NationStates Jolt Archive

The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has committed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3357500.ece) the government to the promotion of democracy worldwide, despite the traumas of Iraq and Afghanistan.
David Miliband will attempt to recast British foreign policy in the post-Iraq era tonight, arguing that mistakes there and in Afghanistan should not derail the moral imperative to intervene abroad in the pursuit of spreading democracy.

The Foreign Secretary will cite China's growing power as a warning that “we can no longer take the forward march of democracy for granted” and urge that Britain renew its commitment to those fighting for democracy under autocratic regimes abroad.

In his speech in Oxford, in honour of the jailed Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, he will refer to the “civilian surge” of thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators who met with brutal repression on the streets of Rangoon last September.

“I am unapologetic about a mission to help democracy spread through the world,” he will tell his audience at St Hugh's College.

Debate and disagreement over the bruising military experience in Iraq had “clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world. I understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan and the deep concern at the mistakes made. But my plea is that we do not let division over those conflicts obscure our national interest, never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy.”

Mr Miliband's message may be heard most keenly in China. He is due to visit the country in a fortnight's time and anchored his thesis against the “end of history” world view around it, noting that “since the Millennium there has been a pause in the democratic advance”. China should not fear democracy as “a threat to stability but a way to guarantee it”.

In weak states, he says, “there are no military solutions to the insecurity and injustice that helps to breed terrorism, only political solutions”. He does not mention Pakistan but must be thinking of the troubled nation heading to polls next week when he gives warning that “without democratic legitimacy, it is hard to sustain the increase in state capacity needed to maintain law and order”.

The Foreign Secretary offers five practical suggestions on how Britain can promote and support democracy abroad. Supporting the development of a free media, as well as the BBC's own tradition as a trusted information source across the globe, will help to provide democracy advocates with the knowledge and exposure they need, he says.

Encouraging greater economic openness and promoting trade with countries such as China could be instrumental in opening them up to political and social change. As a big provider of aid, Britain can wield huge influence in supporting projects that lend support to civil society and help to build independent institutions.

Holding out the carrot of membership of international alliances such as the European Union and Nato can be a powerful tool in persuading states to adopt democratic values, he says.

A common agreement on the democratic standards required for membership would help to formalise this and provide an accepted standard that could be adopted by other regional alliances. Sanctions and the use of military force are the last weapons in the pro-democratic arsenal.

Mr Miliband's staunch defence of the universal value of democracy springs from his concern that recent global turmoil has seen Britain slide into an increasingly isolationist posture. The mistakes made in Iraq, and the fresh concerns over Afghanistan's future, as well as the violence in countries such as Kenya previously hailed as beacons of success, have seen a creeping loss of faith in democracy as a universal panacea.

The Foreign Secretary believes the case for the universal value of democracy needs urgent restating without recourse to the kind of American neo-conservative rhetoric so out of favour with much of the world.
I found this highly interesting, as it recommits Labour to an essentially Blairite foreign policy. I am also keen that the mantle of democratisation be returned to progressives, having been hijacked by neoconservatives. It has been a farce that the alleged 'left' has been arguing against supporting democracy by any means neccessary and it has fallen on the insular right to put a case forth.

I wholly agree with what Miliband is suggesting, but many have been turned off interventionism and even internationalism by Iraq. Is there a future for Blair's 'liberal interventionism' in post-Iraq politics? And, on the level of values, should the UK (or any state) promote democracy abroad? By what means?

Right now I doubt any of the autocratic regimes are going to listen to the UK, China especially. Though there is more of a free market growing in China, the government still wants a large grip on everything else.

The only way I see China becoming democratic is if the government does a complete 180 on its thinking or there is some revolution. However I don't see a revolution occurring either as people in China, at least in the cities, become richer and more comfortable.

More misguided posteuring from a British minister. I doubt China is exactly taking much notice David...

I found this highly interesting, as it recommits Labour to an essentially Blairite foreign policy. I am also keen that the mantle of democratisation be returned to progressives, having been hijacked by neoconservatives. It has been a farce that the alleged 'left' has been arguing against supporting democracy by any means neccessary and it has fallen on the insular right to put a case forth.

