |
| | |
| Anti-imperialists argue that USAID cannot be separated from the foreign policy of the United States. Even when USAID funds projects that provide real services, it can also serve broader imperial objectives by promoting pro-U.S. civil society networks, market reforms, privatization, anti-communist politics, and opposition to governments targeted by U.S. foreign policy. In this sense, development aid can become a softer form of intervention: not an invasion by troops, but an intervention into the political economy and civil society of another country.
| |
| | |
| USAID is therefore often criticized as counterrevolutionary and counterproductive. It may present itself as humanitarian, but in practice it can strengthen dependency, undermine sovereignty, cultivate comprador elites, and support political forces aligned with U.S. imperial interests. This does not mean every individual aid worker or every medical or food program is fake; rather, it means that humanitarian aid under imperialist direction has to be analyzed as part of a wider system of power.
| |
| | |
| === Anti-fascist intervention ===
| |
| Anti-fascist intervention is military action aimed at defeating fascist aggression or occupation. Such interventions are distinguished from imperialist invasions by their target and context: they fight fascist regimes engaged in conquest, occupation, genocide, and anti-communist extermination.
| |
| | |
| However, even anti-fascist victory can later be used by imperialist states to rewrite themselves as permanently virtuous, while hiding their own colonialism, racism, and later counterrevolutionary wars.
| |
| | |
| === Revolutionary internationalist intervention ===
| |
| Revolutionary internationalist intervention is military assistance given by a socialist or revolutionary state to another revolutionary or anti-colonial movement. Its legitimacy depends on whether it supports liberation and self-determination rather than domination.
| |
| | |
| Such intervention differs from imperialist intervention when it does not create a colony, seize resources, impose capitalist restructuring, install permanent bases, or subordinate the assisted country to imperialist control.
| |
| | |
| === Anti-genocide intervention ===
| |
| An anti-genocide intervention is a military intervention justified by the prevention or ending of genocide or mass extermination. Such interventions can be defensible when they stop genocide, but they can still become complicated if they produce occupation, dependency, or domination after the initial overthrow of the genocidal force.
| |
| | |
| The political assessment must therefore distinguish between the act of stopping genocide and the longer-term structure created afterward.
| |
| | |
| === Proxy intervention ===
| |
| Proxy intervention occurs when a state intervenes indirectly by funding, arming, training, or directing local forces. This allows imperialist states to influence or destroy other countries while avoiding the appearance of direct invasion.
| |
| | |
| Proxy intervention is especially common when imperialist states want to weaken socialist or anti-imperialist governments without openly deploying large numbers of troops.
| |
| | |
| == Examples ==
| |
| | |
| === Imperialist and counterrevolutionary interventions ===
| |
| '''U.S. invasion of Mexico:''' a settler-imperialist war that annexed large amounts of Mexican territory and expanded the settler republic.
| |
| | |
| '''Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War:''' a counterrevolutionary intervention by a coalition of foreign powers in support of the White Armies and against the Bolshevik Revolution. The intervention is often described as involving around fourteen foreign powers, including the United States, Britain, France, Japan, Canada, Italy, Greece, Romania, Serbia, Czechoslovak forces, Poland, China, Australia, and others. It was an early example of capitalist states attempting to strangle a socialist revolution through military intervention.
| |
| | |
| '''Bay of Pigs invasion:''' a U.S.-backed counterrevolutionary invasion intended to overthrow the Cuban Revolution.
| |
| | |
| '''U.S. intervention in Vietnam:''' an imperialist and counterrevolutionary intervention against communist-led reunification and national liberation.
| |
| | |
| '''U.S. invasion of Iraq:''' a regime-change invasion that destroyed the Iraqi state, caused mass death and displacement, and expanded U.S. influence in the region.
| |
| | |
| '''NATO intervention in Libya:''' presented as humanitarian intervention, but used to overthrow the Libyan government and contributing to state collapse, militia rule, and long-term instability.
