Bouvard on Neoconservatism's Governance Intervention Limits

Neoconservative foreign policy merely extended the implication of the Cold War that the internal governance of smaller states was the business of larger powers--you can say this contradicts or conforms with "realism." Neoconservatism met its limits when its crude dichotomy of

liberal democracy vs. totalitarian/authoritarian governance hit a wall in the Arab/Muslim world. But hardly anyone calls for rejection of the basic premise--for one thing, forswearing an interest in internal governance in the name of Westphalian sovereignty would limit options.

The question is then whether some principle of acceptable internal governance that would ward off foreign intervention can be formed. I think that principle has to be accountability for proxies originating or located in that state operating against essential security arrangements

of other states. If you fund, house, or are unable to control terrorist proxies that weaken the sovereignty of other states you surrender that degree of your own sovereignty. It will be hard for states with transnational theological or irredentist ambitions to meet this standard.

@THDOfficial Thanks, I hadn't heard of it.