Liberal internationalism is under pressure from two directions. On one side sits an authoritarian right that treats power as its own justification. On the other side sits a left that increasingly defines foreign policy by opposing the West rather than by supporting democracy, human rights, and self-determination.
Neither approach offers a serious answer to a world shaped by war, authoritarianism, and competing imperialisms. Some of the most serious challenges to camp politics have come not from liberalism, but from dissident strands of the socialist left that insist imperialism is not a Western monopoly. That insight warrants serious consideration.
Consistency is not centrism.
Liberal foreign policy should begin with a simple principle: people, not states, are the unit of moral concern. On that basis, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an imperialist war of conquest, regardless of NATO’s past failures or Western hypocrisy. Ukraine’s right to defend itself is not conditional on the moral purity of its allies.
Supporting Ukraine, including through military aid, is not tantamount to cheering for NATO. It is rejecting the idea that borders and governments can be remade by force. Peace that comes at the cost of agency is not peace; it is submission.
This position is often caricatured as naïve or establishment-aligned. In reality, it mirrors arguments long made by anti-authoritarian socialists who refuse to excuse invasion simply because the aggressor opposes the West.
Venezuela and the limits of regime change.
Venezuela shows why liberal internationalism must reject both authoritarian apologetics and reckless interventionism. Nicolás Maduro is an autocrat who has systematically undermined democracy, hollowed out institutions, and repressed opposition. Liberals should be clear about that, and unafraid to say so.
But Donald Trump’s approach to Venezuela, which openly flirted with invasion and coercive regime change, pointed in the opposite direction of liberal principles. Threatening military intervention does not empower Venezuelans; it strips them of agency and normalises the idea that borders and governments are conditional on the will of stronger states.
Liberals can, and must, hold both positions at once. Oppose authoritarian rule wherever it exists. Reject the idea that invasion is a legitimate shortcut to democracy. The alternative to autocracy is not regime change by force, but sustained international pressure, democratic solidarity, and support for civil society.
Once invasion is treated as an acceptable response to “bad regimes”, no principle remains universal.
Democracy is not optional.
Liberals are right to criticise the ways in which wealth and power distort democratic systems. But that critique becomes incoherent when it slides into cynicism about democracy itself. Democratic freedoms are not decorative features of politics. They are what allow reform, accountability, and pluralism to exist at all.
When democracy collapses, it is not elites who suffer first. It is workers, minorities, journalists, and trade unionists. Any foreign policy that treats democracy as secondary to geopolitical alignment abandons those people in practice, regardless of what it claims in theory.
Israel, Palestine, and moral seriousness.
The Israel–Palestine conflict exposes the same failure of consistency.
A liberal position must be able to hold several truths simultaneously. Israel has the right to exist in security. Palestinians have the right to self-determination. Occupation undermines democracy. Antisemitism, including when disguised as political critique, must be confronted directly. Actions undertaken by Netanyahu and Hamas do not represent the views and ethics of Jews and Muslims the world over.
Reducing this conflict to slogans does not advance peace. It entrenches absolutism and rewards the most reactionary actors on all sides. Here too, the sharpest divide is not between left and liberal, but between those willing to excuse reactionary forces for geopolitical reasons and those who insist that rights and democratic agency apply universally.
Internationalism without illusions.
A credible liberal internationalism must reject illusions. Illusions that Western states are benign. Illusions that authoritarian regimes are anti-imperialist by default. Illusions that international law enforces itself without power and commitment behind it.
This does not imply abandoning institutions such as NATO or the UN. It means treating them seriously, as tools that require reform, restraint, and accountability. Criticism and support are not opposites; they are complements.
A liberal task.
Liberal internationalism should not apologise for its principles. Democracy, human rights, and self-determination are not Western affectations. They are universal claims, defended imperfectly, but still worth defending.
In that sense, liberals have more to learn from anti-camp traditions on the left than from those who treat geopolitics as a morality play. The task is not to collapse distinctions, but to remain consistent; siding with people, not regimes, and refusing the idea that any imperialism becomes acceptable by opposing another.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
expats
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
15 Comments
A good essay with an overall balance, yet open to some questions. I like your early sentence “people not states are the unit of moral concern” though by itself it is inadequate and open to misinterpretation. Thus Kemi Badenoch has now used this to justify what Trump has done for the sake of the people of Venezuela. Likewise Reform UK who quickly said Trump’s action is against international law yet good will come of it. That not only implies accepting invasions or interventions but implies international law is of no use. These are examples of dangers from right wing not left wing.
It should also be remembered that Trump includes threat to USA security as a reason for his action; likewise Tony Blair and Bush used threat of weapons of mass destruction as a reason to invade Iraq. The fundamental liberal position is concern for people not regimes PLUS legitimate methods of helping people in a way that allows them sustainably to develop themselves and not be dictated to by others.
Hi Jack. I liked this article as it made me think. However one question arises from your use of the phrase ‘self-determination’…do we believe in the right of all peoples to self-determination or just in the right of existing countries/states to have self-determination? I ask this because I believe that the Catalans should have as much right to self-determination as any other distinct group, but they are denied any chance of voting for independence by the Spanish state. So, do we support the right of peoples to exercise self-determination or just the existing countries/states?