I wholly agree with what Miliband is suggesting, but many have been turned off interventionism and even internationalism by Iraq. Is there a future for Blair's 'liberal interventionism' in post-Iraq politics? And, on the level of values, should the UK (or any state) promote democracy abroad? By what means?
I'd be wary of the use of the term 'liberal interventionism'; the phrase 'liberal' seems as much to mean 'excessive' as it does to mean 'pro-liberalisation' in its usage.

Anyway. Let's make no mistake about this; what Miliband is suggesting is a continuation of neoconservative politics rather than some rebuke of it. He's trying to paint "Our way is right, and should be made universal" as though it were a position based on anything other than crass national self-interest. But anyone can see through it. All this talk of "bringing democracy" is a thinly veiled threat to those who don't toe the Western line.

Now, I've nothing against humanitarian involvement. If peoples' lives are in danger, I see no reason not to intervene. It's when we fight ideological battles that I get seriously concerned that we're overstepping our boundaries. The last few years have shown us that although democracy is better than autocracy, it's still not good enough to act as a universal model for government. It needs refining, and until we've gotten it right, we have no right to insist that others follow our lead.

I think it's time for Britain to stop getting dragged into the rest of the world's conflicts. Most of our interventionist adventures in recent years have been of no benefit to us. Iraq, Balkans, ect. There's no reason why other people's fights always have to spill over to us. We should just deal with our own problems. Keep a strong military and nuclear weapons by all means, but only use our armed forces to defend our own interests. There may times where we need to get involved in a foreign war for reason, but I think most of our interventionism has been completely needless.

You've also got to bear in mind that whatever we do, the left will whine about it. If we don't get involved in whatever international crisis then we're heartless, but if we do get involved we're imperialists.

I'd be wary of the use of the term 'liberal interventionism'; the phrase 'liberal' seems as much to mean 'excessive' as it does to mean 'pro-liberalisation' in its usage.

Anyway. Let's make no mistake about this; what Miliband is suggesting is a continuation of neoconservative politics rather than some rebuke of it. He's trying to paint "Our way is right, and should be made universal" as though it were a position based on anything other than crass national self-interest. But anyone can see through it. All this talk of "bringing democracy" is a thinly veiled threat to those who don't toe the Western line.

Now, I've nothing against humanitarian involvement. If peoples' lives are in danger, I see no reason not to intervene. It's when we fight ideological battles that I get seriously concerned that we're overstepping our boundaries. The last few years have shown us that although democracy is better than autocracy, it's still not good enough to act as a universal model for government. It needs refining, and until we've gotten it right, we have no right to insist that others follow our lead.
I deliberately used the term liberal interventionism in a reference to Blair's foreign policy. Towards the end of his Prime Ministership he used the phrase quite a lot to sum up his foreign policy, which was very similar to what Miliband is now suggesting.

I disagree Miliband is propounding neoconservative foreign policy. They both want to support the spread of democracy yes, but their reasoning is very different. Neoconservatives support democratisation in order to protect their nation's interests abroad (the democratic peace plus the installation of friendly regimes that will not give terrorists WMD). Miliband is promoting democracy because of its inherent value and because everyone deserves to choose their government and hold it to account - not because of Britain's self-interest. It is a much more liberal foreign policy than the realism of neoconservatism.

It is not saying "Our way is right, and should be made universal". It is saying people have a right to democracy and should be granted political power. It stands up for the rights of individuals who are suffering under tyranny and who have been denied the vote. It is not about making one "way" universal, it is about allowing people to decide how their country is run.

This is as much about basic human rights as intervening when civilians are being slaughtered. It is about saying everyone has the right to vote to decide who governs them and that everyone has basic rights that government must respect. States do not have to follow our lead - there are many types of representative democracy and almost every country has a different system - but they do have to allow free and fair elections and the rule of law.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13447555']I think it's time for Britain to stop getting dragged into the rest of the world's conflicts. Most of our interventionist adventures in recent years have been of no benefit to us. Iraq, Balkans, ect. There's no reason why other people's fights always have to spill over to us. We should just deal with our own problems. Keep a strong military and nuclear weapons by all means, but only use our armed forces to defend our own interests. There may times where we need to get involved in a foreign war for reason, but I think most of our interventionism has been completely needless.
Firstly, it is not always about what benefits us as a nation. If we hold certain basic rights to be universal, then we cannot sit back and allow them to be trampled. The UK cannot claim to be a nation of liberty if it refuses to act in defence of that liberty. We have a moral duty to ensure basic rights are respected globally, and that people have the ability to decide who governs them. More than that, we have a moral duty to intervene when genocide is occurring on our doorstep, as was occurring in Kosovo. Government is about more than mere self-interest, and it would be horrendous if we were to sit back and allow atrocities to occur simply because we do not want to act.

