Sunday, January 19, 2003
9:19 pm
Confused and Insecure - 19th January 2003, 21.20
The Observer published articles today: the first asking the opinion of designated 'prominent Britons'; the second was a more anecdotal survey of coffeehouses and pubs to air the latest views held by the public about any forthcoming war on Iraq. After reading these articles, one is convinced of the insecurity of the public and their unwillingness to decide whether a war is worthwhile.
The two firm camps on either side of the debate are well represented: the pro-war camp that argues Saddam Hussein will not be overthrown unless it is through military action. Salman Rushdie, surprisingly, provides an articulate voice of moral indignation here.
Salman Rushdie, Writer
There is a strong, even unanswerable case for a 'regime change' in Iraq that ought to unite Western public opinion and all those who care about the brutal oppression of an entire Muslim nation. Saddam Hussein and his ruthless gang of cronies from his home village of Tikrit are homicidal criminals, and their Iraq is a living hell. This obvious truth is no less true because we have been turning a blind eye to it - and 'we' includes, until recently, the government of the United States. But, as I listen to Iraqi voices describing the atrocities of the Saddam years, I am bound to say that if the US and the United Nations agree on a new Iraq resolution, then the rest of the world must stop sitting on its hands and join the Americans and British in ridding the world of this vile despot and his cohorts.
On the other hand, the anti-war camp views the war as a vendetta for Bush to wipe out the slur on his family's honour and as an opportunity for the United States to assert its power throughout the Middle East. Martin Jacques, former Marxist, consolidates this view.
Martin Jacques, Writer
The threat of war against Iraq has nothing to do with some new-found threat and everything to do with the new era of international relations, in which the US is determined to exercise its global omnipotence in the wake of 11 September. It wants to reorder the Middle East in the cause of oil and to impose its civilisational view of the world, its contempt for those of another colour and religion barely concealed. Contemptible as the Saddam regime is, deploying such overwhelming might against such a poor people is obscene. At least in the Cold War, each superpower acted as a constraint on the other. We are returning to something that looks more like high imperialism where the most powerful nation, the US, carves up the world for its own purposes.Who says history can't go backwards - by almost a century in this case? The fact that the United States and Britain are prepared to act without a UN mandate only serves to emphasise the point.
Most of the contributors involved with international relations from their academic work tended to take a more positive view of the role that the United States and the United Kingdom were playing out, since they argued that a lack of coercive effort would undermine the United Nations and prevent the strengthening or maintenance of a rules-based system in international relations.
Those who belong to the anti-war camp rarely articulate the argument of 'national interest' as a reason for staying out. Their voices are a curious and dated bag of prejudices masquerading as argument: oil, daddy's war, empire, hundreds of thousands of deaths, without ever engaging with the questions that should be asked concerning British involvement with the war. Their mindset gazes at the conflict and cannot focus on the specific issue of British participation except invoking the standard insult of Blairite poodlism.
The British public also stated similar arguments to the anti-war camp in their answers to the Observer reporters - those who were interested enough. Some were honestly recorded as 'don't know, don't care'. Now this article may be biased but polls show that the British public believes it is inevitable that our armed forces will go to war. Yet, public opinion remains confused and divided, spouting prejudice and unable to conclude the proper course of action from a reasoned and vigorous debate.
However, Blair can be criticised for not making more of an effort to persuade the British public that the possible war is a just war. The style of his government has been confirmed in its approach to this war: media manipulation and the publication of dossiers as 'events' to talk up their case: Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Hussein and Human Rights and so on. There has been no substantive debate in Parliament, apart from last September, and no attempt to counter the fears that the public currently holds. This neglect means that the government could enter a war without substantial public support: an act that convinces one of Blair's courage and faith in his own course of action but raises questions about his custodianship of Britain and how far he recognises that his own actions should reflect the views and willingness of the British electorate. The Prime Minister has not justified to the public that they should be prepared to pay the consquences of his decisions in this regard. For British soldiers, and if terrorists strike, British civilians will pay the 'blood price', which Blair easily invoked as another of his opportunistic soundbites.
The Observer published articles today: the first asking the opinion of designated 'prominent Britons'; the second was a more anecdotal survey of coffeehouses and pubs to air the latest views held by the public about any forthcoming war on Iraq. After reading these articles, one is convinced of the insecurity of the public and their unwillingness to decide whether a war is worthwhile.
