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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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