Secondly, I disagree that isolationism would mean we would not feel the effects of foreign wars. We live in a globalised world where what happens on one side of the globe has very real impacts on us in Britain. If we ignore the rest of the world and retreat into our own fortress, then the effects of conflict across the globe will reach us. Looking only at self-interest, to spread democracy is to spread peace, as democracies do not go to war with one another (with a few exceptions).

Finally, I also disagree our interventions of recent years have been "needless".

If you claim we have no duty but to our own citizens, then perhaps you could see Sierra Leone and Kosovo as needless as they were based more on more of a moral case; but that should not be ignored. That said, having a rampantly nationalistic 'Greater Serbia' in Eastern Europe and a RUF controlled Sierra Leone would hardly be conducive to the global stability that is so useful for international business and finance.

Afghanistan was about replacing a regime that was not only terrorising its population, it was exporting terrorists who attacked our ally and would not hesitate in bringing those attacks onto British soil.

Iraq is more controversial, and involved a blend of self-interest (questions of whether Saddam had disarmed, as WMD in tyrannical hands pose a threat to us) and morality (removing a brutal tyrant). It was believed Saddam had not disarmed since the Gulf War, and was therefore a threat to the region and also to ourselves. Later in emerged he made a bizarre gamble in not complying, but hindsight is wonderful and at the time there was a belief he was a threat.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13447555']You've also got to bear in mind that whatever we do, the left will whine about it. If we don't get involved in whatever international crisis then we're heartless, but if we do get involved we're imperialists.
I quite agree many on the left should be ashamed of their 'anti-imperialism' when confronted with interventionism. Progressives should be defending human rights and democracy, not tyrants. Suffice it to say I am not among those who would claim a country was imperialist for intervening to save democracy, nor would I "whine". The section of the left you refer to is simply more vocal than many, and it is also very annoyed about Iraq and the special relationship. Unfortunately, it puts its own anti-government agenda above the rights of peoples outside the UK and makes itself look like an appeasing idiot in the process.

Fuck that shit.

If people want democracy, fine, if they don't, fine. It's not really our place to decide for other people what they want and don't want.

Firstly, it is not always about what benefits us as a nation. If we hold certain basic rights to be universal, then we cannot sit back and allow them to be trampled. The UK cannot claim to be a nation of liberty if it refuses to act in defence of that liberty. We have a moral duty to ensure basic rights are respected globally, and that people have the ability to decide who governs them. More than that, we have a moral duty to intervene when genocide is occurring on our doorstep, as was occurring in Kosovo. Government is about more than mere self-interest, and it would be horrendous if we were to sit back and allow atrocities to occur simply because we do not want to act.
I don't see anything inconsistent with protecting the rights of your own people while not bothering about what happens elsewhere. There's nothing about being a 'free country' that forces you to save the world. As for moral duty, that's all relative.

Secondly, I disagree that isolationism would mean we would not feel the effects of foreign wars. We live in a globalised world where what happens on one side of the globe has very real impacts on us in Britain. If we ignore the rest of the world and retreat into our own fortress, then the effects of conflict across the globe will reach us. Looking only at self-interest, to spread democracy is to spread peace, as democracies do not go to war with one another (with a few exceptions).
Obviously globalisation does mean that events in other countries have more of an effect on us than ever before. But I still don't think that the effects on us are great enough to warrant going to war.

Finally, I also disagree our interventions of recent years have been "needless".

If you claim we have no duty but to our own citizens, then perhaps you could see Sierra Leone and Kosovo as needless as they were based more on more of a moral case; but that should not be ignored. That said, having a rampantly nationalistic 'Greater Serbia' in Eastern Europe and a RUF controlled Sierra Leone would hardly be conducive to the global stability that is so useful for international business and finance.
There was no indication that this 'Greater Serbia' would have at any point been a threat to Britain, let alone RUF controlled Sierra Leone. Maybe certain international businessmen and financiers wouldn't like the situation, but I don't really care about that as the benefits seldom reach the ordinary people of this country.

