Source: Internationale Politik

Doing the Right Thing for the Wrong ReasonsThe Libyan revolution, with some help from the West, seems about to reach its first goal, the removal of dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi from power. What will come of Libya after the rebels take over is as unclear as ever. However, it is high time to congratulate the daring revolutionaries, and show high respect for their willingness to risk their lives in the pursuit of a better future.

Here in Europe, however, the Western intervention raises very substantial questions about the role of values in foreign policy. Now that victory looks certain, those who were skeptical of the intervention, including myself, look slightly silly. No one expected much of an enlightened argument from a pacifist, for sure, but what about those self-proclaimed realists, who allegedly abhor values in international relations, are willing to compromise with despots, and showed small-minded reluctance to grant the besieged rebels in Misurata a life-saving intervention? Has Libya not proven that a values-guided foreign policy is the only credible way forward?

Not so fast. Though rhetoric about spreading democracy through military intervention seems to be vindicated, idealistic and values-based considerations were not the primary motivations for many of the nations involved—certainly not for France, which was much praised for its firm leadership. Self-interest, even selfishness, prevailed in almost all of the involved governments’ rationales. Take France: Despite the fiery rhetoric, principled humanism took a back seat in Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision-making. The domestically weakened French president was driven by a need to bolster his pre-election poll rating by demonstrating some firm international leadership. In this, he was assisted by the king of the French juste-milieu, Bernard-Henri Levy, whose personal engagement with the president made Sarkozy believe that he could reconcile with parts of the French intellectual left. Furthermore, the French president needed to save his country’s reputation in the region, ruined by cozy relationships of cabinet members with dictators and their affiliates in northern Africa. Thirdly, he saw an easy chance to score a few brownie points, and maybe even potential votes, with the considerable number of Muslim voters in his country.

Sarkozy clearly wanted to be on the right side of history, not because he cared about freedom and human rights in the region, but because standing up for them was politically useful for him. Values played a role, but a purely instrumental one, as it mostly does in international politics. It is true that the outcome was still the right one. One can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. But neo-cons and other idealists should not believe that France (and Britain, a very similar case) showed great leadership based on fundamental Western principles. Rather, it paid off politically to appear as if one was acting on principle. (I don’t even want to talk about Italy, which made it very clear from the beginning that it wanted to protect its investments in the former colony, or about Germany, which failed on all fronts: strategically, morally, and in terms of its own self-interest, but that’s another story.

Very rarely do values, morals, and humanitarian principles play a primary, non-instrumental role in their own right. Traditionally, they are inserted into international politics in one of two ways: either as a fig leaf to make pure power politics look better, giving them some legitimacy, or as a public moral outcry, creating considerable momentum and media attention, and forcing governments to jump on the bandwagon as they do not want to look cold-hearted or cynical. The Libya case clearly falls in the second of the above categories. Yes, there are plenty of reasons to be happy about what has happened there, at least for the time being. But there is very little reason for interventionist triumphalism and for feverish op-eds congratulating the West on its great leadership in defense of freedom. All who do so undermine the very values they support, because they give praise where no praise is due and turn the debate upside down. The false is seen as true. Spin is taken for truth. Show is taken for substance.

The West got lucky. It did the right thing for once. Libyans are thankful for the immense help they were given. But they also know now that Western convictions are skin deep. To get the debate about values in foreign policy right, we should be very self-critical rather than applaud ourselves. Maybe next time we can do the right thing for the right reason.

This article was originally published by Internationale Politik - Global Edition Online.