Further Updates To My Foreign Policy
I wrote this a couple of weeks ago in response to a question. I am quite happy with the way it stacks up.
Q: [in what circumstances would you ever support an intervention or similar littlebitpregnant intervention like a no fly zone]?
I’ve always been clear about this. The set of circumstances in which I’d support intervention are 1) when there is a specific and credible plan to do so that can be reasonably expected to make things better rather than worse and 2) when doing so does not weaken the norms of international law on which we all depend.
I’m even prepared to spell this out in practical terms; since the UN Security Council, with a veto by permanent members, is the decision making body with regard to 2), I am prepared to cede authority to their judgement on 1) as well, even though they screwed up badly by going along with French unilateralism in Rwanda. Like at least half the two million protestors in Hyde Park in 2003, I would even have allowed Blair to have the Iraq War if he could just have got the damn resolution. It is not an impractical or unrealistic position, and the fact that it rules out most actual candidate interventions is a simple and practical consequence of the fact that military intervention is nearly always a bad idea.
Basically, the Nuremberg Conventions with respect to the war crime of aggression. Not just the law, they're a good idea.
Since my opinion on this intervention cannot possibly make any difference to anyone whatsoever either way, I have none.
ReplyDeleteSitting around chatting about whether Wilt was a better basketball player than Kareem, or something like that, is a completely useless and only marginally interesting way of killing time, whereas sitting around chatting about whether or not to bomb Libya is equally useless but creepy and disgusting. The people who do these things will do what they do regardless.
No I don't agree. As a representative member of the British chattering class, my opinion is of small but nonzero value in determing the political possibility of the UK's involvement. And I also don't really agree that ignoring what's going on in the world around you is much less creepy than discussing it, as long as one does so in a reasonably tasteful manner.
ReplyDeleteI have concluded that my opinion has zero value in determining American involvement. Learning this has dominated the last forty five years of my life. I'm a slow learner.
ReplyDeleteI don't ignore anything, but I don't offer free advice to people who, if anything, would deliberately do what I don't want them to do just to piss me off.
Nice article, thanks for the information.
ReplyDeleteIronic Placement Of Comment Spam Of The Week!
ReplyDeleteSame as Tony Benn said about the First Gulf War: if the UN was for it it was legal. Some respect due like to pacifists. But it's a den of thieves, its members are committed to the maintenance of profit not humanity, it's decision making is skewed towards the Big 5 and the US in particular a tad too much, it may be the final arbiter of the moment but that doesn't make it right.
ReplyDeleteskidmarx - all the same issues could be raised about the House of Commons and its members, but I'm still happy saying "if Parliament says so, then it's legal".
ReplyDeleteajay, the question wasn't whether "if the UN/Parliament says so, then is it legal?" rather the question is "if the UN authorizes a war, do you support it?".
ReplyDeleteOur host says he is prepared to answer "yes" to that question, always. This seems like a pretty hefty abdication of moral responsibility.
Alex: my comment was directed at skidmarx's point rather than the original post; I would agree that the original post is an abdication of moral responsibility. If the UN authorises a war, I would be prepared to accept that it was a legitimate war, but not that it was wise or even moral; same deal with laws passed by Parliament. I wouldn't have argued that the poll tax was an illegitimate tax. It was unfair, unjust and (far more serious) unwise, but it was still The Law.
ReplyDeleteHairs, I has split them.
But I thought that was entirely skidmarx's point, that while the UN "may be the final arbiter of the moment", that "doesn't make it right" i.e. it may be legal but it's not automatically moral since the UN has no moral authority in skidmarx's opinion.
ReplyDeleteAlex - I think that's what I'm saying
ReplyDeleteI don't think I could ever actually support starting a war - maybe the American Civil War but that's it. But I will forebear from opposing this one because I think it's amazingly important that the overall system is allowed to work. You say "abdication of moral responsibility", I say "acceptance of collective responsibility for difficult decisions", potato tomato.
ReplyDelete"I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
ReplyDelete"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."
Smedley Darlington Butler, son of a Congressperson, Marine Corps Major General (then the highest rank), two time Medal of Honor winner, Quaker, Marine Corps Brevet Medal winner.
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
FYI, _my_ ideas on this subject are not the same as Butler's.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think if any nation goes ahead and attacks any other nation it's an excuse for us to consider attacking the aggressors.
Good Wars = WWI, WWII.
Good Wars with crappy alliances = the first Gulf War
Indeterminate = Korea (wasn't Syngman Rhee running ops into the North?)