Afghanistan was about replacing a regime that was not only terrorising its population, it was exporting terrorists who attacked our ally and would not hesitate in bringing those attacks onto British soil.
I can see more wisdom in the war in Afghanistan as they were sheltering Al-Qaeda terrorists who are a threat to the entire western world.

Iraq is more controversial, and involved a blend of self-interest (questions of whether Saddam had disarmed, as WMD in tyrannical hands pose a threat to us) and morality (removing a brutal tyrant). It was believed Saddam had not disarmed since the Gulf War, and was therefore a threat to the region and also to ourselves. Later in emerged he made a bizarre gamble in not complying, but hindsight is wonderful and at the time there was a belief he was a threat.
The fact that a lot of the evidence was fabricated, such as the 45 minute WMD claim, would suggest that there wasn't sufficient grounds for war in the first place.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13447555']You've also got to bear in mind that whatever we do, the left will whine about it. If we don't get involved in whatever international crisis then we're heartless, but if we do get involved we're imperialists.
That's the British Left for you, although to be fair, sometimes there is genuinely a lot more merit in going into countries than at other times.

For example - Balkans and Sierra Leone, to an extent Afghanistan, worth doing. Iraq, nah.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13447895']I don't see anything inconsistent with protecting the rights of your own people while not bothering about what happens elsewhere. There's nothing about being a 'free country' that forces you to save the world. As for moral duty, that's all relative.
I would not discount morality if you want to claim we live in a "free country" where we hold certain individual rights dear. For those who believe in liberty, these rights are not relative and they apply to everyone wherever they are. Morality may be relative within the confines of liberty, but that liberty is an absolute. Now if you do not believe in the inherent liberty of the individual, that is another debate.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13447895']Obviously globalisation does mean that events in other countries have more of an effect on us than ever before. But I still don't think that the effects on us are great enough to warrant going to war.


There was no indication that this 'Greater Serbia' would have at any point been a threat to Britain, let alone RUF controlled Sierra Leone. Maybe certain international businessmen and financiers wouldn't like the situation, but I don't really care about that as the benefits seldom reach the ordinary people of this country.
Do not discount businessmen and financiers. It was the City of London that kept our post-war balance of trade positive, not the ordinary people. Yet those ordinary people benefited from it. The invisible wealth of the City is a fantastic asset for this country, and its health should be be dismissed by claims its benefits do not reach the "ordinary people".

It is easy to claim that non-intervention would mean the ill effects of intervening would not have occurred, but the benefits would remain. To claim in hindsight that the Balkans and Western Africa would have the same stability as they do presently is easy. But there is no way of knowing. Had the atrocities and the chaos been allowed the continue, whole regions could have destabilised. Those effects could have been far greater than the costs of going to war (fairly low in the case of Sierra Leone and Kosovo). Or they could have been far less. There is no way of knowing, but what is more reliable is that instability is bad for international business, which is bad for our economy, which is bad for our citizens. It is a cold argument, but if you are disregarding morality it is a neccessary one.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13447895']The fact that a lot of the evidence was fabricated, such as the 45 minute WMD claim, would suggest that there wasn't sufficient grounds for war in the first place.
Whether in hindsight there appears to be sufficient grounds for war is another matter. The point is that at the time Parliament voted that Saddam's non-compliance with UN resolutions, along with the knowledge he had WMD at the end of the first Gulf War, meant he was a threat. Morally, he was a threat to his own people. Self interestedly, he was a threat to the peace of the region and possibly the wider world. Thus, Parliament vote for war with Iraq for those reasons. Whether the decision was the right one is a different matter - I am referring to why we went to war, not whether we should have.

Wonderful; now, after so much death and destruction in Iraq, democracy wants even more blood. The siren call of every empire has been the delusional belief that their belligerence towards other nations was inspired out of their selflessness and concern for the good of those who they subjugated, when in actual fact their violence was only for the benefit of a select political elite. It is ultimately the West's policy of financial and materiel support for friendly autocracies and use of war that is the greatest cause of suffering in the world, not a policy of leaving foreigners be.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13447555']You've also got to bear in mind that whatever we do, the left will whine about it. If we don't get involved in whatever international crisis then we're heartless, but if we do get involved we're imperialists.

