From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Dec 18 2004 - 15:32:26 GMT
Hi Mark,
I think we can recombine the IL and non-combatant bits of the thread. I sometimes find it difficult
to keep track of lots of different posts, so I'll try and make this one clear to follow for anyone
else. (I notice you've been trying out different ways to keep track)
msh says: If the men who order the bombing, as well as the men who actually drop the bombs, would be
willing to so order and act EVEN IF their own families will be among the innocents killed, then I
would say that bombing the munitions factory is morally justified and achieving a legitimate
military goal. Otherwise, an alternate plan for destroying the factory must come into play, such as
dropping in special forces to sabotage the plant, or simply sending in ground troops.
Sam says: I think that your point IS effectively a recasting of the non-combatant immunity point,
and that it is a powerful way of putting the point across. With caveats that I'm sure will come up,
I agree with it.
> msh says:
> Fair enough. Thanks for taking time with this. Even though, on the
> surface, it's just us working it out between ourselves, I think what
> we are discussing is really about discovering the common ground of
> humanity.
Agreed. I'm here to learn and explore, and I think these are important questions.
It's probably worth while my actually stating what my position is, because it sometimes seems to get
lost beneath the jousting. I think the decision to attack Iraq was the right one but only because
the alternative options were worse. I do continually wonder whether I am right in thinking that, but
until I am actually convinced that there was a viable alternative to the invasion (with the various
political/military/intelligence factors as they were at that point in time) I'll continue to think
it was the 'right' choice. I'm not at all wanting to say that the US/UK actions are morally pure,
indeed, that they're not profoundly compromised in all sorts of ways, but I'm still not convinced
there was a better option available. That's what I see as the key difference - but we'll come on to
that in your comments.
> Would you agree, given the clear history of US violations of
> International Law whenever IL "got in the way" of US realpolitik,
> that any US pose as defenders of IL is absurd?
Yes.
> If so, how can you believe your own claim that the US worked in good
> faith within the framework of International Law at arriving at it's
> "conclusion" that IL had failed?
I think the 'good faith' bit came via Tony Blair. I think if it had been someone else, the US
wouldn't have gone through the UN. Cheney argued for ignoring the UN, I believe. In other words, I
think Bush chose that route because it was the price of getting the UK on-side. More broadly, I
think there is an understated confusion here - I'm thinking like a Brit, you're thinking like an
American; in other words, I'm roughly defending Blair's point of view, you're criticising Bush's
point of view. That can sometimes mislead us a bit.
> My point is, the decision to invade Iraq had been made SIX MONTHS
> before it occurred, as this much time was necessary to move resources
> into position. My point is they had no attention of following IL,
> regardless of how pristine the protocol. Do you REALLY believe they
> would not have invaded if the SC had vetoed the US resolution? It
> seems to me, If they were at all concerned with following IL, they
> would have let the veto occur and then cite it as more evidence of
> their position that IL had failed, and make such an argument WITHIN
> the accepted framework.
I think that's an interesting argument. One of Gandhi's attitudes which I ponder a lot is his
attitude to the law, which, paraphrasing, says that it is sometimes right to break the law, but if
so, you must allow the law to take its proper course, because law in and of itself is a good thing
which must be supported. What you suggest would have clarified things - but then, it was pretty
clear what was going to happen anyway. I agree that, for all intents and purposes, the decision to
go to war was taken much earlier.
> The essence of my last post is that we either work within the
> International Law framework, trying to make it better, or we regress
> to a world where might makes right. So, the rest of this is
> academic, though interesting.
Hmm. Whilst I'm not a fan of might makes right, I don't think this exhausts the possibilities. I see
law as a means to an end, not an end in itself; in other words it can sometimes clash with other
goods which have preference. Now, having said that, I think we need to give a _very high_ priority
to the rule of law, and so the justification for breaching it needs to be quite clear (which we're
arguing about) but do you reject the possibility?
This is what is underlying my '8-prong' (sounds disturbingly kinky) was trying to put across, and
why I was happy for you to replace IL with 'current system' or something similar. Thing is, we are
still some way from having an international rule-of-law that corresponds to the rule of law within a
state. Things like the democratic accountability and enforcement of jurisdictions etc, which I see
as essential, do not yet exist. I think they should exist, but before we attain that blessed state,
we have to work with what we've got. I think the failure to get the second resolution was tragic in
all sorts of ways, and we haven't seen the full implications of it yet, by any means. But I really
do think the French have more to answer for than the US in that regard.
> msh says:
> Not exactly. The deadly sanctions were the US insisted and enforced
> sanctions on food, medicine, medical equipment, industrial equipment
> to be used in rebuiding sewage, water, electrical systems
> deliberately destroyed during Iraq Attack 1991. The suffering
> caused by Iraq's business dealings with other nations is invisible by
> comparison.
As far as I am aware food and medical supplies were allowed by the sanctions regime. But in any
case, I think the sanctions regime was barbaric, and should never have been continued for more than
six months or so. The fact that they carried on I take as evidence of the truth of your
'non-combatant' point, ie that the West didn't care one whit about the lives of the Iraqi people,
and the thought of having to lose a western life to prevent the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
deaths - well, that was a non-starter.
> msh says:
> I said nope because you seem to believe that the ONLY valid UNSC
> response would be to OK a full-scale attack on Iraq. <snip>
> There is no reason to believe that a refined sanction regime, or
> sending back UNMOVIC, would not have had positive effects. At any
> rate, what's lost in trying? The only objection to trying is that
> the US already has all this POWER in place, and they wanted to stay
> on schedule.
This is what I'm not convinced by, and is perhaps the key to where you can make me change my mind.
If I felt there was a course of action which would have a) eased the overall plight of the Iraqi
people AND b) kept Saddam defanged then yes, I would agree that this would have been a better choice
than the invasion. I just can't see any course of action which would have achieved both. Feel free
to expand on your comments here if you think you can make a strong case.
> msh says:
> And I would say, as I did above, and in my previous post, that we
> either work within the framework of International Law, addressing
> its weaknesses and making it better, or we regress to a world where
> might makes right.
Whereas I think that in this situation a decision needed to be made - indeed the decision should
have been made ten years previously. The situation reveals serious weaknesses in that structure of
IL, which will doubtless be addressed in the coming years. The big difference (and a very revealing
difference) between this and the Gandhian point is that there is no way of saying 'let IL take its
course, and accept the punishment'.
> Your position seems to be that the most powerful country on earth can
> accept or reject IL as it sees fit. Clearly, this is rejecting the
> concept of International Law, not embracing it. And, I don't know
> about you, but that is not the kind of world I think we should be
> struggling toward. Remember, the balance of violence can shift, and
> almost certainly will.
I agree with you; in particular, I think in about 30 years time the US will suddenly realise just
how far it has fallen from hegemonic status, when it will need to rely on the norms of IL much more.
The thing is, however many bad things you pile up on the debit side - almost all of which I agree
with - I'm still not persuaded that continuing the status quo (or 'tweaking' it through changing the
sanctions regime etc) would not have been worse. The sanctions regime was evil, corrupt and
corrupting and had to be stopped. I think there are only two realistic options in that situation -
drop the sanctions and try to reintegrate Iraq into the wider system, or, regime change through
military action. For various reasons I think the first of those was unacceptable. Perhaps we should
focus on that?
Regards
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 18 2004 - 15:37:17 GMT