Why we should intervene in civil conflicts. (Foreign Affairs).

IT SEEMS THAT more and more often we find ourselves sitting in front of our televisions watching another refugee crisis develop or a famine induced by war play out its course. Instinctively, credit card in hand, we reach for the phone, to do what we believe will help those suffering. But how often do we ask whether the tragedy could have been prevented? How many emaciated children or amputated mothers do we need to see on television or read about in newspapers before we realise that we are not helpless witnesses to an unstoppable chain of events? Success stories abound in which international pressure, diplomacy and efforts at alleviating poverty have stabilised nations, sparing them from the horrors of civil conflict. We must learn from these and act accordingly because, for the very least of reasons, peace beyond our shores is in our national interest.

In this article I draw upon my experiences in the Balkans, East Timor and Sudan, three war-torn countries that have seen the worst of humanity. Although these atrocities seem to unfold uncontrollably before our eyes, the truth is that they have been building long before they appear as humanitarian disasters in our media. Even now seeds are being sown in new conflicts, in places with names that will become as infamous as Srebrinica, Rwanda and Suai.

POLITICS OF PEACE

UNDER JOHN HOWARD'S leadership and in keeping with the long tradition of Liberal governments, Australia has seen a welcome return of "national interest" driving its foreign policy. But as multilateral organisations such as the United Nations continue to grow in stature and reach, and Australia is called upon to take a stance on issues further from our shores, we need to think beyond a simplistic understanding of national interest. How do we measure when or how Australia should bring its influence to bear in faraway conflicts? How do we judge whether a cause deserves the support of the Australian people?

Gone are the days when we support nationalist movements (South Vietnam) or deny them (East Timor) simply based on the West's strategic geo-political goals within a Cold War paradigm. The Cold War's all-pervading influence has faded into history. In some corners pockets of Cold War thinking still remain while in other areas policy voids have emerged.

The international community's approach to responding to civil conflicts is one void that needs to be filled. Currently decisions are made on an ad hoc basis dependent on, among other things, media coverage and national guilt. Croatia became a priority because the refugees were white Europeans, the Christian southern Sudanese secessionists survive because of the considerable support from the US Christian right, while Australia's historic ties with the Timorese (both memorable and regrettable) strengthened our resolve to intervene. But how do we decide on a policy for forgotten causes such as the Naga people of Nagaland who have fought for independence for over fifty years under repressive conditions imposed by the Indian government? Or how do we reconcile ignoring the just as worthy movements of the Tibetan or Uighur peoples for independence from Beijing?

The left have attempted to establish their own paradigm, one that supports every secessionist movement based on a belief that independence is a panacea for the world's ills. Especially popular is the Tibetan cause, which has seen countless rallies, websites, organisations and Hollywood stars join in the chorus for independence. Looking beneath the glamour of the cause the message from these groups is that Australia should undermine the stability and continuing progression towards a Chinese market economy that has brought an estimated 210 million people out