Category: Uncategorized

More than once over the last few days you will doubtless have read, as I have, that the vote in parliament not to support military action against Syria reflects the state of British public opinion. But if the results of a poll reported in yesterday’s Sunday Times are to be believed, it isn’t quite as simple as this might look. Rather, a majority of the British electorate are in favour of military action in Syria provided the burden of it doesn’t fall on us. As follows (£ – scroll down):

It is not that we oppose all military action against Syria: it is Britain’s participation that we reject, writes Peter Kellner.

If the United States decides to bomb Syria, most of us will cheer it on from the sidelines. YouGov’s latest poll for The Sunday Times was conducted between Friday lunchtime and yesterday morning, after the news had been digested of the government’s defeat in the House of Commons.

It finds that by more than four to one (68% against 16%) we think parliament took the right decision – an even wider margin than the two to one opposition to military action recorded before Thursday’s debate.

Our latest figures show that this majority was driven by a fear of British troops being dragged into another quagmire in the Middle East, not a desire for the West to go soft on President Bashar al-Assad.

We asked people whether Britain should help America if President Barack Obama ordered an attack and requested our help. By huge majorities we want Britain to share intelligence information about Syria (by 70% to 15%) and to support America at the United Nations (by 64% to 16%).

By a smaller but still clear margin (48% to 31%), we would be happy to give access to Britain’s military base in Cyprus to US forces attacking Syria.
…..

The real lesson of the past week is that after Iraq, the bar for public support for war has been raised far higher.

British voters are wary of sending our troops into action without firm evidence of the need to do so and a cast-iron assurance that our soldiers won’t end up dying in a distant land for no good reason.

It’s a perfectly familiar impulse: ‘Something should be done about this; I hope somebody or other will do it (but don’t look at me).’ It’s a hope that the responsibility for taking some necessary action will be picked up by someone else.

And that hope is indeed a peril in the air right now. As the Times leader puts it this morning (£), ‘the British vote against action last week did indeed betray a very European sort of complacency, born of the belief that others will solve the problems of our hemisphere’. Never mind European complacency, however. How is one to read President Obama’s decision to delay an attack on Syria while seeking the approval of Congress. Perhaps it was no more than the ‘virtuous choice to put democracy, debate and diplomacy before acts of war’. But what if instead of or as well as this it reflects a reluctance on Obama’s own part to take responsibility for punishing the heinous crime against humanity perpetrated by the Assad regime, a desire to disperse that responsibility?

Should Congress fail to give its approval, is Obama then off the moral hook, so to speak? And who precisely will be taking responsibility for the obligation of the international community, professed at the Nuremberg trials and a thousand times since, to make tyrants answerable for grave crimes against humanity? Instead of the theme – much discredited already – of ‘Never again’, the danger now is of what Matthew d’Ancona refers to as a grubby carnival of inaction.

An argument one encounters from time to time in discussions of the possibility of military intervention on humanitarian or related grounds was voiced again this week by Brian Barder:

I am shocked by the views widely expressed in the blogosphere and by MPs on both sides of the house of commons according to which it would have been perfectly all right to go ahead and use force against Syria even if we had failed to get the authority of the Security Council for it. This careless willingness to subvert the whole basis of the UN Charter and the central provisions in international law governing the use of force in international relations is deplorable and disreputable.

What surprises me, for my part, is the way in which this makes of legality an absolute value, a principle to be respected without exception or qualification. Naturally, anyone committed to democracy and the rule of law must give proper weight to the legitimate procedures of democratic institutions and of law-making and legal adjudication. But there is an elementary moral distinction between (for short) fair procedures and good outcomes, and no one can reasonably settle on just one of those two values as the be-all and end-all of political or civic life. Thus, for example, we accept that there are judicial processes for adjudging a person’s guilt or innocence when they are accused of committing a crime, and which we know under the heading ‘fair trial’. But not every outcome of a fair trial is in fact just, there are miscarriages of justice and individuals are sometimes found guilty who are not and vice versa. Equally, not every democratic decision is just, and neither is every existing de facto law.

Now, those who believe in democracy and the rule of law by and large accept that when they are in a minority on some question they should nonetheless obey the law that has issued from the democratic process and been properly enacted into law. But there are cases where they should not accept this. So, you drive on whichever side of the road you are required to, irrespective of your own preference; but you should not go along with a democratically decided genocide or commission of crimes against humanity nor any laws embodying such decisions. Where to draw the line may in some cases be hard, but a moral line there is for all but the most obtuse worshipper of de facto authority.

