Last night I listened via my radio to Parliament debating late into the evening as to what, if anything, might be done about becoming involved in military action in Syria.

I was surprised at the eventual result. I am perfectly aware of all the politicking and manoeuvres. I suspect that I and most of the population are less concerned by political oneupmanship than by the result. But one matter concerned me: ‘legality’ and what this meant.

Many years ago I had the privilege of attending one of England’s two oldest Universities, and there for a while I studied ‘International Law’. It is a very complicated topic, although I did do rather well at it, and even won some prizes. Now I remember almost nothing about it. But I learnt two invaluable and fundamental lessons about ‘International Law’ which will always stay with me, and that is actually what a good education should achieve.

The first is the story of a long running dispute about the border between two countries separated by a small sea. The dispute about where the border ran had been running on under  international arbitration for months or even years, as is the way with disputes like that. There are hugely complex arguments that lawyers can deploy in cases like that; arguments about who colonised which island first, traditional fishing rights, the shape of the coast, the shape of the sea bed, and goodness knows what. Anyway, in the end an internationally renowned Professor of International Law was giving his expert evidence about what the law on all these doctrines was. It was going on for days, with all these impossibly cerebral arguments being canvassed and explored and with plenty of ‘on the one hand this’ and ‘on the other hand that’.

Eventually the exasperated judge put his pen down, weary with all the caveats and qualifications and so forth. “But, do you actually have an opinion as to where the proper border is”, he asked. “Oh yes”, said the Professor. “That is abundantly clear, beyond any doubt”. The judge was amazed! “Well, where is it”, he asked incredulously, “can you show me?” “Of course”, replied the Professor. And having asked for a ruler and a pencil, he took these to the map of the disputed area on the wall. He carefully measured the closest mid-point in the sea between the countries, and drew a simple, straight line between the two. “That’s the border”, he said.

The second thing that I remember is my tutor questioning me on the nature of international law. He was a truly brilliant man, and he had a sense of humour too. He also smoked his pipe in the supervisions, back in the happy day, and sometimes I and my fellow students would sip sherry as we talked. Nobody died. He was also an advisor to the Foreign Office on many matters, official and not so official.

He used to fix me with a grin and pose this rhetorical question:

“Now, Gildas, young fellow, International Law! What is it? Is it a Woozle? Or is it a Wizzle”.

And usually before I could answer he would cut me off and just cheerfully assert:

“We just don’t know!”

This strange little allegory comes from Winnie the Pooh, Chapter III. Now to cut to the chase, what he was saying is that International Law is neither one thing nor another. It is not the type of jurisprudence which we normally recognise as ‘law’, and which involves the governance of the citizen by the sovereign state, whether democratic or not. Instead it is a collection of prescriptions, principles, conventions, practices and established norms, usually I have to say rooted in Western, Romano-Christian and Humanist traditions which are not actually regarded as the settled norms in large parts of the world. Which is a problem.

On the other hand it is a sort of ‘law’, as that word is commonly used by the man in the street, or it can be, sometimes. It is neither one thing, nor another, and if you are familiar with the story of Winnie and the Woozles and Wizzles, and follow the allegory through, one may conclude that further analysis is fruitless.

International law can be, then, what you need it to be. And yes, sometimes, or perhaps always, law is made by the victor.

I listened to some of the debates about the proposed involvement in Syria. And whilst doing do, I pondered the issue of legality.

Time and again I heard a justification for intervention which went like this:

• Assad is a very bad man. It is beyond reasonable doubt that he or his regime has used poison gas against his civilian population in the past, and there was a major recent event in which nearly 400 people have died.

• Use of the poison gas in this way or perhaps at all is a war crime and against civilised norms of behaviour as recognised in various treaties and protocols, dating back to what is referred to in short hand as the Geneva Protocol of 1925, and carried through in subsequent international Protocols.

• Intervention would be justified under International Law with the consent of the Security Council of the UN, but that will not be forthcoming.

• Intervention is justified under International Law on the grounds of what is sometimes called Humanitarian Intervention.

• The Attorney General has advised the government that the grounds for humanitarian intervention are satisfied in this case.

• Unless action is taken Assad will go unpunished for a war crime, be encouraged to use the weapons again, and so will other dictators across the region and the planet. This will result in the proliferation of chemical weapons, and more humanitarian disasters and war crimes, and must be stopped.

It is a powerful argument, even a noble one. I suspect, however, that it is technically incorrect when it comes to understanding what “International Law” has to say. The Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, has set out his advice in a one and a quarter page document. He correctly summarises the preconditions of the doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention as follows in paragraph 4:

(i) There must be convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;

(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and

(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

He concludes at paragraph 5

5. All three conditions would clearly be met in this case.

He then sets out his reasons for that in three short sub paragraphs.

However, I have to say that I am by no means as clear as the Attorney-General on whether the test is met. Consider these circumstances. British troops are stationed near Rwanda. A civil war breaks out and one tribe is beginning to massacre the other tribe. Thousands are dead and thousands more will die. The Security Council is, for whatever, reason not able to convene or will be deadlocked. Intervention is needed at once, and in those circumstances in my opinion it would clearly be ‘legal’ under ‘International Law’ for British troops to move in at once, impose a curfew and intervene in whatever manner was appropriate to halt the genocide.

