When is it right to go to war ?

A friend asked me if I would rule out military action in all circumstances without a resolution of the UN Security Council.    Putting on on side the circumstances in which the UN Charter authorises actions without such a vote, I still don't think it is possible to rule out action ever without a UNSC motion, but yes I support the development of international law since the Second World War.  To act without such a resolution I would set the bar very high, much higher than the current situation in Syria.

The ancient Christian doctrine of the Just War is a good guide.  War is a great evil and one should only resort to it on the following conditions:
1) to overcome a greater evil
2) in a proportionate way, i.e. only as much as required to overcome the evil
3)only when there is a reasonable chance of success.

I do not believe that the military options available to respond to the conduct of Assad's regime fulfil those conditions.

Further more, as a federalist I maintain that we have a duty to build supranational structures which provide peaceful means of resolving conflict, law between nations as well as within nations.    Those who advocate the use of force need to demonstrate that they have made a serious effort to provide the world with an alternative.  To abandon steps in that direction only makes violence more likely in the future, as Bush and Blair have proved.

Fitzsimmons defends Israel's lebensraum

As soon as you see an article has been written by an ex-President of NUS, you know there's a fair chance it's bollocks. OK, that's my prejudice but it's born out by experience of this group of people which includes Jack Straw, Charles Clarke, Sue Slipman and David Aaronovitch all of whom supported the Iraq War. What is it about NUS ? In this case, Lorna Fitzsimmons condemns Nick Clegg for describing Israeli settlement building as "a deliberate act of vandalism". She argues "...the demand for a complete halt to all Israeli construction over the Green Line is now a road-block preventing the commencement of bilateral talks." which is a remarkable piece of doublethink. How about "Israeli construction over the Green Line is now a road-block preventing the commencement of bilateral talks" ? She wouldn't say that would she ? After all she is CEO of BICOM (the Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre),so clearly whatever Israel does is right.

Her article even argues that Palestinians must accept that Israeli settlement blocks will remain on the West Bank. After all President Bush agreed with Israeli that "natural growth" could continue. How kind of him to decide that Israel could continue to grab Palestinian land, but then he never took much notice of international law. In any case, what the fuck has it to do with him ? Pardon me, "What right does an American president have to give away other people's land ?". Better now ?

She also states, as if no-one could possibly disagree, "No Israeli government has ever enforced a complete 'freeze' on settlements, i.e. a freeze on all building not just in the West Bank but even those parts of East Jerusalem that are not even seen as 'settlements' in Israel. It is impossible politically, for coalition governments. But it is also impossible in human terms; existing communities, which have typically young and growing populations, cannot freeze their natural growth." This amounts to saying to the Palestinians that having occupied your land, taken your water, destroyed your houses, divided you from your crops and animals, obviously we must be allowed to take more and more ! Not much problem about freezing the growth of Palestinian communities then !

You would think that Israel of all nations would understand the immorality of a policy of lebensraum !!!

Bush and his fellow schmucks

As Obama said, "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible...". If there is anyone out there who still doubts that George W Bush and his coterie were not the biggest bunch of schmucks ever elected to run a democratic country, consider the case of Valerie Plame Wilson, who appeared on Radio 4's On the ropes today. The story is also told in the film Fair Game. This is the woman who was exposed as a CIA agent, not by the Russians, not by Osama Bin Laden, no, by her own government. She was not exposed for betraying her country, nor for incompetence nor for corruption (practices not unknown to her exposers). She was exposed because her husband, Joe Wilson revealed that he found no evidence in Niger in 2002 for the suggestion made by Bush, Blair and Jack Straw that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium there.

Whether or not you agreed with the Iraq War, whether or not you accept that Joe Wilson should have published the truth, there can be and is no justification for a government that exposes its own agent because of what her husband has done. This is the morality of a gangster. We all know that Bush has blood on his hands. This story tells us how his mind worked.

Mr Gladstone travelling on a bus

A request from my old friend Jonathan sends me to the bookshelf to check "The Liberal Party" in the Britain in Pictures series. The link takes you to the whole book on-line but I cannot resist quoting Lord Woolton at Birmingham, in March 1947, who said, "There is a great liberal sentiment in this country. There is now no major issue between Liberalism and Conservatism. They are both expressions of the same political philosophy, and those old battles that used to enliven political life in the days gone by, between Liberals and Tories, are now just ancient and meaningless feuds."

How sad ! How, I declare, untrue. Perhaps some of our Liberal Democrat ministers should take a ride in a bus occasionally.

Gordon Brown Nose

Why am I still surprised, disgruntled and revolted by Gordon Brown ? Could it be his choice of dinner guests - George Bush and Rupert Murdoch ? No, bad as that is, it's that ghastly smile with which he declared Bush "a true friend of Britain". And people are afraid that the European Union is running Britain !!!!! Open your eyes, Europhobes.

Annapolis - the long view

Bush's Middle East conference is starting in Annapolis. So far Dubya has shown no inclination to learn from history but I suppose he has heard of the Annapolis Convention of September 1786, when 12 delegates from 5 states met "to remedy defects of the federal government" . Those delegates met for four days and decided that they could not achieve anything because four states had failed to send delegates and four more had failed to get there on time and because they had insufficient power to negotiate. They called for a wider conference in Philadelphia the following May, which drafted the US Constitution which endures to the present day.

I cannot help wondering if the present conference in Annapolis will be similarly hampered by the absence of parties, in particular Hamas, and a lack of powers to negotiate. Let us hope that the conference continues for more than four days and, like the ultimate success in Philadelphia, leads to the foundation of a new state, the state of Palestine.