| |
| | |
| '''NATO bombing of Yugoslavia:''' presented by NATO as humanitarian intervention, but condemned by anti-imperialists as an illegal imperialist attack that bypassed the United Nations and expanded NATO power.
| |
| | |
| '''U.S. support for the Afghan Mujahideen:''' a proxy intervention against the Afghan communist government and the Soviet Union, strengthening reactionary Islamist forces.
| |
| | |
| '''Rwandan intervention in Congo:''' often justified through local allies and security claims, but criticized for worsening war, resource plunder, and the violation of Congolese sovereignty.
| |
| | |
| '''Israeli invasions of neighboring countries:''' understood by anti-imperialists in the context of settler colonialism, regional domination, and U.S.-backed military power.
| |
| | |
| === Fascist and colonial invasions ===
| |
| '''Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland:''' a fascist invasion that began the Second World War in Europe and imposed brutal occupation.
| |
| | |
| '''Nazi Germany's invasion of France:''' a fascist conquest that led to occupation, collaborationist rule, and resistance.
| |
| | |
| '''Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union:''' a genocidal fascist war of extermination, anti-communism, racial domination, and colonial conquest.
| |
| | |
| '''Imperial Japan's invasion of China:''' an imperialist and colonial war marked by massacres, occupation, forced labor, and mass atrocities.
| |
| | |
| '''Imperial Japan's invasions of Southeast Asia and the Pacific:''' wars of imperial expansion, colonial occupation, forced labor, and resource extraction.
| |
| | |
| === Anti-fascist and liberation interventions ===
| |
| '''Allied invasion of Normandy:''' an invasion in the military sense, but part of the anti-fascist war against Nazi occupation. Its political meaning cannot be equated with fascist or imperialist wars of conquest.
| |
| | |
| '''Allied invasion of fascist Italy:''' an invasion that helped defeat Mussolini's fascist state and weaken the Axis powers.
| |
| | |
| '''Soviet advance into Eastern Europe and Germany:''' helped defeat Nazi Germany and end fascist occupation, though later Soviet domination over parts of Eastern Europe remains a separate historical question.
| |
| | |
| '''Cuban intervention in Angola:''' supported the MPLA government against apartheid South Africa and U.S.-backed counterrevolutionary forces. It is commonly cited by anti-imperialists as one of the strongest examples of internationalist military assistance.
| |
| | |
| '''Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia:''' overthrew the Khmer Rouge and ended its genocidal rule. It is often defended as an anti-genocide intervention, though the later Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia remains debated.
| |
| | |
| '''North Vietnamese and NLF struggle in South Vietnam:''' understood by many anti-imperialists as a national liberation and reunification struggle against a U.S.-backed state rather than simple foreign aggression.
| |
| | |
| === Contested interventions ===
| |
| '''Soviet intervention in Afghanistan:''' heavily contested. The Afghan communist government promoted land reform, literacy, women's rights, and secular modernization, while the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia supported reactionary mujahideen forces. However, the Soviet military intervention also escalated the war, caused civilian suffering, foreignized the revolution, and helped produce a backlash that strengthened reactionary forces.
| |
| | |
| '''Russian invasion of Ukraine:''' contested in some left-wing spaces, especially because of NATO expansion and the post-2014 conflict, but a consistent self-determination standard weighs heavily against invasion, annexation, and the denial of Ukrainian sovereignty. Opposition to NATO expansion does not automatically justify Russian military intervention.
| |
| | |
| '''NATO intervention in Yugoslavia:''' sometimes defended by liberals as humanitarian intervention, but condemned by many anti-imperialists as NATO expansion, violation of sovereignty, and military action outside United Nations authorization.
| |
| | |
| '''USAID and development programs:''' treated by liberals as nonviolent humanitarian assistance, but analyzed by anti-imperialists as part of a wider system of U.S. influence, especially when operating in countries targeted for regime change, sanctions, counterinsurgency, or anti-communist pressure.