I am not, however, as sure as the Attorney General that the doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention is in fact, fully satisfied in the case of Syria. I will leave aside issue of proof as to who is in fact responsible and assume that the government is right about that. My reasons are:

• The fact that there has been a ‘war crime’ is not of itself justification. It is reason to pursue the persons responsible in some form of International Tribunal, but not reason of itself for intervention.

• There is no evidence that further attacks are intended or will happen. There is the surmise that it is likely that they will. But it is not possible to say whether they are, or are not intended. If the Assad regime was in the process of continued gas attacks against proportions of the population here and now, or, for example, was observed in the process of preparation for further attacks, that would, in my opinion, justify the intervention. But Humanitarian Intervention is an “emergency doctrine”, to restrain imminent carnage; not a punishment for past acts or deterrence for possible future one.

• Attacks are not occurring at the moment. Diplomatic efforts of many types, whether via the UN or other means, have not been exhausted.

• Proliferation or presumed proliferation or sending messages to Assad or some other unknown party is not part of the doctrine.

For all these reasons, and more, I would suggest that the ‘legality’ of the proposed action under ‘International Law’ is a great deal more flimsy than the government would have us believe.  Whether one regards that as satisfactory is of course a matter of debate. But there are downsides to intervention. Imagine if every one started to do it. But of course it is the Attorney General’s job to say that an armed response is lawful if the government is proposing to do. It would be highly inconvenient if he were to say otherwise.

There are, of course, other dimensions. As soon as Radio 4’s Tonight programme had reported on the vote in the Commons, it ran a piece on the school hit by napalm or the even more frightening sounding ‘Thermite’ and the plight of the children and teenagers, deeply burned, charred and melted. It appalled me.

Was this too, a war crime? And how can a civilised nation respond? Can we wash our hands? As the poet John Donne wrote, no man is an island. And yet with many, if not the great majority of the population, I am extremely resistant to yet another foreign adventure. I have no answers. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the lasting legacy of Blair would be poison in the wellspring of public support for using arms, as and when it is appropriate, to do the right thing?

Gildas the Monk   

(i) The Syrian regime has been killing its people for two years, with many reported deaths.

Moor
Larkin September 5, 2013 at 11:00

Has anyone come up with the tagline “President O’Bomber” yet?
If not,
then I claim all residuals and donate them to feed and house the refugees in
Lebanon and Jordan.

Come to think of it, why not just fund the refugees instead of bombing
them?
Suck all the people out of Syria.
Maybe Assad will have to build a
wall to keep them in.
Putin could tell everyone how that particular idea
usually works out.

Jonathan Mason
September 1, 2013 at 20:17

Terrific article re Syria by Patrick Cockburn in The Independent. Very even
handed assessment of the situation. Could have been written by Gildas!
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/in-syria-its-a-case-of-all-or-nothing-8792975.html

Cascadian August 31, 2013 at 18:36

A draft of tetracycline for the Raccoon please barman!

therealguyfaux
August 31, 2013 at 16:51

@Gildas– My tuppen’orth:

It would be instructive if you would have compared Public International law
to Private International Law, and realized that the two are distinguished
mainly by who the contracting parties are, and what the choice of law is that
is stated in the contract.

It would also be instructive to note that the whole point of Contract Law
per se is to work out a species of no-fault liability which basically says,
“Unless you can show fraud or coercion in the formation of the contract, the
moral arguments against the breach of that contract don’t fly. Circumstances
change. The person against whom damages are sought for breach may have had
more pressing issues at the time than honouring your poxy little contract.
He’s not necessarily an evil hateful person simply because he didn’t live up
to his end of the bargain. Look, basically what he agreed to is that if he
didn’t give you what you wanted, he can substitute damages instead. If you
don’t like how contract law works, Mr Plaintiff, then don’t sign contracts.”
So said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr, in somewhat different wording, but
to the same effect.

Nations are the same. Sure, they make contracts, but sometimes they don’t
live up to them, and not always because they wilfully break them, sometimes
it’s because they can’t. Of course, the enforcement mechanisms are different.
In Private International Law, you are in roughly the same position you are in
domestically with the whole filing suit/collecting damages process. In Public
International Law, you are in roughly the same position as a creditor in
bankruptcy proceedings holding a judgement against the petitioning debtor. You
cannot squeeze blood from a stone. But you can make sure this debtor cannot
receive any more credit till he shall have proved he can pay back that which
he will owe in future, whether by better planning on his part or an alleged
ostensible moral regeneration (if that’s what the problem was). In theory, you
are doing all your fellow potential creditors the service you would wish they
would do for you, which is to put them on notice about problems accruing from
dealing with this discharged bankrupt.

Some points to consider in the discussion, I would think.

Elena ‘andcart
August 31, 2013 at 02:15

Sorry, Love, I didn’t actually read your whole post because I am now bored
witless about what these people are doing to small children. And what a
terrible thing that is, that I should be bored witless about what they are
doing to small children. God forgive me because I cannot cope with what they
and we are doing to small children.

