A Singular Lack of Integrity?
On the news now, a correspondent reported from the Azores where the pro-war-in-Iraq lobby have been meeting. She said something I found startling. Apparently at several points during the last few months it had looked like the UK/US position would get upwards of nine/ten votes in the Security Council. That was until France declared its intention to use its veto. At this point the other countries saw no advantage in voting to approve a war that couldn't happen anyway - and which might cost them an election. Almost to a man, they changed to a no vote.
I've expressed repeatedly my anxieties with any upcoming war with Iraq - that while it's clear to me that Saddam Hussein is an unpleasant man who should be removed, the route that I believe has to be taken is one of international collaboration. I do not believe that any country or group of countries should be able to act internationally (unless they have directly and individually been provoked) without at least the vaguest assent from the international community. My opinion has been that, should there be failings in the United Nations, then it is the job of the world to change the United Nations, not to disregard it.
But my whole position has relied on the integrity of the people concerned. If countries act in an honourable way, then I have respect for their opinions. And I've argued to defend the assumption that people are acting honourably. I have continually argued for France's right to express its dissent from the opinion of the international community. And I've been hostile to the possibility that France or the United States should try and bargain with, threaten or buy the votes of any other country on the Security Council or across the world.
But where is this integrity, exactly? France has crossed the line a couple of times. The United States and the UK have demonstrated that they're not averse to a little bullying as well. And now we hear that the votes of the rest of the Security Council depend only on what they think will play well with their electorates. Our world is run by monsters and hypocrites and if I could retire from it, I would.
Comments
Please stay on-topic, informative and polite. I reserve the right to remove comments for whatever vague capricious reasons seem reasonable at the time.
It is a truism among students of international relations that all foreign policy is driven by domestic politics.
What you're seeing is the inevitable expression of that axiom.
→ Posted by: Frankenstein at March 16, 2003 9:07 PM
I think that's a difficult statement to justify, because it encodes two very different ideas in one - firstly, that one works internationally 'in the interest of one's country' and secondly that one does things to secure an electorate. The first is clearly true, and probably should be. You represent the interests of the people who elected you first and foremost, responsibilities that are only restricted by international treaties. The second is often true but not always (why otherwise would Blair be so pro-war when his country is not?), and is what I have issue with.
→ Posted by: Tom Coates at March 16, 2003 9:59 PM
The line that Chirac said he'd veto in all circumstances is bullshit. Obviously, Jack Straw doesn't feel the need to translate the 'ce soir' bit of Chirac's statement.
→ Posted by: nick sweeney at March 17, 2003 12:29 AM
The six current non-permanent members of the UN Security Council are Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, Guinea, Angola and Cameroon. I do not know much about Chile, so leaving that aside Mexico is the only country among them which has held anything that could come within radar range of a democratic election within decades. I know for certain that the human rights records of Guinea, Angola and Cameroon are among the worst in the world. I also know that the "economies" of Angola and Guinea rely heavily on oil production - which has considerable US investment. Cameroon hosts the outlet of an enormous oil pipeline which brings crude from Chad to the sea. These countries do not have an electorate to represent or worry about, they are monstrous self-perpetuating oligarchic kleptocracies. When it becomes clear that a veto-wielding nation (France) is going to scupper the resolution then the others are in the annoying position of no longer having leverage (financial and political) over the US and can, by way of compensation, curry favour with other interest groups. There really is no such thing as a free lunch. America is becoming the imperialist power of our age.
→ Posted by: qB at March 17, 2003 1:27 PM
Could be the other way round. The other countries *never* wanted to support the US, but felt pressure to do so. Once France has signalled it's determination to veto, the pressure is off these countries. They can do what they *really* wanted without it being their fault that the US doesn't get what it wants.
France is acting as lighting conductor for US rage.
→ Posted by: phil jones at March 17, 2003 2:14 PM
Could be the other way round. The other countries *never* wanted to support the US, but felt pressure to do so. Once France has signalled it's determination to veto, the pressure is off these countries. They can do what they *really* wanted without it being their fault that the US doesn't get what it wants.
France is acting as lighting conductor for US rage.
→ Posted by: phil jones at March 17, 2003 3:04 PM
Re my earlier post - got my guineas in a knot... oil-based economy is Equatorial Guinea. For Guinea (Conakry) please substitute "mineral rich devestatingly poor country enmeshed in regional conflicts". Or, better still, ignore me entirely and read (which you probably have done already) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2835913.stm, the last para being the saddest.
