Hi Lawrence,
My own view is that the MoQ can't provide much in any specific conflict,
simply because the MoQ operates at a 'higher' ie more abstract level, so
that people can agree to accept the MoQ as a governing paradigm, and yet
disagree on what the way forward might be in any particular conflict.
However, IMO I don't think it's possible to accept the MoQ and be a
unilateralist in international relations. So some of the positions are ruled
out, even if irreconcilable differences remain.
Sam
"If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the seriousness
of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: MD Baghdad and Morality
> Very nice analysis, Sam.
>
> I do think that your conclusions can be -- and have been -- reached by
> thoughtful people without the benefit of MOQ...so without taking anything
> away from your insightful analysis, I am still wondering what MOQ
> contributes to the consideration of actual conflicts. You may remember
that
> a couple of months ago I asked this same question with regard to the
> Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- what does the MOQ suggest with reagrd to
an
> Isr-Pal solution, and felt from the few but thoughtful responses that
> essentially the answer was, not much. I would love to be wrong on this,
as
> those who are engaged in tackling these real problems do need all the help
> they can get.
>
> Best regards,
> Lawry
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Elizaphanian
> > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 5:23 AM
> > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Subject: Re: MD Baghdad and Morality
> >
> >
> > Hi Rog,
> >
> > You asked an interesting question; one which I have been mulling over
for
> > quite a while:
> >
> > > What would you all suggest the MOQ endorses in the case of Iraq? What
> > should
> > > the rest of the world do with the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein?
> > What
> > > course is the best course?
> > >
> >
> > A few things on this.
> >
> > The decision to attack Iraq has in effect now been taken,
> > informally if not
> > formally. That is because if Bush now backs away from a committed
conflict
> > then Saddam will be perceived to have 'won', and his position will
become
> > significantly stronger as a result - his credibility with Arab
governments
> > (and especially the Arab 'street') will be greatly enhanced - and his
> > capacity to build up his economy and gain nukes (WMD) will be enhanced.
In
> > that case, a few years down the line, we will have a
> > nuclear-armed Saddam to
> > deal with, and the last situation will be much worse than the first.
> > Although I don't rate Bush's intellect very highly (his or his advisers)
I
> > think that much will be clear to them, as will the fact that Bush will
be
> > exposed to ridicule in any re-election campaign, if he doesn't follow
> > through on his bellicose rhetoric. (That he has resorted to such
rhetoric,
> > and closed off his options, is one reason why I don't rate the White
House
> > Intelligence Quotient particularly highly. Bush's various speeches to
Wall
> > Street also displayed a less than historical grasp of the situation -
> > perhaps he thinks the name Hoover only applies to vacuum
> > cleaners. But that
> > is off the point)
> >
> > The justification/rationale for the attack runs roughly as follows:
> > 1. Saddam is demonstrably aggressive and has used WMD.
> > 2. Saddam is renewing his WMD capacity.
> > 3. If Saddam gains WMD he will supply them to terrorists to attack the
> > US/West and/or use them to establish hegemony over the oil
> > resources of the
> > Middle East.
> > 4. 3 is an unacceptable outcome, therefore we must act now to prevent
it.
> >
> > Logically, I think 3 follows from 1 and 2; much of the
> > interesting debate it
> > seems to me is about what 4 involves. I don't think 1 or 3 are really at
> > issue. Although Saddam isn't the only monster out there, he seems the
most
> > volatile and nasty. However, 2 is a little open to question. Embedded in
2
> > (and most of the pro-war arguments) is the assumption or
> > assertion that the
> > international regime on non-proliferation is ineffective. I think
> > that this
> > point needs to be made more openly and strongly than it is at present.
To
> > say the least, there is room for scepticism about both sides of the
> > argument - it is too easy a soundbite for someone like Rumsfeld to
mouth,
> > but that doesn't make it false. I haven't had a chance to read the UN
> > inspectors reports, which would seem the first thing to do in
> > order to gain
> > my own conclusion. In any case, the authorities may have evidence which
is
> > intrinsically unavailable for public consumption, so it comes down to a
> > question of trust. I'll come back to that.
> >
> > It seems to me that the most important aspects relate to issues of
> > international law. And this is also where the MoQ has something to say.
> > Broadly, with regard to a society of individuals, a social order has
more
> > quality if it is subject to the rule of law. The development of a rule
of
> > law was a highly dynamic break through with regard to human society - it
> > prevented the concentration of force in the hand of the most
> > brutal/strongest, and allowed more people to get on with their lives,
with
> > all the DQ possibilities inherent from that. The rule of law
> > underpins both
> > democracy and capitalism (so I'm assuming you'll be happy with that Rog
> > -) ) It seems to me that an international order which respects a rule
of
> > law is of higher quality than one which does not - so the EU is of
higher
> > quality than the UN, which is of higher quality to the international
order
> > c1900.
> >
> > If the US unilaterally attacks Iraq then it will undermine the rule of
law
> > at the international level. Of course, the rule of law internationally
is
> > something of a misnomer - it's a fragile thing, lacking, in particular,
an
> > effective enforcement body - and clearly there are times when 'you have
to
> > take the law into your own hands'. But an action against Iraq which is
> > undertaken without regard to international law would be very different
to
> > one undertaken with a heavy heart because international law had
> > failed, and
> > which was consequently followed up by action to support international
law.
> > (I think this is the difference between Bush and Blair. Bush
> > 'couldn't give
> > a shit' about international law/opinion, whereas Blair seems to have a
> > strongly internationalist impulse).
> >
> > One other thing: one of the principles of 'just war' theory (which is
what
> > international law derives from) is that the outcome of a war
> > should not be a
> > worsening of the overall situation. I think this is a point that
> > needs to be
> > more thoroughly aired and debated. In particular, there seems to be no
> > attention paid to the law (or risk) of unintended outcomes.
> > Whilst I have no
> > doubt that if the US was serious about it, it could conquer Iraq and
> > dismantle Saddam's system, I worry about the long term
> > consequences for that
> > country and also for the other major countries in the region, especially
> > Saudi Arabia, which could easily have a 1979-type revolution - and
again,
> > the last outcome will be worse than the first. However, this is a
question
> > of the balance of risks, and is for those in authority to judge - it's
not
> > something I think we can second guess. However, I'm sure we will be
given
> > sufficient insight into the quality of judgement and decision making
that
> > characterises our dearly beloved leaders. It's possible that the US
could
> > make the right decision for the wrong reasons (as also the converse, of
> > course).
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > "If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the
seriousness
> > of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:24 BST