I have already blogged about the difficulties of deciding on military intervention in Syria. But simply to put about vapid stuff regarding UN Security Council authorization evades the real difficulty. In that category – of vapid stuff – I would class the following from Ed Miliband:

[W]hen it comes to questions of military intervention, it is clear that effective engagement with international institutions is essential. Britain must therefore always seek to work with the United Nations and in accordance with international law, not by dismissing the UN as at best an irritation and at worst an obstacle to our objectives.

Hard-headed but full-hearted engagement with the UN is vital both because it helps establish the moral authority of any recommended course of action, and because it ensures that such action has the very best chance of success. The UN security council is the forum in which Britain should seek to make its case to the world, test that case, and where effective alliances should be built. This does not rule out acting without the authorisation of the security council but in accordance with international law, as was the case with Kosovo. But seeking to work through the UN must be the essential precondition of any action.

Miliband permits himself a get-out clause at the end (‘does not rule out etc’), but he writes as though it were not already a well-tested fact that veto-wielding nations at the UN will block military intervention in Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population. And this, to state what should be obvious to him, is of an order of moral gravity that no contrary decision of any decision-making body can undo. There may be valid reasons against military action in Syria, but that the UN Security Council – through the exercise of the veto power by Russia and/or China – might not recognize the seriousness of this flagrant violation of international law isn’t one of them.

The signs are now clear that Washington and other Western powers, including Britain, are considering military action against Syria on account of the regime’s apparent use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Would such action be justified? In the debate about this at least three types of issue are centrally involved: (1) whether there is a basis in international law for military intervention; (2) whether it is likely to do any good; and (3) whether it might be merited in any case on retributive grounds.

(1) My own view on whether there is a basis in international law for humanitarian intervention in situations of this kind is that there is. As I have already stated this view at some length, I will be brief on the present occasion. There is not only a right, there is a duty, of humanitarian intervention when a government is committing mass atrocities against a civilian population. This can be established by reference both to customary international law and to the doctrine of A Responsibility to Protect, underwritten by the UN. The question, in particular, of whether a UN resolution mandating intervention is required can be quickly answered – no – for a reason given here: ‘The U.N. Security Council is not the sole or unique custodian about what is legal and what is legitimate’. To put the same thing another way: a system of law that would countenance mass atrocity without any remedy simply because the interests of a veto-wielding power at the UN blocks remedial action is morally unacceptable, indeed intolerable; and so where the UN itself becomes delinquent by not upholding some of its own most fundamental principles, the UN not only may, it should, be defied by member states willing to give those principles more respect.

(2) However, integral to the doctrines of humanitarian intervention and R2P alike is the requirement that a prospective military intervention should have a reasonable chance of success. Intervention is not to be contemplated without regard to the likely consequences. In the present case, this is, in my view, the most difficult of the three issues to resolve. Would military intervention against Syria now do any good? That depends, of course, on what its objectives are: whether to influence the overall outcome of the civil war in that country; or merely to weaken the regime’s military capabilities; or to deter it from further gas attacks on the Syrian people; etc. I don’t propose to offer answers on each different conception of possible objectives. Indeed I don’t know that I can. My earlier uncertainties over Syria have not dissipated. But, in any case, one should note that intervention may be justified even if the overall balance of consequences is not beneficial.

(3) For intervention may be undertaken on retributive grounds, to punish a regime that so blatantly flouts the norms of international humanitarian law and the principles of all civilized morality. It may be regarded as morally unthinkable that such a regime should be able to commit gross crimes against humanity with impunity – without being made to suffer any significant penalty. In this situation military intervention is undertaken as a reprisal (scroll to the end) for the crimes committed.

How one weighs the force of (3) against that of (2) in a case where there may be negative consequences I am unsure. But it is these considerations rather than UN authorization or lack of it that should take precedence.

I’ve not given much thought to ranking the worst ideas there are, so I wouldn’t know what the very worst among them is. But Doug Saunders in the Globe and Mail offers as a candidate for ‘the most harmful idea in the world’ that of Western values. This is because it’s a convenient tool for dictators:

When autocrats on the other side of the world want to deny their people basic rights and freedoms, they can then use our chauvinism to spread the notion that these universal human assets are merely “Western” imports or incursions.

This sleight of hand is now taking place on a large scale in China. In April, the country’s new President Xi Jinping issued a memo, known as Document No. 9, that has been sent to Communist Party officials throughout the country for discussion and implementation. The document lists the “seven perils” that should be eradicated from Chinese society.