Giggletree August 31, 2013 at 15:16

But photographs of small children starving and in pain are just so
goddamn lucrative to those who really don’t care what happens to small
children.

Jonathan Mason
August 30, 2013 at 23:50

Sorry, here is a much better link to the original report.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Mina Field
August 31, 2013 at 13:04

Infowars????????? Thats that Alex Jones, the CT chap

No wonder you think smokers are the spawn of the devil…….

Jonathan
Mason August 31, 2013 at 13:22

That was the first link that I found in a comment in The Guardian, but
I posted a better link direct to the original source in a post below.
Sorry for the confusion. I had already read the original article when I
posted the first link, which was in my computer’s clipboard. I agree that
Alex Jones alone would not be a very credible source.

MintPress seems to be a more credible Internet only Web site with
Middle East emphasis. Here is an article about it:

http://www.minnpost.com/david-brauer-blog/2012/01/who-mintpress-and-why-are-they-doing-all-hiring

Jonathan
Mason August 31, 2013 at 13:32

There are further links on the subject and discussion at
Zerohedge.com. Zerohedge is a Web site for investors that I read
regularly for background on my day-trading activities, which I find to
be pretty serious and reliable as it needs to be when money is
concerned, though sometimes controversial.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/dont-show-obama-report-about-who-really-behind-syrian-chemical-attacks

Mina
Field August 31, 2013 at 16:07

On this occasion neither the Associated Press, nor any other news
agency, considers the ‘social justice and human rights’ orientated
Mintpress, or its strangely hard-to-provenance correspondent, Dale
Gavlak, a credible source.

Jonathan
Mason August 31, 2013 at 16:22

… strangely hard-to-provenance correspondent, Dale Gavlak, a
credible source….

How hard? You can e-mail him, if you wish.

“Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and
the Associated Press. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for
the Associated Press for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern
Affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East
for AP, National Public Radio and Mint Press News, writing on topics
including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a
M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact
Dale at dgavlak@mintpressnews.com
Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently
working on a master’s degree in journalism, He has covered events in
Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have
appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.”

Jonathan
Mason August 31, 2013 at 16:26

Here are a whole slew of Dale Gavlak articles previously published
by AP News.

http://www.salon.com/writer/dale_gavlak/

Mina
Field August 31, 2013 at 16:36

@ Jonathan Mason

Super credentials, what. Well, you and Alex Jones think so, anyway.
See if you can convince Reuters. BTW, most sources have Gavlak as
being female.

Jonathan
Mason August 31, 2013 at 14:00

Just as a point of interest, though a bit off topic, the stock of
Raytheon (RTN) the company that makes the missiles that would probably
be used to attack Syria have gone from about $65 on July 1st to $75 as
of yesterday. Trading that gain with options (which I didn’t) would have
realized a profit of several hundred per cent. Fortunes have already
been made by those in the know. Now a decision NOT to attack Syria could
cause the stock to plummet or pull back sharply and further fortunes
will be lost and/or made by those whose judgment is correct. I am
staying out of this trade , but if I had to put my money down I would
continue to expect a few very profitable quarters for Raytheon.

Jonathan Mason
August 30, 2013 at 23:43

Here’s an example of what I mentioned above. Now there is a report from a
seemingly reliable (an AP News and BBC stringer) source out of the Middle East
that the chemical attack was really an terrible accident perpetrated by REBEL
troops with weapons that they had been donated by fans in Saudi Arabia and
that they did not understand the proper nature of, and was nothing to do with
the Assad regime.

Now, whether this is true or not, I have no idea at all, and maybe it is
just disinformation. But IF IT IS, this is disastrous PR for the US which is
all set to bomb Damascus, and makes Cameron look like a complete and utter
tool (even more than before).

In addition we now have Secretary of State John Kerry calling Assad a “thug
and a murderer”. Is this really how international diplomacy is conducted
between principals? And if Kerry and Assad meet next week at the UN to discuss
these shenanigans, will they be rolling on the floor trying to gouge each
other’s eyes out? Probably not, but the childish insults really make one
question the maturity of people who hold high offices, and makes one wonder if
international diplomacy is really any different from the school playground
once you get behind the scenes.

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

Fred August 30, 2013 at 20:11

I’m rather at a loss as to why David Cameron (of whom I am no admirer) is
being derided for last night’s result. Agreed he lost, but he did submit his
view as being a judgement call not guided by hidden intelligence-wisely,
post-Bliar nobody would have believed him. Moreover, he did submit his
judgement to parliamentary review (I gather that he could have launched the
attack without this and would presumably have done so if he was the warmonger
he has been described as). Surely he was acting correctly?
Like most of the
above, I have no idea what the rights and wrongs of intervention are. I do
know that the role of our armed forces is to protect Britain and her
interests, not massage the tender consciences of assorted Hampsted thinkers
who are always happy to salve their moral senses at the cost of other people’s
sons and daughters. To quote the late George MacDonald Fraser “their
consciences being, you understand, much more important than the lives of our
soldiers”.

