Liberal Interventionism

David Lipsey analyses the arguments made by former Labour prime minister Tony Blair in his Chicago speeches for armed liberal intervention in states which are abusing the human rights of their citizens. He traces these arguments back to previous advocates of such intervention such as W. E. Gladstone and Woodrow Wilson. The arguments of Blair and advocates are often compelling in principle. However, in most cases—Iraq and Libya are examples—the practical consequences of military action turn out to be disastrous. Though opposing pacifism, and the ill‐thought‐out hostility to all things military of Labour's current leader Jeremy Corbyn, Lipsey's advice to those thinking of intervening is: don't.     

E–governance and e-publicanism: preliminary perspectives on the role of the Internet in South African democratic processes

Abstract

The idea of peace has gained a hegemonic place in the discourse of intellectuals and the mass media. From being a preoccupation of religious and utopian sages throughout history, a vision of a peaceful world emerged as a fashionable occupation for peace activism in the 1960s and ultimately in the 21^st century peace research has become a fast-growing industry. The assumed need to end wars and violence and to enforce peaceful existence on individuals, groups, societies and the entire world has been unquestionably accepted as if a self evident truth. By accepting such dubious claims many scholars have consciously and unconsciously distorted historical data in order to produce an image of an ideal peaceful world. Yet increasingly the belief in the ability to abolish war and eliminate conflict is being questioned and conflict prevention is seen as unrealistic, undesirable and based on misguided assumptions. Thus, if achieving peace is counterproductive what are the motives, aims and consequences of peace enforcement? This article begins a critical interrogation of the idea of peace and peace discourse and the formative value of war as human reality. The article uncovers the genealogy of peace, evaluates the relationships between peace and war and exposes the deceptive strategies and tactics of peace discourse as it manipulates language and the mass media. The article concludes that the consequences of enforcing peace do not produce a beautiful society but a nightmare where war is seen once again as a blessing.     

The subversive potential of Leo Tolstoy’s ‘defamiliarisation’: a case study in drawing on the imagination to denounce violence

ABSTRACT

In his later years, Leo Tolstoy wrote numerous books, essays and pamphlets expounding his newly-articulated denunciations of all political violence, whether by dissidents or ostensibly legitimate states. If these writings have inspired many later pacifists and anarchists, it is partly thanks to his masterful deployment of the literary technique of ‘defamiliarisation’ – or looking at the familiar as if new – to shake readers into recognising the absurdity of common justifications of violence, admitting their implicit complicity in it, and noticing the process which numbed them into accepting such complicity. This paper discusses Tolstoy’s use of the imagination to defamiliarise and denounce violence, first by citing several typical examples, then by reflecting on four of its subversive characteristics: its disruption of automated perception, its implicit concession of some recognition, its corrosion of conventional respect for traditional hierarchies, and its encouragement of empathy.