A copy of Document No. 9 seen and verified by The New York Times places “Western constitutional democracy” at the top of its list of perils, then follows with more “subversive currents” to guard against: “promoting ‘universal values’ of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation (and) ardently pro-market ‘neo-liberalism.’” Across the country, cadres and mandarins are taking part in education sessions to fight against these threats.

This sort of language has long been a familiar part of the Chinese state-controlled media, whose opinion articles frequently contrast these dangerous “Western” values with the “Confucian values” of deference to authority, social order, harmonious co-operation, common endeavour and unquestioning loyalty. Eastern and Western values, in this popular formula, are fire and ice.

Naturally, deference to authority and unquestioning loyalty go down well with the holders and beneficiaries of undemocratic power; but by the same token it is testimony to the fact that liberal and democratic values are not merely parochial that they are seized on everywhere where people are ruled in authoritarian ways and object to being so. And, one might also add, there are internationally recognized documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to give these values legal and institutional weight.

England have won the Ashes series as they were expected to, though not by the margin many anticipated. They deserved their victory and everything that goes with this, including the congratulations of opposing fans – like me. I don’t begrudge these one bit. England have the better players and make more of the cricketing talents currently at their disposal than Australia do of theirs. They also seem more ‘together’ as a team. So, congratulations to England on their 3-0 victory. Two draws seem about right for the degree of fight that Australia managed to muster over the series as a whole, and three defeats accurately reflect the disparity between the two sides. I don’t foresee Australia turning a corner any time soon, though I’d like to be wrong about this.

All that said, I want to strike a dissenting note regarding the praise Michael Clarke has received for his ‘generous’ declaration yesterday. One of the things I think needs to change before Australia do turn an Ashes corner is that they need to find a better, tougher captain. A Test captain, of course, is reliant on the quality of the players he leads, and Clarke doesn’t have the collection of talents that Border, Taylor and Steve Waugh had from 1989 onwards. Nowhere near. But a captain who, already 3-0 down, hands the opposition a chance of victory in the way Clarke did at the Oval shouldn’t be in charge any longer than it takes to find a suitable replacement for him.

One of the reasons Test match cricket has been the great game it is (on my conception of it anyway) is because each side tries as best it can to win while making it as hard as possible for the opposition to do so. It isn’t about making charitable declarations that give the opposing team a chance where otherwise it would have none, even if this does set up an exciting run chase that will entertain spectators. If that is the form of ‘entertainment’ wanted, there are enough shorter forms of the game where it can be had, a bun fight any day of the week which has all the attraction of being pretty much like the last one, and the one before that, and the one before that.

In Test cricket according to its best traditions, and this includes Ashes cricket, everything won has to be earned. Clarke seems to have entertained the notion that it was more important for Australia to win the Oval Test than it was not to lose it – or at least this is what he thought until the prospect of their losing it loomed up as a likelihood, as if he couldn’t have foreseen that this might well happen. But the better of two draws has to be preferable to a 4-0 scoreline and that is what Clarke risked. There will always be plenty of voices, especially on the other side, to applaud such generosity. It was the same at Headingley in 2001 when acting Australian captain Adam Gilchrist forfeited a game that Australia at that point could not lose, by making a soft declaration. In the game just concluded, some half of the 15 Australian wickets to fall in the two innings were lost while Australia were trying to push the run rate along to get a result, when they could have been shutting England out.

I am perfectly well aware of the logic according to which you improve your own chances of winning by giving your opponents a chance of winning, so tempting them into risk and error. But it isn’t always true. It is just as much the case that a team will often fold up when it is staring over a precipice: when its only realistic alternatives are the draw and the deep drop. In today’s Times Mike Atherton says (£): ‘Clarke’s declaration was brave and generous – whether it was doing his fragile young team any good is another matter’. Quite so. Except not brave, merely foolhardy.

On Wednesday it will be the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, at which Martin Luther King delivered his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. Events to mark the anniversary have begun this weekend.

Some well-known figures who took part 50 years ago and are pictured here: Marion Anderson, Joan Baez, Josephine Baker, James Baldwin, Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando, Sammy Davis Jr, Bob Dylan, Charlton Heston, Burt Lancaster, Joseph Mankiewicz, Paul Newman, Jackie Robinson, Joanne Woodward.