Ah, but you're not being fair. Both aspects may be quite true, if our decisions regarding intervention and non-intervention are not focused on the welfare of the populations in question (heartless) but rather on material or strategic gain (imperialist).

Fuck that shit.

If people want democracy, fine, if they don't, fine. It's not really our place to decide for other people what they want and don't want.

^ What he said. ^

It is not saying "Our way is right, and should be made universal". It is saying people have a right to democracy and should be granted political power.
You say Tohmeyto, I say Tumahto. The two statements are equivilent - the only difference being that while one makes the statement "We are right" explicitly, the other merely implies it.

This is as much about basic human rights as intervening when civilians are being slaughtered. It is about saying everyone has the right to vote to decide who governs them and that everyone has basic rights that government must respect. States do not have to follow our lead - there are many types of representative democracy and almost every country has a different system - but they do have to allow free and fair elections and the rule of law.
The basis of pure democracy in human rights is debatable. For one thing, although all humans may have a say in who governs them, none have the authority to say who governs another. Democracy is not just about picking someone to represent you but also about picking someone to represent everyone else in your constituency, region and country, and this inevitably involves the subjugation of the preferences of another. New Labour has taught us as much - being democratically elected only implies that the most vocal position is allowed to decide who governs.

Yes, human rights are important, and as I've said before, humanitarian involvement is justified. The protection of people is the one reason to intervene. But "being in a Democracy" is neither a necessary nor sufficient part of those rights, and if your only reason for criticising someone is "They're not being democratic", I think it's worth looking again at whether or not you're doing what's in the best interests of the people of the state you're chastising.

Wtf? Can we ignore all this shit abroad? And do something about our shitty youth culture....

Wonderful; now, after so much death and destruction in Iraq, democracy wants even more blood. The siren call of every empire has been the delusional belief that their belligerence towards other nations was inspired out of their selflessness and concern for the good of those who they subjugated, when in actual fact their violence was only for the benefit of a select political elite. It is ultimately the West's policy of financial and materiel support for friendly autocracies and use of war that is the greatest cause of suffering in the world, not a policy of leaving foreigners be.
Firstly, military action is the last resort for the interventionist. As Miliband explained, there are many uses of soft power that provide incentives for democratisation without resorting to violence. Do not assume that promoting interventionism means attacking any country that does not hold free and fair elections - the reality is much more nuanced and subtle, and is about using the power we have to best effect. The use force is the last resort, the final attempt to liberate an oppressed people from a tyrant who refuses to permit liberty or democracy.

Secondly, you should differentiate between neoconservative interventionism (motivated by self-interest) and liberal interventionism (motivated by values). They are very different things, and the latter has a more genuine belief in the fundamental benefit of democracy.

Finally, we could leave people suffering under tyranny in the false belief it is better for them. To stand back and refuse to use our power when people are suffering because past governments have links to autocratic regimes is inhumane. While war is bloody (hence it is a last resort), tyranny is also bloody. Except the latter is not splashed across television screens because tyrants do not allow a media that exposes their bloodletting and Western audiences have too little time for the horrors abroad when we are not involved.

You say Tohmeyto, I say Tumahto. The two statements are equivilent - the only difference being that while one makes the statement "We are right" explicitly, the other merely implies it.
We are only right to the degree that democracy is the only just form of government and that tyranny is unjust. We are not telling people the "right" way to govern, only that it is right that people decide their own government. This ultimately comes down to whether or not everyone has the right to elect their government - if they do, we should support that by any means neccessary. The rights of individuals should not be ignored because we fear being labelled cultural imperialists.

The basis of pure democracy in human rights is debatable. For one thing, although all humans may have a say in who governs them, none have the authority to say who governs another. Democracy is not just about picking someone to represent you but also about picking someone to represent everyone else in your constituency, region and country, and this inevitably involves the subjugation of the preferences of another. New Labour has taught us as much - being democratically elected only implies that the most vocal position is allowed to decide who governs.
I agree voting is imperfect, and democracy can involve the tyranny of the majority. That is why we have a representative system with liberal safeguards of individual rights. Then even if the majority wants to infringe upon the rights of the minority they cannot, because the law must be applied to all. The rights of the minority are still protected, even if minority preferences are addressed after majority preferences. Such a ranking is unavoidable in any system with finite time and resources, and is one reason why government should aim to do less than it does.

