Saturday, August 23, 2003
10:40 pm
Supping with the Devil - 23rd August 2003, 22.36
David Clark produces a strong article in the Grauniad on the current fissures in the Left over foreign policy. His assertion that this is the strongest division yet seen on the Left with mainstream figures lining up in the antiwar lobby is an arguable reading of recent political history.
However, his analysis that the Left has split between the Blairites who support a doctrine of humanitarian intervention versus the fetishists who idealise international law is spot on.
Before Sept. 11, there was substantial agreement between them about the principles that ought to underpin a progressive foreign policy. There was consensus on the need to move beyond narrow realism by accepting wider humanitarian obligations as part of a responsible global citizenship. There was a belief that it was time to act on the promises contained in the universal declaration of human rights. And there was a willingness to use military force, in extremis, to achieve these objectives.
The rights and wrongs of this [intervention in Kosovo] have been hotly debated, but the interventionists were at one in maintaining that the values of the UN charter should be upheld even if it meant bypassing its institutions, and they were right to do so. Those who opposed them indulged in a form of procedural fetishism by which the sanctity of a discredited veto system was considered more important than the prevention of crimes against humanity. They also relied on a narrow and static interpretation of international law that ignored its tendency to evolve in accordance with custom and practice.
Clark stated that the opposition to Blair arose from his alliance with the neoconservatives. Howver, the neoconservatives are painted as geopolitical sculptors who wish to remodel other states with the face of the United States. This places great emphasis upon their ideology at the expense of the strands of realism that suffuse their political responses to events. That is why Bush can outflank opponents on the Left and support the establishment of a Palestinian state. The neoconservatives surprise their critics because they are more flexible than their ideology would suggest.
Opponents of the war did not attack Blair because of his alliance with the Americans. They attacked the war as it did not meet their perception of what international law demanded and the Coalition was willing to attack Iraq without gathering a necessary consensus to justify bypassing the UN.
Of course, with the Hutton inquiry and the 'nation building' in Iraq, neoconservatism and its wartime allies are foundering, both here and abroad. It can only triumph if its original aims in the war on terror are pursued: the 'regime change' in states that support terror - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and their replacement by US sponsored democracies. That is unlikely to be the case now.
David Clark produces a strong article in the Grauniad on the current fissures in the Left over foreign policy. His assertion that this is the strongest division yet seen on the Left with mainstream figures lining up in the antiwar lobby is an arguable reading of recent political history.
However, his analysis that the Left has split between the Blairites who support a doctrine of humanitarian intervention versus the fetishists who idealise international law is spot on.
Before Sept. 11, there was substantial agreement between them about the principles that ought to underpin a progressive foreign policy. There was consensus on the need to move beyond narrow realism by accepting wider humanitarian obligations as part of a responsible global citizenship. There was a belief that it was time to act on the promises contained in the universal declaration of human rights. And there was a willingness to use military force, in extremis, to achieve these objectives.
The rights and wrongs of this [intervention in Kosovo] have been hotly debated, but the interventionists were at one in maintaining that the values of the UN charter should be upheld even if it meant bypassing its institutions, and they were right to do so. Those who opposed them indulged in a form of procedural fetishism by which the sanctity of a discredited veto system was considered more important than the prevention of crimes against humanity. They also relied on a narrow and static interpretation of international law that ignored its tendency to evolve in accordance with custom and practice.
Clark stated that the opposition to Blair arose from his alliance with the neoconservatives. Howver, the neoconservatives are painted as geopolitical sculptors who wish to remodel other states with the face of the United States. This places great emphasis upon their ideology at the expense of the strands of realism that suffuse their political responses to events. That is why Bush can outflank opponents on the Left and support the establishment of a Palestinian state. The neoconservatives surprise their critics because they are more flexible than their ideology would suggest.
Opponents of the war did not attack Blair because of his alliance with the Americans. They attacked the war as it did not meet their perception of what international law demanded and the Coalition was willing to attack Iraq without gathering a necessary consensus to justify bypassing the UN.
Of course, with the Hutton inquiry and the 'nation building' in Iraq, neoconservatism and its wartime allies are foundering, both here and abroad. It can only triumph if its original aims in the war on terror are pursued: the 'regime change' in states that support terror - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and their replacement by US sponsored democracies. That is unlikely to be the case now.
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)
-
▼
August
(39)
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 110 Monday, 25 A...
- Zimwatch: Client State - 27th August 2003, 6.56 T...
- The Silly Season Is Over - 26th August 2003, 22.15...
- Are we building a funeral pyre? Sorry to use the ...
- Supping with the Devil - 23rd August 2003, 22.36 ...
- All our army According to "security expert" Micha...
- Greening the European Constitution - 23rd August 2...
- Why can't we have one? We have the scientists, we...
- Hutton: The Final Stretch - 22nd August 2003, 00.0...
- Airstrip One turns Blairite Well one aspect of th...
- Blairite before Blair - 20th August 2003, 23.05 B...
- Bet they won't publish you The Foreign and Common...
- Irony in Kabul Forget about the Edinburgh Fringe,...
- Day Five: An Imperfect Spy - 18th August 2003, 22....
- The Lions of Southall - 17th August 2003, 23.08 W...
- No-Conservatism Irving Kristol, first Neoconserva...
- Sour Grapes - 16th August 2003, 11.37 Apropos to ...
- You think I do conspiracies? So how's this for ta...
- Did they actually say that? The Last Ditch, a rat...
- The Stone Tape - 13th August 2003, 23.31 The comm...
- Forty-Eight Hours - 12th August 2003, 22.36 Now t...
- On the First Day... - 11th August 2003, 10.53 Lor...
- This Liberal Empire - 10th August 2003, 13.24 The...
- Nothing to report today I know there's stuff goin...
- Regarding Pinochet Every now and again I realise ...
- Demography is Depressing for Central Europe - 6th ...
- Demography is Destiny Stuart Reid runs through th...
- The Iraqi Gravy Train Well it was bound to happen...
- The Myth of an Impartial Authority - 5th August 20...
- Badly Spun Why on earth did Downing Street accuse...
- The Deepening of Anglo-American Co-operation on Mi...
- Why don't they just bus them in? Let's hope this ...
- Another Hint - 3rd August 2003, 17.53 The weakeni...
- Riding two horses - 3rd August 2003, 17.39 Mary D...
- Zimwatch: Body of Evidence This particularly nast...
- The Inquiry - 2nd August 2003, 18.07 The Grauniad...
- Reflections of a Guardian Browser Peter Briffa ge...
- Samizdata says we're all lefties now This entry o...
- Welcome to Kellyland Austin Mitchell has a new we...
-
▼
August
(39)
0 comments:
Post a Comment