| |
| | |
| '''Gulf War:''' Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait violated Kuwaiti sovereignty, but the U.S.-led response was still a major imperialist military intervention involving an extensive bombing campaign, a ground offensive, oil politics, support for Gulf monarchies, and the consolidation of U.S. military power in West Asia.
| |
| | |
| == Liberal and reactionary views ==
| |
| | |
| === Liberal interventionism ===
| |
| Liberals often defend intervention through the language of human rights, democracy, humanitarian aid, international law, development, women's rights, and protection of civilians. They may argue that military intervention, sanctions, USAID, NGOs, peacekeeping, or democracy-promotion programs can be positive when they oppose dictatorships or provide relief to suffering populations.
| |
| | |
| To them, interventions such as NATO in Libya, the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, sanctions against targeted states, or USAID activity in the Global South may be framed as flawed but necessary attempts to defend human rights or support civil society.
| |
| | |
| Anti-imperialists criticize this view for treating imperialist states as neutral moral actors. The United States, NATO, and other imperialist powers do not intervene from outside history. They intervene as states with military alliances, corporations, intelligence agencies, geopolitical interests, and long records of colonial and counterrevolutionary violence.
| |
| | |
| Liberal interventionism often applies the principle of sovereignty inconsistently. Liberals may argue that the Gulf War was legitimate because the U.S.-led coalition expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and this claim contains a partial truth because Iraq's annexation of Kuwait violated Kuwaiti sovereignty. However, the same logic is rarely applied consistently to anti-fascist, socialist, or anti-imperialist forces. The Soviet Union is often condemned even where it drove Nazi forces out of Eastern Europe; the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is condemned even by liberals who defend U.S. interventions elsewhere; and communist-led forces in Korea and Vietnam are often treated as illegitimate even when they fought U.S.-backed states and foreign military presence. This reveals that liberal support for intervention often depends less on a consistent defense of sovereignty than on whether the intervention aligns with Western imperial interests.
| |
| | |
| === Reactionary interventionism ===
| |
| Reactionaries often defend intervention through nationalism, militarism, civilizational racism, anti-communism, anti-migrant politics, religious chauvinism, or settler-colonial security rhetoric. They may argue that imperialist states have the right to invade, bomb, sanction, or occupy other countries in order to defend national greatness, borders, markets, "Western civilization", or allies.
| |
| | |
| Reactionary arguments are usually more openly militarist than liberal arguments. Where liberals may justify intervention as humanitarian or democratic, reactionaries often justify it as punishment, conquest, revenge, deterrence, or the defense of empire.
| |
| | |
| In both cases, anti-imperialists argue that the oppressed people themselves, not imperialist states, should determine their own future.
| |
| | |
| === Invitation-based justification ===
| |
| A common liberal or reactionary argument is that foreign troops are not invading if some people in the affected country welcome them. This argument fails because almost every intervention has local allies. South Vietnam welcomed U.S. forces; the Afghan communist government requested Soviet help; the MPLA welcomed Cuba in Angola; some Iraqis welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003; French anti-fascists welcomed the Allied invasion of Normandy; and some Congolese factions have welcomed Rwandan involvement.
| |
| | |
| The existence of local support does not automatically determine whether a military action is justified. It only raises further questions about legitimacy, class character, self-determination, and consequences.
| |
| | |
| Liberals also may argue that intervention is legitimate when the recognized government welcomes foreign troops, but the U.S. intervention in Vietnam shows why this is insufficient: South Vietnam welcomed U.S. forces, yet the war was still a foreign military intervention against a communist-led national liberation and reunification struggle.
| |
| | |
| === Equivalence between all interventions ===
| |
| Another mistaken view is that all military interventions are morally identical. This erases the difference between fascist conquest, imperialist regime change, anti-fascist liberation, anti-genocide intervention, and internationalist assistance to a revolutionary government.