However, that does not mean representative liberal democracy is not the best system of government we have. It is the only system that distributes power to the people and allows them to decide how they are governed. It is the only system that combines this distribution of power with protections for minorities and freedom for representatives to govern in the national interest (a freedom moderated by the anticipated reaction of the electorate). It is the only just system of government because it empowers everyone equally and because it safeguards the rights of everyone.

Yes, human rights are important, and as I've said before, humanitarian involvement is justified. The protection of people is the one reason to intervene. But "being in a Democracy" is neither a necessary nor sufficient part of those rights, and if your only reason for criticising someone is "They're not being democratic", I think it's worth looking again at whether or not you're doing what's in the best interests of the people of the state you're chastising.
Firstly, most undemocratic regimes combine their refusal to allow free and fair elections with other rights abuses. It would not simply be the case than an undemocratic state was tolerating other freedoms (of the press, of association, etc.) while denying popular suffrage.

Secondly, people want democracy. This has been seen even in Iraq and Afghanistan, when people have come out and voted. By intervening, we are empowering the people who are downtrodden and subjugated. It is protecting the people to intervene for democracy, because those people have had their power denied them.

As ever, utter balls by Labour. Isolationism, diplomatically, is far preferable to interventionism.

Firstly, military action is the last resort for the interventionist. As Miliband explained, there are many uses of soft power that provide incentives for democratisation without resorting to violence. Do not assume that promoting interventionism means attacking any country that does not hold free and fair elections - the reality is much more nuanced and subtle, and is about using the power we have to best effect. The use force is the last resort, the final attempt to liberate an oppressed people from a tyrant who refuses to permit liberty or democracy.

Oh, yes, I know that war and violence aren't the only method of bringing weaker countries into one's orbit. You can offer foreign aid that benefit particular interests at home with a bigger budget while enriching the political echelon in the dominated country. The politicians at home can then pat themselves on the back about how they've established 'democracy', the politicians in the other country get to be the strong's favorite pet, while everyone on the political periphery on both sides lives under the crushing weight of an expanded and autocratic bureaucracy- just like in the Balkans. But in the end, regardless of the methods, violent or otherwise, the cause of imperialism is advanced.

Secondly, you should differentiate between neoconservative interventionism (motivated by self-interest) and liberal interventionism (motivated by values). They are very different things, and the latter has a more genuine belief in the fundamental benefit of democracy.

In the absence of a price regime, there must be another method of rationing scarce means in order to allow for rational calculation. Action (the substitution of a subjectively less satisfactory state of affairs for a subjectively superior one) being inherently self-interested, the rationing done by the self-interested politician will be to benefit those self-interested parties who can in turn aid the politician, i.e. keep him in office through political support (in the case of foreign interventionism, foreign aid organizations, businesses which wish to make acquisitions in the other country, the military, and interest groups in the other country who want power.) Ergo, while liberal interventionists may claim to be a different breed than their neoconservatives brethren, their acts by the very nature of politics will be as self-interested (hence why the United States attacked the Balkans at the behest of well-connected pressure groups while largely ignoring the horrors of Rwanda which lacked entrenched interest groups.)

Finally, we could leave people suffering under tyranny in the false belief it is better for them. To stand back and refuse to use our power when people are suffering because past governments have links to autocratic regimes is inhumane. While war is bloody (hence it is a last resort), tyranny is also bloody. Except the latter is not splashed across television screens because tyrants do not allow a media that exposes their bloodletting and Western audiences have too little time for the horrors abroad when we are not involved.

You fail to realize that the sufferings of other countries is spurred by the West's past interventions, such as in Yugoslavia (the installation of Tito and continued support for him up until the end of the Cold War.) And the West's future interventions, on behalf of its self-interest, can only exacerbate the world's problems, such as in Iraq, or the persecution of non-Albanians in Kosovo (as reported by HRW), or the installation of an autocratic executive and arbitrary police power in Bosnia. When the West stops perpetuating the cycle of supporting and discarding autocrats in favor of new ones, only then will there be peace.