The two firm camps on either side of the debate are well represented: the pro-war camp that argues Saddam Hussein will not be overthrown unless it is through military action. Salman Rushdie, surprisingly, provides an articulate voice of moral indignation here.
Salman Rushdie, Writer
There is a strong, even unanswerable case for a 'regime change' in Iraq that ought to unite Western public opinion and all those who care about the brutal oppression of an entire Muslim nation. Saddam Hussein and his ruthless gang of cronies from his home village of Tikrit are homicidal criminals, and their Iraq is a living hell. This obvious truth is no less true because we have been turning a blind eye to it - and 'we' includes, until recently, the government of the United States. But, as I listen to Iraqi voices describing the atrocities of the Saddam years, I am bound to say that if the US and the United Nations agree on a new Iraq resolution, then the rest of the world must stop sitting on its hands and join the Americans and British in ridding the world of this vile despot and his cohorts.
On the other hand, the anti-war camp views the war as a vendetta for Bush to wipe out the slur on his family's honour and as an opportunity for the United States to assert its power throughout the Middle East. Martin Jacques, former Marxist, consolidates this view.
Martin Jacques, Writer
The threat of war against Iraq has nothing to do with some new-found threat and everything to do with the new era of international relations, in which the US is determined to exercise its global omnipotence in the wake of 11 September. It wants to reorder the Middle East in the cause of oil and to impose its civilisational view of the world, its contempt for those of another colour and religion barely concealed. Contemptible as the Saddam regime is, deploying such overwhelming might against such a poor people is obscene. At least in the Cold War, each superpower acted as a constraint on the other. We are returning to something that looks more like high imperialism where the most powerful nation, the US, carves up the world for its own purposes.Who says history can't go backwards - by almost a century in this case? The fact that the United States and Britain are prepared to act without a UN mandate only serves to emphasise the point.
Most of the contributors involved with international relations from their academic work tended to take a more positive view of the role that the United States and the United Kingdom were playing out, since they argued that a lack of coercive effort would undermine the United Nations and prevent the strengthening or maintenance of a rules-based system in international relations.
Those who belong to the anti-war camp rarely articulate the argument of 'national interest' as a reason for staying out. Their voices are a curious and dated bag of prejudices masquerading as argument: oil, daddy's war, empire, hundreds of thousands of deaths, without ever engaging with the questions that should be asked concerning British involvement with the war. Their mindset gazes at the conflict and cannot focus on the specific issue of British participation except invoking the standard insult of Blairite poodlism.
The British public also stated similar arguments to the anti-war camp in their answers to the Observer reporters - those who were interested enough. Some were honestly recorded as 'don't know, don't care'. Now this article may be biased but polls show that the British public believes it is inevitable that our armed forces will go to war. Yet, public opinion remains confused and divided, spouting prejudice and unable to conclude the proper course of action from a reasoned and vigorous debate.
However, Blair can be criticised for not making more of an effort to persuade the British public that the possible war is a just war. The style of his government has been confirmed in its approach to this war: media manipulation and the publication of dossiers as 'events' to talk up their case: Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Hussein and Human Rights and so on. There has been no substantive debate in Parliament, apart from last September, and no attempt to counter the fears that the public currently holds. This neglect means that the government could enter a war without substantial public support: an act that convinces one of Blair's courage and faith in his own course of action but raises questions about his custodianship of Britain and how far he recognises that his own actions should reflect the views and willingness of the British electorate. The Prime Minister has not justified to the public that they should be prepared to pay the consquences of his decisions in this regard. For British soldiers, and if terrorists strike, British civilians will pay the 'blood price', which Blair easily invoked as another of his opportunistic soundbites.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
January
(87)
- Wouldn't that be something? - 30th January 2003, 2...
- New Labour, New Europe - 30th January 2003, 23.06 ...
- Blair's Appeasement - 29th January 2003, 23.15 Bl...
- Winstone's Czech Mate Interesting article in the ...
- The most special of relationships Geoffrey Wheatc...
- France and Britain are to blame - 28th January 200...
- Linkages - 28th January 2003, 20.55 Behind the sc...
- Benefits of Iraq So, we're sending troops to Iraq...
- Two Fronts According to the BBC fighting has erup...
- Defence Merger - 27th January 2003, 23.14 British...
- 1,192 Possible Terrorists to be caught - 26th Janu...
- Start, Act, Ignore (the Independent) - 26th Januar...
- Back of the Net - 26th January 2003, 17.34 A ha! ...