Engineer August 31, 2013 at 15:16

Cameron lost because he did the right thing – tried to build a political
concensus with the Opposition – and was knifed. Miliband was first consulted
on Monday, shown the intelligence, and asked for his support in a debate on
a motion calling for limited military action. He agreed. For the next two
days, Miliband asked for ammendments to the motion to be debated, and got
them. Parliament was recalled for the debate on Thursday. On Wednesday
evening, without informing Number 10, Miliband changed his position, leaving
Cameron high and dry in the vote on Thursday night.

Cameron may be criticised for wanting military action (I don’t believe it
would have helped either Britain’s interests or the wider cause of peace in
the Middle East) but at least he went about it in a correct and honourable
way, by trying to build concensus. Miliband did not act honourably. The
point may not have sunk in with the British electorate yet, but it most
certainly will have done with the Americans. Miliband’s chances of
credibility on the world stage are now a very big zero. Cameron will learn
the lesson, and will in all probability recover from this setback, but
Miliband has nailed his colours to the mast for all to see, now and for
evermore. The man cannot be trusted.

John
Pickworth September 1, 2013 at
00:00

Miliband has nailed his colours to the mast for all to see, now and
for evermore. The man cannot be trusted.

Very very well put (both Fred & Engineer).

I was beginning to think I was the only person in these Isles not
applauding the great and courageous Miliband upon his glorious victory.
The utter contempt I feel for this man (and his callow followers) knows no
limits.

binao September 1, 2013 at 08:12

I have no political sympathies or affiliations.
I think Miliminor
had the opportunity to take a position right at the beginning of the
discussion of UK involvement. He seems instead to have either milked the
situation for narrow political advantage (and failed), or to have been
developing his party’s policy on a day to day basis, depending on ones
sense of charity.
Neither path suggests any sense of a strong moral
basis for determining reaction to international events. Events which are
not unique or unsurprising.
Not impressed.

MTG August 30, 2013 at 19:56

Ordinary folk adopting the view they know the ‘truth’ of complex
International politics and intrigue (for the sake of argument I will include
Prime Ministers past and present) are delusional. The ‘truth’ is an account
which has been very carefully considered and mapped ahead of time. I suggest
that in this case it is only what a mere handful of people remote from the
conflict, say it is.

Jonathan Mason
August 30, 2013 at 21:20

Good point. Actually it occurred to me that the whole vote was fixed too,
hence there was 10 people who ‘forgot’ to vote, but even if they had voted,
it would not have changed the result, BUT MAYBE THEY INTENDED TO VOTE
AGAINST THE MOTION in which case their ‘forgetting’ to vote and ‘not hearing
the bell’ helped to provide a fig leaf of respectability for Cameron. In
fact Cameron may have deliberately lost the vote, for all we know, as a way
of sticking a finger in the eye of Barack (Nobel Peace Prize) Obama and yet
making it look as if he tried to get the motion carried.

We don’t know the whole truth, and Cameron may not know the whole truth
either. It is not beyond possibility that the US wants ‘regime change’ in
Syria so that it can oust the Ba’athist/Assadist party government and
install a client government that will be more friendly to the US. (This will
probably be known as the Syrian Bla’irist/Coalitionista or “blue shirt”
party and will immediately issue Apple phones and Ford trucks to all
government officials.)

Cascadian
August 30, 2013 at 21:41

Don’t think so.

I will just go with Dim-moron is hen-pecked, arrogant and over-awed by
Obumbler.

His work history leads him to believe that analysis of problems is
secondary to perception.

Moor Larkin August 31, 2013 at 12:12

@ Cameron may have deliberately lost the vote @
I am absolutely sure
he did, and that he knew he would, and is puffily pleased with his
politicking. No point in the UK Executive in slapping the President’s face
when they can get the mother of all parliaments to do it and have the
perfect cover of “democracy” to keep the Yank war machine in check.

Can you imagine the belly-aching now about his cowardice if he’d just
said, “Bugger off Obama”. I daresay the millipede would even be blithering
about abandonment of ‘uman rights even now, safe in the political fortune
of not having much say on it anyway. The BBC seem to have taken over the
role of finding MWD these days. What a dangerous and disgusting
organisation they have become – the Ministry of Truth. Winston Smith would
recognise them immediately. How history has turned since Gilligan’s
Adventures on a small island a devade and moor ago.

Jonathan
Mason August 31, 2013 at 12:18

– the Ministry of Truth. Winston Smith would recognise them
immediately.

Somewhat of a circular argument, since a great deal of Nineteen
Eighty-Four is based on a parody of the BBC where George Orwell worked
as a produce of propaganda aimed at the Indian market during World War
II.

Moor Larkin August 31, 2013 at 12:38

George was even wiser than I allowed for……

Mudplugger August 30, 2013 at 17:05

Stepping aside from the rightness or wrongness, legal or moral, of the West
bombing the shit out of random citizens of Damascus, what happened last night
was a major victory for normally-supine elected representatives against the
Executive. True, Camerlot managed it very badly, Miliband flipped onto a
passing bandwagon of public opinion shown to him by Farage’s TV interview, and
Clegg, well who cares about Clegg anyway, he just wants to keep his EU pension
running and stay on the right side of his formidable wife.

The fact that a combination of backbench MPs from very different
backgrounds (and even some ‘careless’ ministers) could come together so
powerfully to project the general public view into such an issue, when the
Executive was using all its agencies to head the other way, is very promising
for the state of Parliament. Holding the Executive to account is what
Parliament’s supposed to do, but has rarely ever done these past few decades.
Last night’s events should give current and future Executives more frequent
cause to ponder whether they are leading the country to a place where it
wishes to be led. The bombed-out bunkers of Damascus are not places it wishes
to go.

Gildas The Momk
August 30, 2013 at 17:06

Great point

Daedalus X.
Parrot August 30, 2013 at 20:18

Good point MudPlugger, however my own take on the vote in parliament is a
mixed one.

On the one hand I admire the few genuine rebels who voted against the
executive, either because of their constituents’ wishes or because they
arrived at a considered opinion based on moral principles and the interests
of our country.

On the other hand, I hope an agonising and enduring fate in the second
worst circle of Hell befalls those two-faced slime balls who only voted
because it suited their political survival (yes, Miliband, I mean you) and
those Blair-wannabes hoping to join the big boys club of War Leaders (and,
yes, I do mean you Messrs Cameron, Hague, Ashdown, et al.).

However, the first circle of Hell should of course be reserved for Blair,
Campbell, and the Blairite hypocrites who voted against the war yesterday
but yet who, strangely, voted for the Iraq war 10 years ago. And pride of
place in the first circle should go to Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle
and the other Neocons who started all of this “regime change” and “enforced
democracy” malarkey in the first place (Bush jr was their organ-grinder’s
monkey).

As for Miliband, his utterances in the past week have been a master class
in unfathomable, meaning-free waffle. I sincerely believe the shit didn’t
care whether he voted for or against bombing Syrians, just so long as it
embarrassed Cameron.

Cascadian
August 30, 2013 at 21:35

Your Bush derangement is getting in the way of common sense Daedalus,
Cheney et al never had a vote in the UK parliament either at the time of
Bliar or yesterday. (I am willing to concede you may not have meant
that.)
Perhaps you meant Harman, Mr and Mrs Balls, Alexander, Watson,
Straw, Jowell, Benn to name a few. Even then I see their conversion on the
road to Damascus as a sign that you can teach very old dogs, new tricks.
Sit up and beg for some legitimacy BonzoLiebour, UKIP is eating your
vittles.

Daedalus
Parrot August 30, 2013 at
23:49

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but of course I was not saying that Cheney
and the Neocons had a vote in yesterday’s parliamentary debate but I was
pointing an accusatory finger at them for establishing this dishonest,
bloody and destructive “Regime Change” racket that has plagued us since
the Afghan and Iraq wars.

It was Cheney and the Neocons who started this ball rolling in the
early 1990s and, after several years of Neocon think-tanking and policy
discussions in the State department, by the time of the 9/11 attacks,
their crude, military-intensive but culturally-ignorant and
diplomacy-lite regime-change policies were the only ones seemingly
mature enough and with enough backing to pursue.

The rest, as we know, is history. An overly aggressive, cocked-up
campaign in Afghanistan that ignored the cultural and political lie of
the land. This has resulted in greater farming of opium and its
transport to the West, greater antipathy by the moslem world towards the
West, a corrupt puppet government in Kabul that won’t last 5 minutes if
US money is cut off. And as the icing on the cake, militant islamists
have established major strongholds in neighbouring Pakistan.

Then there is Iraq. There never were weapons of mass destruction. Al
Quaeda were never allied to Saddam’s regime. But Cheney’s lot, Blair,
Campbell and their biddable intelligence chiefs lied to us about these
and pushed us into the mass murdering 2003 Iraq war. What good has come
of that? Even if Saddam Hussein had kept his torture chambers going full
time for the last ten years, he wouldn’t have got away with the 100,000s
of deaths committed by allied bombing and by moslem suicide bombings in
Iraqi market places in that time.

I don’t agree with your assertion that Blair was not influenced by
the Bush, Cheney, Neocon mob. Of course he was. Although I do admit that
this vain, greedy and unprincipled man didn’t need much persuasion to
join the War Leaders Club.

Lastly, I did mean “Harman, Mr and Mrs Balls, Alexander, Watson,
Straw, Jowell, Benn to name a few.” but I cannot agree with you that
they went through a righteous Damscene conversion. Personally I lump
them in with Miliband; exploiting a tragedy in Syria to play for short
term political gain.

Sorry, I don’t like disagreeing with a respected, long-time
contributor such as your good self, but I have read much about this and
feel strongly.

Cascadian
August 31, 2013 at 07:39

Ah Daedalus, flattery will get you everywhere, but I must protest,
please regard me as just another geezer down the pub, there is no
hierarchy here and feel free to disagree with me anytime without
benefit of an apology. I do tend to be sensitive to criticism of the
USA, which for the most part has taken on the role of world policeman
for which it gets little thanks and much undeserved abuse.

Would it surprise you to know that I generally agree with your
historical synopsis based on what we NOW know, however at the time it
seemed that Saddam was headed toward owning nuclear weapons and that
was considered to be a not very good situation for the West. Strange
that the West is now silent about Iran, hey-ho. Afghanistan, the
Libyan mess and the Egyptian disaster are Obumbler’s legacy and
therefore beyond reproach by any media. Strange that there is so much
antipathy for Cheney whilst Clinton gets a free ride, and I don’t
think I asserted that Bliar was influenced by anyone. These are things
that test our faith in politicians, PR men and journalists. I agree
with your comment about the numbers of dead from torture chambers viz
allied actions, I might re-use that at a suitable time (I will even
try to remember to attribute it to you.)

Lastly, we have the execrable liebour party, the real point of my
missive was to point out these hypocrites, but even hypocrites are
occasionally correct, even perhaps when they are playing for short
term advantage.

Now, assuming you are not a parrot and cannot be lured with a sprig
of millet, would you care to join me at the end of the bar for a
drink, and to disabuse you of any notion that I may be
respectable?

Anna Raccoon August 31, 2013 at 09:21

“Now, assuming you are not a parrot and cannot be lured with a
sprig of millet, would you care to join me at the end of the bar for
a drink, and to disabuse you of any notion that I may be
respectable?”

Last time I did that I got a nasty dose of psittacosis. Just
saying like.

Cascadian August 31, 2013 at 19:50

The Raccoon and Pretty-Polly went to sea
In a beautiful
pea-green boat,
They took some honey, and plenty of
money,
Wrapped up in a five-pound note.
The Raccoon looked
up to the stars above,
And sang to a small guitar,
“O Pretty
Polly! O Polly, my love,
What a beautiful Polly you are,
You
are,
You are!
What a beautiful Polly you are!”

II
Polly said to the Raccoon, “You elegant buffoon!
How
charmingly sweet you sing!
O let us be married! too long we
have tarried:
But what shall we do for a ring?”
They sailed
away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-Tree
grows
And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood
With a ring at
the end of his nose,
His nose,
His nose,
With a ring at
the end of his nose.

III
“Dear Pig, are you willing to sell for one
shilling
Your ring?” Said the Piggy, “I will.”
So they took
it away, and were married next day
By the Turkey who lives on
the hill.
They dined on mince, and slices of quince,
Which
they ate with a runcible spoon;
And hand in hand, on the edge
of the sand,
They danced by the light of the moon,
The
moon,
The moon,
They danced by the light of the moon.

With apologies to Edward Lear, but reference to nonsense poems
seem particularly apt to the whole Syria/Middle East political
manoeuvrings.

Daedalus Parrot September 1, 2013 at 17:14

Cascadian,

In response to your comment of August 31, 2013 at 07:39:

I agree, The USA have, in balance, been a force for good since WW2,
and the fact that they are habitually condemned and misrepresented by
cynical or weak minded Lefties for that role makes one quite angry.
However that does not give them a blanket licence to escape criticism
when they do something wrong, like Iraq.

I agree about Clinton being let off too lightly about many things,
including the rise of Al Quaeda, but I think Cheney and the Neocons
were busy in Washington circles during Clinton’s time pushing their
policies to the fore, so they are I think more culpable. However
Clinton does deserve significant blame, he did nothing much to respond
to the moslem terror bombings of US embassies in Africa that killed
hundreds, apart from a few token bombs being dropped on a paint
factory or two, thus leaving a mandate for his successor, Bush to take
stronger, if incompetent, action.

Regarding your last paragraph, being a thoroughly disrespectful
creature myself, I will gladly join you at the lower end of the bar
for a disrespectful alcoholic indulgence or two.

Mudplugger
August 31, 2013 at 11:32

Another interesting facet is that this is probably the first time MPs
were subjected to a storm of direct communication from their electorate on
any immediate topic, one where only a few days’ notice was given. Now that
Joe Public has instant access to e-mail, and the e-mail addresses of their
MPs, they are starting to let their representatives know exactly how they
feel, and in great numbers. Not just the usual few noisy nutters, but vast
numbers of ordinary folk are able, and feel empowered, to pass on their
opinion to their MP. This is radical stuff.

In the past, MPs could pretend they were unaware of any rising public
sentiment because they were never exposed to it, but not any more. Many MPs
have commented on the flows of e-mails they have received on this topic –
that would never have happened with snail-mail. It remains to be seen how
this trend develops but the democratising effect of the internet is now
starting to show itself in this one, very public, example.

Hysteria August 31, 2013 at 12:03

I think this is one of the main points. The other tactical issue is that
it is not completely clear who was responsible for this particular attack –
Zerohedge has a couple of pieces on Saudi involvement, for example.

The bigger question is “why now?”……. Fisk may have a point re Iran – but
this assumes Obama is an astute long range strategic thinker, which most
evidence suggests he is not.

On balance therefore, two important points are made – primacy of
Parliament , and don’t get involved in civil wars .

Pee Wee August 30, 2013 at 16:13

Yes, we have the two sides in this debate but I have one simple
question:
Our Armed Forces (other than the TA) have been decimated by
defence cuts and no sooner do they come back from foreign lands (invariably
Afghanistan) than they are sent back there.

So, if Parliament had confirmed that Great Britain should go down the route
of intervention in Syria who would we send there?

John Pickworth
August 30, 2013 at 14:34

I sense I may be in the minority, but today I feel ashamed to be
British.

It’s not a question of whether we’ve done the right thing or the wrong
thing… we’ve actually done NOTHING. Which is unforgivable enough, that it was
the result of politicians playing silly games leaves me blisteringly
angry.

If you care to, you can read the comment I left on the Underdogs Bite Upwards blog.

Jonathan Mason
August 30, 2013 at 14:54

It makes me proud to be British. On the other hand, it made me ashamed
that Britain under Blair so readily committed troops to Iraq when most of
the other European leaders readily saw through the scam. Have you learned
nothing, Pickworth? Yes, the Syrian government MIGHT have used poison gas
against civilians, but you have no idea who made the decision and, more
importantly, why , or whether lobbing a few bombs at Damascus would do
anything to improve the situation for anyone. On the other hand,
participating in attacks on Syria would probably endanger many British
citizens.

My own grandfather, formerly a resident of Damascus, was killed in a
revenge attack against British interests, so I do know what I am talking
about.

http://ww2timelines.com/1939/april/04041939.htm

JuliaM August
30, 2013 at 15:26

“It’s not a question of whether we’ve done the right thing or the
wrong thing… we’ve actually done NOTHING.”

John, we’ve been doing that nothing for two years, while civil war raged,
and the bodies of those shot/bombed/burned are no prettier than those
gassed. Now, suddenly, we should sit up and say ‘Dash it, Assad! That’s
damned unsporting, what?’, should we?

Why? I take your point on Leggie’s blog about surgical strikes on key
installations, but that seems a fairly pathetic response to what we are told
is a heinous crime that should be punished to show the world some things are
beyone the pale. Rather like taking away a murderer’s car or wide-screen
TV…

John
Pickworth August 30, 2013 at 18:50

Julia, you’re correct… as usual. Although personally, I hadn’t thought
it necessary or wise to involve ourselves until now. And with all due
respect to Jonathan above, no one is talking about putting troops into
Syria – I’ve argued elsewhere that the civil war itself is really none of
our business – nor would I hold up our impotent European friends as
shining examples. What has truly annoyed me is that the media, TV talking
heads and politicians have been banging on for days with comparisons to
Blair/Bush and Gulf War Two when the more appropriate example is Clinton’s
cruise missile attacks on Sadam in 1993, 1996 and 1998.

I cannot really argue. I’m tired, frustrated and annoyed. But in my
heart, I feel we’ve made a grave mistake.

To quote the author of this article: Wouldn’t it be ironic if the
lasting legacy of Blair would be poison in the wellspring of public
support for using arms, as and when it is appropriate, to do the right
thing?

JuliaM August 30, 2013 at 21:57

Yes, that’s certainly true. Blair’s legacy to this country is, I
fear, like an iceberg. Mostly hidden until the last minute… :/

Chris August 30, 2013 at 14:09

We should also consider that…

(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the
aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and
scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no
other purpose).

As I understand it what is currently proposed is firing multiple cruise
missiles at Syrian Government targets. I’m not sure that this would provide
any relief of humanitarian need. Is random death by high explosive is somehow
better than death by any other weapon (whether of mass-destruction or
otherwise)? We can’t target the people who gave and carried out the orders
since we don’t know at this stage who they are. Targeting any known storage of
chemical weapons seems risky for anyone in the vicinity. The previous use of
gas was apparently, according to the UN, by the rebels so one assumes that
both sides have the capability. Presumably if we target Government targets the
rebels will be even more likely to use gas again (there are Al Qaeda elements
within the ant-government forces who presumably might consider such an action
to be worthwhile in their greater cause).

So what does destroying property and lives have to do with the relief of
human need?

JuliaM August
30, 2013 at 15:09

Because ‘something must be done!’ and this is something. So it must be
done.

Gildas The
Momk August 30, 2013 at 15:18

3 excellent comments above.
A agree that there is a moral problem in
that getting gassed may be no less horrible than being blown into bits and
or fried with thermite – technically a conventional weapon.
I also have
some reservations whether blowing up bits of Syria’s missile defence
systems or command and control makes one bit of difference to its ability
or will to use low grade weapons carrying nasty poison. So the logic is
that if we are to to take action it has to be to intervene in the war –
take sides. But that is what we are not doing – or so we are told.
I
can perfectly see that in an emergency, it would be lawful to destroy an
attack or attempted attack with gas, or some other weapon, that was about
to reap mass destruction on non combatents. But that is not actually what
is being proposed. And therefore, as I understand it, on a narrow or might
I say proper interpratation of international law, is not
lawful.
Another point fairly made is: what are the other nations in the
region doing?

Joe Public
August 30, 2013 at 18:14

“Another point fairly made is: what are the other nations in the
region doing?”

The Sunnis are rooting for the Rebs; the Shiites for the Gov.

As most neighbouring nations are themselves strife-torn, the answer
has to be “Adding to the confusion (and arsenals of all
protagonists)”.