→ Posted by: qB at March 17, 2003 4:10 PM
qB should certainly be ignored, since (s)he informs us that "the six current non-permanent members of the UN Security Council are Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, Guinea, Angola and Cameroon." The UN Security Council in fact has 15 members. In addition to those listed by qB there are Spain, Bulgaria, Germany and Syria. Nor is ignorance of the political development of Chile an excuse for sweeping it into absurd generalisations about representative elections. Why anyone might or might not have done something when they are no longer obliged to do so is a speculative irrelevance. The point is that there is no basis for engaging in discussion of any aspect of voting on a resolution if one of the possible desired outcomes has been precluded. However, all this aside, I am completely bemused by the sudden aversion to domestic public opinion influencing foreign policy: I thought that that was precisely the goal of all demonstrations (especially the one last month in London) against the war.
→ Posted by: Charlie B. at March 18, 2003 1:34 PM
I should add with respect to Mr Cook that the Prime Minister demoted him from Foreign Secretary immediately after the 2001 General Election victory. Mr Cook's principal responsibility as Leader of the House of Commons became reform of the House of Lords, but the Prime Minister contradicted his proposals and ensured that no further action would be taken on the issue before the next Election. Mr Cook's career is over as long as Tony Blair remains Prime Minister (which Ms Short's is not). If Tony Blair should, by any chance, fall from power, then the most effective -- possibly the only possible -- challenge to Gordon Brown to succeed him would need to come from someone outside the Cabinet, who bears no responsibility for the war policy. Mr Cook has always nurtured ambitions to be Prime Minister, and his resignation now (quietly, but carefully prepared over the last few weeks) is an astute move. Indeed, if Mr Cook, as a senior and capable figure, is to be the focus of left-wing and anti-Blair organising, it is important that HE, and not Ms Short, should be the big resignation. No doubt that it why she was denouced for "grandstanding" last week, and why she has been perhaps persuaded to stay in the Cabinet. Mr Cook simply has to appear principled and measured, and allow his henchmen and other supporters to do the work for him with MPs. Not too difficult a task when the back-benches are full, after 6 years, of grude-bearing failed ministers, sacked or let go by the Prime Minister. I noticed that Frank Dobson was sitting next to Mr Cook when he made his Commons statement (and patteed him when he sat down). Mr Dobson was a hopeless Health Minister (responsible for much of the mess the NHS is still in) and was sacrified, most unwillingly, in the London Mayoral elections which Ken Livingstone won. The leader of the anti-war rebel MPs (and the man who praised Mr Cook so lavishly on the TV) is Chris Smith -- another absolutely hopeless minister who got the push. Indeed, Mr Cook's supporters are headed by a pretty dreadful bunch of has-beens, and it is that fate which Mr Cook is desperate to avoid. Oh, did I mention principles? No? There might be one or two conveniently sprinkled around. But not enough to emulate unless you have something to gain by doing so.
→ Posted by: Charlie B. at March 18, 2003 1:59 PM
It's a fine distinction to be drawn, clearly - but we know that governments have more information than the general public. If it's a moral issue, then it's the role of the government to try and do what it believes to be best and to try and get the public behind it. If it fails to get the public behind it, then it's still susceptible to their subsequent voting at the next elections. Essentially, then - one responsibility of government is to reach out and persuade the people that they know what they're doing. Backing away from that responsibility because - in this case - there's no practical way of getting the thing done seems to me morally suspect.
→ Posted by: Tom Coates at March 18, 2003 2:00 PM
The real issue of contention is, should anyone be going to war with Iraq?
It is clear that Saddam's regime is morally courrupt. It is clear that given half the chance, Saddam would surge his borders to envelope as much oil producing land as possible. It is also clear that many of his people live in constant fear and that true democracy does not exist to them.
What is not clear is why the United States and its so called "allies" would suddenly be concerned with the lives of Iraqi people. How many of the pro-war populace care(d) about Rwanda, or Cuba, China, Korea, etc.?
It upsets me to see so many people swallow the selling job that the Bush administration has been spouting about the 'just cause' of this war.
Here is an exerpt from an article titled, "What is the war's 'brand strategy'?" -By Lou Marano that best describes what so many are falling for.
"[Tracey]Riese said that in 1776 American colonists transformed the Revolution from a contest between powers to a struggle for "liberty" by enlightened citizens. The Civil War, which began as a struggle between two economic systems and constitutional interpretations, took on new meaning when Abraham Lincoln reframed it as a battle for the soul of a nation 'conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.' "
With the right sugar coated topping people will swallow the most foul things.
→ Posted by: Paolo at March 21, 2003 5:30 PM