Skip to main content

Is the Cameron-Clegg position on Syria crumbling?

It is perplexing. Cameron goes to the UN security council to get a resolution he  knew he had no chance of getting. He can do nothing about the veto of Russia and China. So what  then was it  all about? Once again the US administration is persuaded to go down the UN route against their better judgement. Bush would not have sought a second resolution before invading Iraq without being persuaded to do so by Blair. To help Blair, the Bush administration went for a second resolution.

What is crucial, however, is that Miliband has done what the Tory leadership should have done over the invasion of Iraq; refuse to give backing without conditions. MPs need time to reflect. 'We must act' is not itself an argument. It was repeated by William Hague today. Turning it into a mantra doesn't make it more forceful. This is followed by the slippery slope argument: if we don't act now then it would send a message that chemical weapons can be used with impunity.

In truth, we are always on such a slippery slope. Calling a particular point a 'thin end of the wedge' doesn't really advance us very far. We need more. First we need to see the evidence the US says it has that the Assad regime was responsible. What we have so far is William Hague and others saying 'of course they done it!' as if this was beyond challenge. It is a very dangerous argument.

As Tory MP Andrew Bridgen argued on Newsnight tonight, it is difficult to see for what reason the Assad regime would  use chemical weapons in that region. He is right to question the origin of the attack until evidence is produced to demonstrate definitively who perpetrated the attack. It is at this point that someone says 'come on it is obvious who did it!' But the answer to that is equally simplistic: no it is not obvious. So there we have it. It is clear what needs to be done. The evidence must be presented.

But when the evidence is presented we then need to see what military strike is proposed and consider what its likely consequences would be. It would only be acceptable, ethically and legally, if it would be more likely than not to protect the civilian population from further attacks. And there is the rub. What kind of action would do that?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha