He really believes this!!

[Boris]

 

The use of NATO in Kosovo is irrelevant. It was, by the letter of the law (at the time) illegal, but legitimate. However, the debate of humanitarian intervention has moved on since.

 

I'd say it is relevant in that I am alluding to unilateral action by the USA whereas your examples are of multilateral action.

[shaun.lawson]

 

 

Both the Russians and the Chinese would be more than happy to see the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, embroiled in a war. Let's them do what they want to do without any US moral indignation (e.g. Chechyna, Tibet).

 

No-one gives a soux for what the French think!

 

Well yes - no-one cares about what we think either, hence our alliance with the US. Britain and France are third rate powers nowadays in truth. But Boris: both Russia and China were bound to be utterly opposed to the precedent set by the war: historically, nation states have always been allowed to do as they wish within their own borders.

 

Hence Russia and China's justification for Chechnya and Tibet, as you say: they don't think it's anyone else's business. Therefore, had they had intelligence that Iraq had no WMD, they could've been expected to say so, because it would destroy the case for war; but they didn't. This despite Russia in particular having generally friendly ties with Saddam's regime.

[Brian_1874]

I think most of that rhetoric (from memory) was used to justify Afghanistan. There was Al Qaeda hiding in the hills and the poor women have to wear headscarfs and can't buy Armani.

 

Thats right shocking that if only they were civilised like that bastion

of free and open society Saudi Arabia

[Boris]

Well yes - no-one cares about what we think either, hence our alliance with the US. Britain and France are third rate powers nowadays in truth. But Boris: both Russia and China were bound to be utterly opposed to the precedent set by the war: historically, nation states have always been allowed to do as they wish within their own borders.

 

It's never stopped US moral outrage though!

 

Hence Russia and China's justification for Chechnya and Tibet, as you say: they don't think it's anyone else's business. Therefore, had they had intelligence that Iraq had no WMD, they could've been expected to say so, because it would destroy the case for war; but they didn't. This despite Russia in particular having generally friendly ties with Saddam's regime.

 

As I posted earlier, the invasion of Iraq was planned with the assistance of Iran to attempt, ironically, to stabalise the region. Domestic politics in Iran kind of made a bollocks of it in the end.

[allanio]

I think most of that rhetoric (from memory) was used to justify Afghanistan. There was Al Qaeda hiding in the hills and the poor women have to wear headscarfs and can't buy Armani.

 

Afghanistan was justified on the concept of International Self-Defence (be it customary or Art.51), not humanitarian intervention.

 

I'd say it is relevant in that I am alluding to unilateral action by the USA whereas your examples are of multilateral action.

 

With respect, every single international lawyer would disagree with you. Regardless of how many parties took action in Kosovo - in terms of the law - it was unilateral intervention. This is a point that was debated endlessly in at the tail-end of 1999 and carried on through until 2003.

[Boris]

 

 

With respect, every single international lawyer would disagree with you. Regardless of how many parties took action in Kosovo - in terms of the law - it was unilateral intervention. This is a point that was debated endlessly in at the tail-end of 1999 and carried on through until 2003.

 

Fair dos. I never realised that UN action a la the Congo, was on a par with a single country takingmatters into their own hands.

 

Lawyers, eh!

[allanio]

Fair dos. I never realised that UN action a la the Congo, was on a par with a single country takingmatters into their own hands.

 

Lawyers, eh!

 

It isn't. I accidentally included the Congo in a list of instances where UN authorisation has been absent. So apologies for that.

 

Essentially, under international law, Art.2(4) of the UN Charter bans all uses of force (or threats of force) unless under Art.51 self-defence (or per its customary equivalent - but this is a whole different issue), or authorised by the Security Council under Ch.VII of the Charter. Anything outwith these is illegal. Enter, then, the argument of humanitarian intervention. It has been argued for decades (possibly centuries, I remember reading something along the lines of de Vattel arguing that the right existed in 1852, but this was before the 'new' international order) that if there are massives human rights abuses (like crimes against humanity, genocide and the like) in a country and the Security Council is unable (or unwilling) to act, then a nation (or nations, it will still be technically unilateral as it is without UNSC support) can intervene for the sole purpose of protecting those human rights.

 

This is, of course, a very, very brief outline of the topic as literally hundreds upon hundreds of books have been written on the topic. If you're interested to know the ins and outs, I can point you in the direction of decent material.

[wibble]

Afghanistan was justified on the concept of International Self-Defence (be it customary or Art.51), not humanitarian intervention.

 

Agreed, but popular support was won with the "we'll save Afghan women from the Taliban". That and the nasty Taliban were blowing up some cool old statues.

[stirlo]

Interesting. It's quite an exercise in counter-factualism, really. Had WMD or terrorism never come into it, and the whole thing been presented all the way through as a clear cut case of humanitarian intervention - put simply, of doing the right thing - Blair might well have carried the people with him far more effectively I guess. But Parliament? Not sure.

 

I disagree. If it was about regime change the first question people would have asked is why Iraq? - because much as Saddam's regime was deeply unpleasant, there are other places in the world you would start if you were looking to make the world a better place.

 

On the terrorism issue, that is another complete red herring used as propaganda by the Blair and Bush administrations. There is - and was - simply no evidence to suggest a link between the Iraqi regime and Al Quaeda. As we all know, though, the US/British invasion most certainly changed that. The war introduced a lethal form of terrorism to Iraq that had simply not existed there before.

 

Just one general point on Blair. I can't understand how anyone could give any credibility to this guy after the Bernie Ecclestone affair. Remember F1 Racing was mysteriously excluded on the ban on tobacco advertising a matter of weeks after Ecclestone had donated ?1 million to the Labour party?

But Tony assured us there was no link and that he was "a pretty straight sort of guy". Aye, right.

[shaun.lawson]

I disagree. If it was about regime change the first question people would have asked is why Iraq? - because much as Saddam's regime was deeply unpleasant, there are other places in the world you would start if you were looking to make the world a better place.

 

On the terrorism issue, that is another complete red herring used as propaganda by the Blair and Bush administrations. There is - and was - simply no evidence to suggest a link between the Iraqi regime and Al Quaeda. As we all know, though, the US/British invasion most certainly changed that. The war introduced a lethal form of terrorism to Iraq that had simply not existed there before.

 

Just one general point on Blair. I can't understand how anyone could give any credibility to this guy after the Bernie Ecclestone affair. Remember F1 Racing was mysteriously excluded on the ban on tobacco advertising a matter of weeks after Ecclestone had donated ?1 million to the Labour party?

But Tony assured us there was no link and that he was "a pretty straight sort of guy". Aye, right.

 

Well, indeed. But such is the world we live in now, there will probably always be scandals we can point to in the case of any Prime Minister: how much money did both Brown and Cameron have to pay back after the expenses saga, for example?

 

When I mentioned terrorism, I didn't for a moment mean a connection between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida. Bush tried to claim this, and none of my American friends thought it was anything other than hilarious nonsense; Blair never claimed it. What I meant was Blair's argument that if Iraq had WMD, what'd be the chances of terrorists later getting their hands on them? Something that could apply to all rogue states really. Of course, because Iraq didn't have WMD, the case didn't hold up - but that doesn't mean he was lying.

 

And you're absolutely right about what happened to Iraq afterwards. So many people opposed the war because they were convinced Iraq would be turned into a terrorist paradise; they were horribly correct. It is simply incredible that the US and UK made no plans to deal with this.

[stirlo]

Well, indeed. But such is the world we live in now, there will probably always be scandals we can point to in the case of any Prime Minister: how much money did both Brown and Cameron have to pay back after the expenses saga, for example?

 

When I mentioned terrorism, I didn't for a moment mean a connection between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida. Bush tried to claim this, and none of my American friends thought it was anything other than hilarious nonsense; Blair never claimed it. What I meant was Blair's argument that if Iraq had WMD, what'd be the chances of terrorists later getting their hands on them? Something that could apply to all rogue states really. Of course, because Iraq didn't have WMD, the case didn't hold up - but that doesn't mean he was lying.

And you're absolutely right about what happened to Iraq afterwards. So many people opposed the war because they were convinced Iraq would be turned into a terrorist paradise; they were horribly correct. It is simply incredible that the US and UK made no plans to deal with this.

 

I think the evidence of the Iraq inquiry so far has only strengthened the case that Blair told lies. I hope that one day he'll be made to answer for his lies but sadly I don't hold much hope.