| |
| | |
| A consistent anti-imperialist position does not treat Nazi Germany invading the Soviet Union, the United States invading Iraq, Cuba assisting Angola, and the Allies invading Nazi-occupied France as politically equivalent.
| |
| | |
| === Humanitarian justification ===
| |
| Liberals often argue that humanitarian intervention is necessary to stop atrocities, deliver aid, protect women, or support democracy. Reactionaries may use the same humanitarian language selectively, but combine it with racist or militarist narratives about "civilizing" other countries or defeating supposedly backward peoples.
| |
| | |
| Anti-imperialists argue that humanitarian claims must be tested against material results. If an intervention produces occupation, privatization, military bases, state collapse, sanctions, dependency, or foreign domination, its humanitarian language should not be accepted at face value.
| |
| | |
| Humanitarian claims are especially suspicious when used selectively by imperialist states that ignore or support atrocities committed by their allies.
| |
| | |
| == Anti-imperialist criteria ==
| |
| A military intervention can be judged by the following questions:
| |
| | |
| Does it support or violate the self-determination of the people affected?
| |
| | |
| Is self-determination being claimed by an oppressed nation, or by a settler-colonial, imperialist, occupying, or dominant force?
| |
| | |
| Who requested the intervention, and does that force represent a legitimate popular government, liberation movement, puppet regime, elite clique, occupation authority, comprador class, or foreign-dependent faction?
| |
| | |
| Does the intervention fight fascism, colonialism, apartheid, genocide, or foreign-backed counterrevolution?
| |
| | |
| Does the intervention attack a revolutionary, socialist, anti-colonial, independent, or popular government?
| |
| | |
| Which class forces are strengthened: workers, peasants, oppressed peoples, and national liberation movements, or capitalists, landlords, settlers, comprador elites, and imperialist states?
| |
| | |
| Is the intervention defensive and limited, or does it seek regime change, annexation, permanent bases, market access, or geopolitical dominance?
| |
| | |
| Is the force used proportionate and directed against military targets, or does it rely on collective punishment, bombing, sanctions, starvation, terror, or civilian destruction?
| |
| | |
| Does the intervening power withdraw and strengthen sovereignty, or does it occupy, annex, privatize, install bases, control resources, or impose dependency?
| |
| | |
| Does the intervention expand liberation and popular power, or does it produce collapse, dependency, dictatorship, civil war, or imperial domination?
| |
| | |
| Is humanitarian, democratic, development, or self-defense language being used to hide counterrevolutionary, imperialist, settler-colonial, or capitalist goals?
| |
| | |
| Are the same standards being applied consistently to allies and enemies, or is the intervention defended or condemned only according to geopolitical loyalty?
| |
| | |
| == Conclusion ==
| |
| Military intervention is not automatically progressive or reactionary based only on the word "invasion". The political character of an intervention depends on the class forces involved, the relation to imperialism, the question of self-determination, the target of the intervention, the legitimacy of any invitation, and the consequences for the people affected.
| |
| | |
| Self-determination is a progressive principle when it refers to oppressed nations, colonized peoples, Indigenous peoples, occupied peoples, and workers struggling against domination. It becomes reactionary when settler-colonial, imperialist, or fascist forces use the same language to defend domination over others.
| |
| | |
| Imperialist, colonial, settler, fascist, and counterrevolutionary interventions are reactionary because they crush self-determination and defend domination. Some interventions, however, may be defensible when they help defeat fascism, apartheid, genocide, colonialism, or foreign-backed counterrevolution, especially when requested by a legitimate popular government or liberation movement and when they do not become occupation, plunder, or permanent domination.
| |
|
| |
|
| == See also == | | == See also == |
| Line 277: |
Line 43: |
|
| |
|
| [[United States Agency for International Development]] | | [[United States Agency for International Development]] |
|
| |
| == References ==
| |