We are only right to the degree that democracy is the only just form of government and that tyranny is unjust. We are not telling people the "right" way to govern, only that it is right that people decide their own government. This ultimately comes down to whether or not everyone has the right to elect their government.
This is still a statement of "We are right, you do what we tell you", whether we think we're doing it for the greater good or otherwise. And the thing is, we generally don't explain why it's right, or even fully know if it is right. We just shrug off all questions of whether democracy is the best way to do things as being somehow unenlightened or tyrannical. If we're going to go about imposing it on others then we need to be more rationally grounded than that.

I agree voting is imperfect, and democracy can involve the tyranny of the majority. That is why we have a representative system with liberal safeguards of individual rights. Then even if the majority wants to infringe upon the rights of the minority they cannot, because the law must be applied to all. The rights of the minority are still protected, even if minority preferences are addressed after majority preferences. Such a ranking is unavoidable in any system with finite time and resources, and is one reason why government should aim to do less than it does.
The thing is, the safeguards in a democracy are decided by the people they exist to restrain. Constitutions can be rewritten and amended, senates can be recast, precedent can be overruled and so on at the whim of the majority. There is no foolproof system of safeguarding a democracy from itself. Surely we have learned that by now?

I propose that a system of Democratic/Technocratic two-house competition, similar to an evolved version of the Commons/Lords or Congress/Senate duality, is a far more secure system of governance. If we ensure that both houses have the right of veto over the other, then the worst that will happen is nothing at all, while the rest of the time, a compromise will be reached that both the vox populi and professional opinion can agree with.

However, that does not mean representative liberal democracy is not the best system of government we have. It is the only system that distributes power to the people and allows them to decide how they are governed.
See above.

It is the only system that combines this distribution of power with protections for minorities and freedom for representatives to govern in the national interest (a freedom moderated by the anticipated reaction of the electorate).
The anticipated reaction of the electorate is not moderation enough. See above.

It is the only just system of government because it empowers everyone equally and because it safeguards the rights of everyone.
Equal empowerment is not the best use of technical skill. Those with knowledge should be in a position to share and utilise that knowledge without the Government having to employ them as Consultants.

Firstly, most undemocratic regimes combine their refusal to allow free and fair elections with other rights abuses. It would not simply be the case than an undemocratic state was tolerating other freedoms (of the press, of association, etc.) while denying popular suffrage.
Not denying that here, but it's a question of establishing causation rather than correlation.

Secondly, people want democracy. This has been seen even in Iraq and Afghanistan, when people have come out and voted. By intervening, we are empowering the people who are downtrodden and subjugated. It is protecting the people to intervene for democracy, because those people have had their power denied them.
What people want is stability, health, enjoyment, a social forum and a sense of purpose (among other things). That people vote in a democratic system is as a means of trying to bring about that state, firstly and foremostly. If a government were to be formed that was able to maintain these things for everyone, democratic elections would be unnecessary, because there would be no need for change.

I'm not necessarily saying that this is entirely possible, but rather pointing out that democracy is a means to an end, and shouldn't be confused with being such an end in and of itself.

This is still a statement of "We are right, you do what we tell you", whether we think we're doing it for the greater good or otherwise. And the thing is, we generally don't explain why it's right, or even fully know if it is right. We just shrug off all questions of whether democracy is the best way to do things as being somehow unenlightened or tyrannical. If we're going to go about imposing it on others then we need to be more rationally grounded than that.
There has been a problem with many being unwilling to argue strongly in favour of democracy.
This is a result of at least two factors. The first is a fear of being portrayed in the manner you are portraying democrats - as telling other countries "We are right, you do what we tell you". The second is the time modern politicians have to make their case. In a three-minute news slot or a newspaper column, there is not enough space to make the case for democracy and also convince your audience that intervention in case x is right.
Ideally, politicians should be making the case for democracy so regularly that it is taken as read that their audience is aware of why democracy is just and fair. They would then be able to build upon this accumulated awareness in order to make the case for intervention. But as I have said, politicians are too wary of being labelled 'imperialists' to really stand up for democracy.

