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.

Daniel Hannan praises a federal system

Lev Eakins has drawn my attention to a speech by the eurosceptic Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, speaking to the gathering of American Conservatives known as CPAC.

Hannan's thesis is that the American Constitution is wonderful and he warns Americans not to follow what he regards as the European example of centralisation and too much government. The speech is a tour-de-force which flatters his audience and plays to their deepest prejudices. It is also disingenuous and dishonest. This man is not stupid. He's wrong.

Everyday of his political life he has resisted a federal Europe but here he is praising the federal system of the United States, which is one of the main sources of inspiration for European federalists. This sleight of hand is accomplished by never describing the American constitution as federal, only as republican. The magic is concealed by rhetorical misdirection. In one sentence he applauds the institutions created by the Philadelphia Convention and in the next he warns against the European example of "more government". When the American founding fathers set up a Presidency and a Congress and a Supreme Court, it was an example to mankind, "which would work everywhere". When the European Union's founding fathers set up the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Court of Justice, it's just "more government".

Hannan compared the ratification of the US Constitution favourably to the rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty in referendums in three countries. No surprise of course that he failed to mention that the American founding fathers wisely specified that the new constitution would come into effect when 9 out of 13 states had ratified. The EU was saddled with the need for unanimity. (I have written elsewhere about this and will copy the full text in a separate post).

Hannan proceeded to quote Jefferson's criticisms of George III as apposite to his view of the EU, talking of far away government. Never mind that the American colonies were held by force whereas EU Member-States have all chosen freely to belong. The EU is NOT an empire, it is a union of separate states like....erm...oh yes, the USA !

Hannan also contrasted the famous text of the Declaration of Independence, "These truths we hold to be self-evident..."etc with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which he did not quote, being content to refer contemptuously to the right to strike. I'll grant that eighteenth century prose was better, not being filtered through fifteen or more foreign offices, but he could have cited the preamble thus:
"The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice."

He repeatedly warned against moving power to Washington, saying this was the European example. "We are at the end of the road you are set upon", he told his American audience. Hannan is not stupid. Presumably he knows that the US Federal Government already accounts for something like 60% of all US government spending and over 20% of GDP whereas the EU's expenditure is a tiny fraction of public spending across the 27 member-states and between 1 and 2% GDP.(More figures here). The EU has limited power in defined sectors whereas Washington has enormous power. His warning is nonsensical.

Hannan said the US was suffering from "Europeanisation" mentioning health-care and carbon taxes particularly. This went down well with his conservative audience who must be oblivious to the fact that US spending on health-care has outstripped Europe's as a proportion of national income yet fails unlike most European systems to provide health-care for all citizens. I suppose to an audience of climate-change-deniers carbon taxes sound unnecessary.

Hannan is a lively and engaging speaker. So was Hitler. In his own pernicious way Hannan is dangerous too, he distorts truth with a mix of humour and flattery for his audience. We should not admire his rhetorical skill when it conceals the lies he peddles.

Peace in Glastonbury and Wells

Thursday was a sunny, misty November day and I climbed Glastonbury Tor and attended the Wells Constituency Dinner (in Highbridge, NOT on the Tor). I always meet interesting people on the Tor and at the dinner. On the Tor there was a group with a peace banner planning a demonstration for the next day, the 11th of the 11th of the 11th. I wished them luck. Peace is the fundamental value of federalism. At dinner, Paddy did not use the "F" word but spoke of the need for countries to work together in Europe and characterised the independence chimera of the eurosceptics as "the perfect sovereignty of corks bobbing around in the wake of an ocean liner".

Responsibility to Protect

I lost a debate last night. Not so terrible, you might think. We all lose arguments and perhaps I was wrong. I was defending the intervention in Libya by the USA, UK and France under UNSC 1973. My argument was based on the development of the Responsibility to Protect. I am disappointed not that I failed to persuade people that this intervention is a good, practical example of the doctrine, which is arguable. No, I am downhearted that radical, peace-loving people rejected the whole concept. Some went so far as to say that national sovereignty is essential to democracy ! As Lord Lothian proclaimed in 1935, "Pacifism is not enough". I am convinced that national sovereignty is the root cause of war. There is nothing surprising about right-wing opposition to the evolution of supranational democracy and international law. Those like Murdoch who wield global commercial might will always resist it as it constrains and regulates them. I remain astonished at left-wing opposition. How do people who recognise the dangers of concentrated private economic power propose to challenge it if they will not support the construction of supranational governance and if they insist on the untrammelled sovereignty of nation-states ?

Is Baroness Ashton the problem ?

Excellent article by Joan Marc Simon in the New Federalist. Joan Marc says the problem with EU Common Foreign Policy isn't the High Representative herself but the impossible role of that office.

I agree with Joan Marc's general point but still think that Baroness Ashton could achieve more. Her background and her approach are managerial where what is needed is something a little tougher, a little more imaginative. The High Representative's job is impossible so she needs to enlarge the area of possibility, to push the envelope, to take a risk, to challenge the national leaders. This calls for political instinct not technocratic competence.

Federalisms - East and West

Just returned from an excellent conference on Federalisms organised by the Europaeum at St Anthony's College, Oxford. As well as the usual suspects, there were academics, politicians and journalists from India, USA and Europe. I found myself next to the complacent turncoat Roger Liddle at dinner but this was more than compensated for by the wonderful Bridget Kendall, whom I have always wanted to meet and didn't know was going to be there.
My visit was crowned by an hour in Blackwell's where I found that Iain Dale had included this blog in Total Politic's Guide to Political Blogging in the UK. Of course I had to buy a copy - it's only polite. It's a sort of vicarious vanity publishing.

This World is not Enough

The Grace levee was rudely interrupted this morning by Mark Mardell on the Today programme. The jolly red-faced fellow was in Ljubljana, Slovenia expressing surprise that there were still federalists in Europe. He was at the International Summer University ("This World is not Enough") of Young European Federalists, over whom I presided back in the 14th century. We were, I fear, a very serious lot but we never made it to the Today Programme, although I was interviewed by the British Forces Network in Berlin. Either he edited out any serious discussion or there wasn't any to begin with. The item was hardly a bonus for the federalist cause as you will discover if you select the listen again portion covering 07.45 on Friday 6th July.