- Exit Strategy - 26th January 2003, 15.54 Sometime...
- Zimwatch: An Idiot writes - 24th January 2003, 00....
- The Heir of Gladstone and Thatcher - 24th January ...
- 'Winable' According to the Foreign Policy Center ...
- More joys of Europe Five Moroccans found with exp...
- Are the Frogs hopping mad? The French seem to be ...
- If you believe that Shock, horror. Saddam has ch...
- The Argument Changes Again. 24th January 2003. A...
- Is Anti-Americanism in Britain increasing in stren...
- Why are they laughing at me? - 23rd January 2003, ...
- That word, opposition I don't like using the word...
- Hitting the Buffers - 22nd January 2003, 23.21 Th...
- Zim watch: Games people play Electric Review has ...
- Crikey The game really must be up for the Euro. ...
- Iraq, what do we do after we go in? Alexander Coc...
- Philip Gould is burying his head in his hands - 21...
- Philosopher Kings As judges are using internation...
- Objectively Evil I couldn't make this up: The Eu...
- Let Slip... - 20th January 2003, 23.28 Geoff Hoon...
- The Dual Executive is strengthened - 20th January ...
- Further Strength to the Referendum Camp - 20th Jan...
- For Rothermere and Liberty It's been a while sinc...
- Confused and Insecure - 19th January 2003, 21.20 ...
- Beyond the Pole - 17th January 2003, 23.18 Geoff ...
- What's it good for? A good bit of right wing NATO...
- Wrestling with Islam An interesting essay on the ...
- Just War An interesting article on Just War by Mu...
- Not one of our better campaigns - 16th January 200...
- The Battle for Europe is lost. The Battle for Brit...
- W, WWYD? The question "well what would you do?" h...
- Peace of what? A new group seems to be organising...
- Sacked for Blogging Iain Murray has been sacked f...
- 'Britain's role is to unite the world' It's some ...
- Jail for Jokes It's really quite chilling how ben...
- Securing Energy Supplies - 14th January 2003, 23.0...
- More public consultation In an article on the fam...
- Liberalism and the EU redux I'm not sure whether ...
- Identity Problem Do you like the idea of identity...
- Zimwatch: False Dawn? - 13th January 2003, 23.00 ...
- Heralding an Inner Core - 13th January 2003, 20.56...
- Murdoch sells out One of the problems about the A...
- By Jingo what a fuss There is a bit of a to do ar...
- Zimwatch: From Crisis to Catastrophe, From Fear to...
- Italy: Eurocon Referendum - 12th January 2003, 13....
- Brunei: British Gurkhas stay on - 12th January 200...
- Unreported in the UK Media - 12th January 2003, 13...
- Preachers of Hate - 11th January 2003, 21.00 Angu...
- Liberation is a Reactionary Word - 11th January 20...
- Zimwatch: Slow Steps to Genocide - 10th January 20...
- How to do it I remember the peace movement in Ame...
- A real threat While busy bleating about the drast...
- Vulnerability to the Economic Costs of an Aging Po...
- Christianity's Clause in the Eurocon - 9th January...
- American Views of the Palestinian Conference - 9th...
- Not so magic circle The Telegraph reports on plan...
- If you can't win the argument, smear I used to li...
- Cato's take on Prodi's Plan for the EU - 8th Janua...
- Tories keep Eurocon simmering- 7th January 2003, 2...
- NAFTA or EU? - 8th January 2003, 21.05 Talk of cl...
- Don't Blame Religion Javier Solana is profiled in...
- Would you trust your money with them? France and ...
- Zimwatch: Mad Bad Bob - 7th January 2003, 20.15 I...
- I am a Counsellor to an American Prince - 7th Janu...
- Our Foreign Policy in action - 6th January 2003, 2...
- Identification: Friendly Fire - 6th January 2002, ...
- Simply not our job At last there is an attempt to...
- Soft Power - 5th January 2003, 23.58 Walker's Wor...
- American Recessional - 5th January 2003, 23.35 Pa...
- The 30 year rule - 4th January 2003, 8.55 Many do...
- Still at the Heart of Europe - 4th January 2003, 1...
- How is the Swedish model faring? - 3rd January 200...
- Lost Letter This letter does not appear to be on ...
- Importing the problem Srdja Trifkovic writes abou...
- On the other side of the world Some of the more r...
-
▼
January
(87)
0 comments:
Post a Comment