My father died this afternoon. Out of respect for his memory I will be observing a brief silence here over the coming days. Last November, on his hundredth birthday, I posted this tribute. To mark his passing, I reproduce below the short speech I made on that occasion.

What do you say about a man who’s celebrating his 100th birthday? I’ve never had to do it before.

OK, I guess the first thing you say is: what an achievement! Those of us here who are getting on a bit already know that life doesn’t get any easier as you reach your mature years, if I can put it like that. Certain things that used to be altogether straightforward start to get difficult. There is no more surprising fact about life in a way. How much more so if you get to be 100. So the first thing I want to say about, and to, my dad, is well done – congratulations.

The second thing I want to say is, you played a blinder. You played a blinder, Dad. You’ve led a good life, professionally, personally, and in every way; been a generous man and a good and loving father to your children.

The third thing I want to say is that it’s an old fact but one which should be remembered, that Dad is of the generation who fought in the Second World War. He was in a tank squadron, first in North Africa, then in Italy, and even to this day what those who fought against Nazism achieved, what they saved the world from, must not be forgotten. Naturally, that generation didn’t choose to be young men and women when they were, but they were called upon to fight against an abomination and they did it. Dad was one of them and I’m proud of him for that alone, apart from what he has done personally for his family.

Fourth, in case there’s a stray person who crossed his path and hadn’t noticed, let me say that Dad has been no slouch in the brain department. What this guy knows about history, politics, economics and a bunch of other subjects, is enough to set anyone back on their heels. And he never kept it to himself; he always shared it.

An abiding memory of my childhood is Sunday afternoons at the Gerases, Jack and Mary’s, 68 Moffatt Avenue, Hillside, Bulawayo. All the friends were there: the Friends (Harry and Eve), the Morgans, the Warings, the Lichtensteins, the Williams, and others besides. And in the conversations during the afternoon, you could be sure that Dad would get his chance to hold forth, because others wanted to hear what he had to say.

That never changed about him, and the discussions I’ve had with him, often agreeing, sometimes not, but vigorous discussions from which I always learned something, were too many to count.

It’s a sadness that Mary and Nita are not here today to celebrate with Dad and the rest of us; but, though I don’t believe in people living on once they pass, and neither does Dad believe this, I think we can safely assume that the memory of the two of them is here with enough of us to make them present in some way, and part of this occasion.

One more thing I want to say is that it’s really good that so many of the family are able to be here. People have come from as far away as… Cambridge; and Norwich. And Israel, and Moscow and Vilnius, and Croatia. Thanks to everyone for coming and let’s make sure we give my dad a wonderful day to remember.

Dad, we’re all so happy to be here with you today; to wish you happy birthday and many happy returns. Know that you are a loved father and grandfather, and that you made many good friends in your life.

If I may finish with a personal word: you have been a good example to me throughout my life, and for that I will always be grateful.

L’chaim. To Dad, to Jack, on his 100th birthday.

In a speech delivered recently in Germany, Noam Chomsky identifies the shortcomings, as he sees them, of ‘”really existing capitalist democracy”, RECD for short, pronounced “wrecked” by accident’. Now there’s plenty wrong with existing democracies, but the strange thing is that, in discussing what, Chomsky would have us believe that on one question after another public opinion is out of harmony with what those who govern are ready to implement. In fact, he says, really existing capitalist democracies are plutocracies. But wouldn’t it follow, if popular opinion favours something else, that popular opinion is already Chomskian in character? Or at least is generically anti-capitalist, anarcho-socialist, or what have you? And yet political forces of this character trying to win a following such as might give them strong representation in the political assemblies of the aforesaid capitalist democracies don’t seem to be making much headway.

I’d say there’s a discrepancy somewhere in what Chomsky is telling people.

Human Rights Watch is saying that the use of lethal force by the Egyptian security apparatus in dispersing sit-ins has produced ‘the most serious incident of mass unlawful killings in modern Egyptian history’. It speaks of ‘a failure to observe basic international policing standards on use of lethal force’. No surprise there then. Further details here.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft asks:

Does Labour have any real purpose any more? Or does politics?

On the first of those two questions I could suggest something anodyne like: presenting itself as a credible party of government while also continuing the tradition of trying to create a more just and less unequal society. On the second, however, I would have thought we have ample material before us right now to illustrate some of the important purposes of democratic politics. It’s all very well to wax cynical about ‘the continuing depoliticisation of society’, but take a look at either Syria or Egypt and you may get an idea why even the reduced levels of interest in politics that the established democracies manage to maintain these days are not to be sneezed at.