The thing is, the safeguards in a democracy are decided by the people they exist to restrain. Constitutions can be rewritten and amended, senates can be recast, precedent can be overruled and so on at the whim of the majority. There is no foolproof system of safeguarding a democracy from itself. Surely we have learned that by now?
Generally, it is difficult to change a constitution (usually needing at least a two-thirds majority in the legislature, if not more) and precedent has a funny way of sticking quite firmly as MPs are institutionalised. Moreover, representatives usually have the good judgement not to give into naive populism and to govern in the national interest. Representatives stand up for minority rights as much as they follow the majority.
Moreover, democratisation involves parties accepting the 'rules of the game', including respect for individual rights. Thus parties, and their elites, are socialised into respecting individual liberty. This may sound like a weak safeguard, but it helps develop a political culture that expects rights to be protected.
That said, it is also important to keep making the argument that rights are important. It should not be ignored that parties can trample individual rights - that is the price of democracy, and the reason why progressives should not stop struggling against illiberalism and populism.
Even in liberal democracies, there is no ideal safeguard. But the safeguards there are are good and do protect individual rights. But there still needs to be a strong defence of those rights, both at home and abroad.

I propose that a system of Democratic/Technocratic two-house competition, similar to an evolved version of the Commons/Lords or Congress/Senate duality, is a far more secure system of governance. If we ensure that both houses have the right of veto over the other, then the worst that will happen is nothing at all, while the rest of the time, a compromise will be reached that both the vox populi and professional opinion can agree with.
The problem with that is that you are distributing power in an unjust manner. In a democracy, power is distributed to all people equally (the exact opposite of concentration of power, which breeds tyranny). They than pass that power onto their representative, who is thus justly elected and can be held accountable at a general election.
In your system, power is granted to unelected, unaccountable technocrats. That is unjust, as their power has no legitimacy. Legislatures are a way for the people to express themselves through representatives, not a place for unelected technocrats.
Moreover, in your system the democratically elected house would quickly claim it had more legitimacy than the technocrats. If there was deadlock, the elected house would claim a mandate to overrule the undemocratic house. The system would quickly fall apart.
There is a place for technocrats. In certain circumstances, a technocratic government can achieve what a popular government might not. But governments are still accountable to an elected legislature, even if they themselves are not elected.

Equal empowerment is not the best use of technical skill. Those with knowledge should be in a position to share and utilise that knowledge without the Government having to employ them as Consultants.
Legislatures are not about the best use of technical skill, they are about representing the people. Technical skills come from consultants, who it is right to employ (your technocrats would have to equally employed anyway) in the context of advisers to provide expertise. They can thus use their knowledge to inform representatives, rather than trampling the people in an unelected house.
Additionally, there are places where government does largely use technocrats to 'govern' - quangos and public services. Here their use is just, as they are (eventually) accountable to the legislature. This is the correct use of expertise where it is required, as it is neccessary but accountable. However, even in this limited sense to use of technocrats has resulted in inefficient and wasteful public services - an argument for government to do less and allowing the market to do more.

What people want is stability, health, enjoyment, a social forum and a sense of purpose (among other things). That people vote in a democratic system is as a means of trying to bring about that state, firstly and foremostly. If a government were to be formed that was able to maintain these things for everyone, democratic elections would be unnecessary, because there would be no need for change.
If a government was 'providing' stability, health, enjoyment, a social forum and a sense of purpose etc. we would still need elections to distribute power justly. Moreover, we should not be telling people what they want - we should be letting them achieve that on their own. I do not want central government to tell me how to be healthy or how to enjoy myself - that is tyrannical and illiberal, and should be rallied against through the democratic system.

No power over another person has legitimacy. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Or as Oscar Wilde put it, Democracy simply means "the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."

I don't see anything inherently good in being ruled over by my neighbours more than being ruled over by some guy in a palace. And from the same, I don't feel any group has the legitimate right to force freedom on others, in any way. Invading to bring in a democracy is not a permissible thing to do, as wonderful as it may sound.

If, as you say, a government were to be providing 'stability, health, enjoyment, a social forum and a sense of purpose', they must be thrown out. It doesn't matter if they are democratic or not, any government that is settling people into acceptance of it's illegitimate authority has to go. If they are abusing their power, off with their heads. If they aren't, off with them anyway.

And no, the unregulated free market is no better. For a start, the removal of a government will destroy it completely, because without law enforcement, there can be no such thing as private property and theft, both of which a company needs to be able to survive. If anyone can take, who can sell? Instead, let the collective and the co-operative reign for provision. Then you get a system which truly cares, where people are helping because they wish to, and where profit is not king.