Hi Joan,
Firstly, thank you for your comment.
On your point of self-determination, I believe it is always a matter of nuance. Catalonia has its own culture, legislation, and institutions that differentiate it from Spain, so yes, I support its right to independence, as I do for Chechnya and for any people who have established a distinct identity.
That is not a blanket view, however, as the reality of the situation must also be taken into account when considering whether a people can REALISTICALLY obtain and sustain independence. In Catalonia’s case, absolutely. But if a small community village in Wales were to claim independence from the country, I wouldn’t consider it in the same discussion.
Does that make sense? I fear I might have just babbled. I’m unwell at the moment, so I might just be talking nonsense.
The EU is quite flawed and it is difficult to understand why so many love it. Over 17 million voted to leave the EU not because they hated Europe but were concerned about the shift towards an EU superstate. This is what the EU is about, meddling in the affairs of supposedly Sovereign independent states. It is important that we trade and cooperate with our European neighbours but quite another to have to kow tow. When Cameron supposedly renegotiated prior to the referendum in 2016 he had to go and get agreement from Chancellor Merkel. Ludicrous.
@ David, “The EU is quite flawed and it is difficult to understand why so many love it”.
Not half as flawed currently as the USA and Russia, David, and I’m afraid your contribution is straight out of the Reform Party play book. No wonder Andrea Jenkyns can’t sleep :
Dame Andrea Jenkyns performs self-written song ‘Insomniac … YouTube · Guardian News 180k+ views · 4 months ago Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, sings a self-written song titled ‘Insomniac’ as she enters the stage at Reform UK’s 2025 …
Hi Jack
I share your outlook on self-determination. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
“The EU is quite flawed and it is difficult to understand why so many love it”…
David, looking at the EU elections held every 5 years the UK turnouts were dismal – couple that with anonymous Mep’s – many UK voters thought membership was irrelevant. The only time they really engaged fully was when given a chance to leave. Those areas that voted heavily to leave – the status quo is never a good sell – membership didn’t save one factory or one job , that steady decline in post industrial towns continued unabated.
And since leaving the EU, the industrial heartlands have enjoyed a great revival, lots of jobs have been created and decline has been reversed. Oh
The overnight statements from the US adminstration on Greenland are quite chilling.
It would mean the end of NATO. It’s economic and military might make anything outside the usual diplomatic condemnation almost impossible…
I suspect that if the USA offered each adult in Greenland $1Million in the event that Greenland voted to become part of the USA, they would persuade a majority to switch from Denmark and it would only cost them about a tenth of their current defence budget.
As I said Mick : The status quo is never a good sell. Membership never addressed that decline. That why so many thought it was irrelevant – turnouts in those areas were appallingly low. Asking those to vote for remaining in the EU as a ‘good thing’ was always going to be tough against the real world experience of industrial decline.
@ David Raw,
“I’m afraid your {the other David} contribution is straight out of the Reform Party play book.”
Not at all. David is making a very reasonable comment about the EU. Labour Party policy and criticism of the then EEC was always similarly worded. Tony Blair and kept any future Tony Benns off all Parliamentary selection lists. Consequently the present day PLP is quite out of touch with its traditional support base on the EU question.
I’m another Lexiteer who hates neither the EU nor Europe. Note that they are quite different in meaning. The latter is a geographical term for the land found between the Atlantic and the Ural mountains. Moscow is just as European a city as Paris and London.
So I’m happy to be European but I don’t want to be part of the pan European political entity known as the EU. They are far from perfect. Their biggest flaw is their lack of democracy. When the EU was in dispute with the Greek government in 2015 the matter should have been decided through the EU’s legal system with the assistance of the EU Parliament.
Instead the German govt, which has no democratic mandate outside its own borders, took it upon itself to speak for the whole of the EU.
My contribution was not intended to be controversial but we need to be critical of the EU if needed in the same way as condemning Trump’s imperial desire to invade other sovereign states. In 1972 when we joined the then EEC, Heath assured us that it was only to do with Trade and there would be no loss of sovereignty but when the EEC morphed into the EU it became clear that the aim of ever closer union was a vision (nightmare) of a superstate and some founder members becoming overly powerful ie the EU bailout of Greece which was taken out of the hands of the Greek people. The EU does want to take away sovereignty as far as possible and each country should have the right to make its own decisions and come together only with others when necessary.
“a vision (nightmare) of a superstate and some founder members becoming overly powerful” In a superstate, members (countries) would have little power. You need to pick one or the other to criticise. Personally, I’d be happy with a federal Europe in which the centre had the powers it needed and was directly answerable to its electorate and the governments of its constituent parts only had power within their own borders.
@ Peter Davies,
You could be right if there was any likelihood of the government and taxpayers of Germany ever being prepared to take a step back and accept a subordinate role to a future EU Federal government.
The Governments of the nation states of the EU would then assume a similar role to the State governments of the USA. No-one would much care who was the German chancellor just as they don’t much care who is the Governor of California.
I could be wrong but I just don’t see that ever happening. So is it also impossible that we won’t ever get a “EU superstate”? I don’t know but I wouldn’t rule it out.