The rule of law?
I am sure that this is a theme that has been considered earlier but the media is always a couple of months behind the times. The speech by Tony Blair and the so-called "Euston Manifesto" has reawaked my interest.
The way the "middle class " liberal left is being atatcked for opposing the Iraq war would be amusing if it wasn't for the recourse to slandering your opponents when you have lost the argument. I do not know about middle class, my background is, I am sue, rather more working class than most of the commentators, BUT I am certainly a member of the liberal left. Also I certainly opposed the Iraq war, but why. There are a number of reasons, to begin, Iraq was not a threat to anyone nor was he developing weapons of mass destruction whilst the inspectors were there. So the jsutification on either of those grounds were invalid at the time.
A more substantial reason but one that comes back to Tony Blair's recent speech in which he argued, as he has before, for the right to interfere with "evil" regimes. This is a valid point of view and one that should be supported. But there has to be a proper process to justify it. It is wrong that one or two countries can decide that another is evil and that it should be invaded. This is why we have set up a complex from of law to protect people from vindictive use of power. In britain it took a long time to establish people's rights, going back to Magna Carta. These reforms had to be fought for, to stop the local lord just throwing people into prison becuase they had the power to.
Do Britain and the USA hve to right to invade a country and install some system of government because they choose to. Of course not, this will jsut lead to others claiming the same right, the Chinese have felt this way about most of South-East Asia for centuries, as has the USA about the rest of the Americas, see the Monroe Doctrine 1823. Balir is right that we need a reformed United Nations which can take action. There are two major eforms that have to take place before anything can be effective. The first is the setting up of a United nations force which is only answerable to the UN and not made up of bits of other peoples armies. Those joining it would be joining it and not their national armies. The second is that the veto rights of some countries have to go. No one country should have such power to stop effective action. Blair could make a major gesture by giving up Britain's veto. As an aside note that the USA has used the veto more than any other country.
There is no way that I am a moral relativist but nor do I see think that democracy will solve all the worlds problems. Killing people is wrong, whether after judicial process or by dropping bombs on people or gassing them. There are no wriggles that excuses killing people except in self-defence. All that the Blair-Bush position does by acting independendtly without proper process is to encourage others to behave badly.
We have rules of law, many times they protect the rich from the poor but they can also protect the innocent form the powerful, that is what the action of invading Iraq has put in jeopardy!
The way the "middle class " liberal left is being atatcked for opposing the Iraq war would be amusing if it wasn't for the recourse to slandering your opponents when you have lost the argument. I do not know about middle class, my background is, I am sue, rather more working class than most of the commentators, BUT I am certainly a member of the liberal left. Also I certainly opposed the Iraq war, but why. There are a number of reasons, to begin, Iraq was not a threat to anyone nor was he developing weapons of mass destruction whilst the inspectors were there. So the jsutification on either of those grounds were invalid at the time.
A more substantial reason but one that comes back to Tony Blair's recent speech in which he argued, as he has before, for the right to interfere with "evil" regimes. This is a valid point of view and one that should be supported. But there has to be a proper process to justify it. It is wrong that one or two countries can decide that another is evil and that it should be invaded. This is why we have set up a complex from of law to protect people from vindictive use of power. In britain it took a long time to establish people's rights, going back to Magna Carta. These reforms had to be fought for, to stop the local lord just throwing people into prison becuase they had the power to.
Do Britain and the USA hve to right to invade a country and install some system of government because they choose to. Of course not, this will jsut lead to others claiming the same right, the Chinese have felt this way about most of South-East Asia for centuries, as has the USA about the rest of the Americas, see the Monroe Doctrine 1823. Balir is right that we need a reformed United Nations which can take action. There are two major eforms that have to take place before anything can be effective. The first is the setting up of a United nations force which is only answerable to the UN and not made up of bits of other peoples armies. Those joining it would be joining it and not their national armies. The second is that the veto rights of some countries have to go. No one country should have such power to stop effective action. Blair could make a major gesture by giving up Britain's veto. As an aside note that the USA has used the veto more than any other country.
There is no way that I am a moral relativist but nor do I see think that democracy will solve all the worlds problems. Killing people is wrong, whether after judicial process or by dropping bombs on people or gassing them. There are no wriggles that excuses killing people except in self-defence. All that the Blair-Bush position does by acting independendtly without proper process is to encourage others to behave badly.
We have rules of law, many times they protect the rich from the poor but they can also protect the innocent form the powerful, that is what the action of invading Iraq has put in jeopardy!
posted by Unknown at
7:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home