Cascadian
August 30, 2013 at 21:15

So said Samantha Cameron, the learned middle east scholar (a couple of
years as an art student surely qualifies her) and “Save The Children”
dupe. As you mention below this civil war elicited no remorse from anybody
until SamCam spouted her juvenile nonsense, once that happened hen-pecked
Dave had no choice but to “do something”.

UK’s ability to be a global policeman ended some time after WW1, this
continued jingoism and self-delusion is unbefitting.

Jonathan Mason
August 30, 2013 at 14:08

@Gildas.

You make an excellent point that there is no particular evidence that the
Syrian government intends to continue gassing opponents of the government and
their families. To this one might add that there is no particular reason to
think that bombing government installations in Damascus and possibly killing
supporters of the government and their families is a just and equitable
response.

However I think the biggest point is whether we can trust the politicians
at all. Dick Cheney, Vice President of the USA at the time, said (words to the
effect that) “We know for certain that Iraq has chemical weapons and we know
where they are.”

This was later proved to be false on all counts. But why? Was Cheney just
flat-out lying, or was he deluded, or mentally incompetent, or had he been
misled by false intelligence and incompetent evaluations of false
intelligence, or was he deceived by others craftier than he, or did his own
biases predispose him to interpret intelligence in a certain way? We just
don’t know.

The fact is that throughout history wars have been triggered by
manufactured events or false flag attacks designed to give justification for
wars. For example a clandestine rebel unit within the Syrian army could
unleash chemical weapons so as to justify an external attack on the government
that would further the future ambitions of that faction, or it could be
instigated and paid for by the intelligence service of an external country,
like the revolution in Chile, or the actions of the Contras in Nicaragua,
called “Freedom Fighters” by President Reagan, but in reality employees of the
US Government.

(It is interesting to note that while many idealistic individuals like
George Orwell, Laurie Lee, Ernest Hemingway, or W.H. Auden traveled
independently to Spain to participate in the Spanish Civil War against
Franco’s fascists, no prominent US conservative writer or intellectual ever
volunteered to serve with the Contras in Nicaragua!)

Bottom line is that we cannot trust either the honesty nor the competency
of David Cameron in deciding to bomb Syria, based on his belief that Assad’s
government decided to use poison gas against civilians. Even the claim that
there is a telephone intercept, which sounds conclusive, may turn out to be a
complete lie. We have no way of telling and we certainly can’t take Cameron’s
word for it.

It is possible that the retributive bombing itself would eventually be
determined to be a war crime. Surely Ockham’s Law would dictate that it is
best to stay out of this. [If Cameron really feels that strongly that
something must be done about poisonous gases, he could always bomb Piccadilly,
Pall Mall, or Mayfair and then claim he thought they were cigarette
factories]

Ted Treen August 30, 2013 at 21:08

“However I think the biggest point is whether we can trust the
politicians at all”

No, we can’t.

Joe Public August 30, 2013 at 13:54

Our very own “Middle East Peace Envoy” has an enviable track record. Libya,
Tunisia, Egypt. Tranquillity in Iraq & Afghanistan too.

Questionable judgement too: “A Freedom of Information request by The Sunday
Times in 2012 revealed that Blair’s government considered knighting Syria’s
President Bashar al-Assad.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair

And the irony of the US siding with Al-Qaeda’s nominated sub-contractors
fighting in that dictatorship.

Just why should a few politicians, themselves safely ensconced in the
Palace of Westminster, risk the lives of our Squaddies (well those who were
‘lucky’ enough to escape the recent rounds of redundancy) for the sake of
those of two sects of ‘The Religion of Peace’?

DimWit August 30, 2013 at 13:47

Anna, though you may have forgotten what you learned sooo well at Uni about
International Law.

Please have a longer memory than your shallow fixation with 1997-2010
NuLab/LiteTory, unelected non-Brit Rupe’s short-stay pawns – R ot In P
ieces.

As though no huge precedent existed for their feeble appeasing of the
CONgoing unchecked 19Hateys rabid-Right, Thatcher/Reagan/Rupe Axis Of
EVIL.

Thank you soo much.

Uncle Nick
August 30, 2013 at 14:16

Unfortunately your impassioned, eloquent, moving, thought provoking
response which must have taken decades of refining your intellect to concoct
in such short order… falls flat on it’s arse with the first word because
you’re unable to work out who wrote the article.

Wigner’s
Friend August 30, 2013 at 15:18

But that, albeit incorrect, was intelligible.

Wigner’s
Friend August 30, 2013 at 15:45

Have just realised why I could not understand the comment – all DW’s
brain is left hemisphere.

Anna
Raccoon August 30, 2013 at 16:41

I’ll have one of whatever she’s on…..

Daedalus X.
Parrot August 30, 2013 at 17:17

But that’s sexist!

Just because the commenter’s name is Dim Wit doesn’t mean you can
assume it is a lady.

Anna
Raccoon August 30, 2013 at
19:06

Actually it was the fact that she sounded just like Tina
Willis…..!

Engineer August 30, 2013 at 12:32

“My missiles are more powerful than your missiles. Therefore, my
International Law trumps your International Law.” Trite and rather cynical
perhaps, but one suspects that human nature being what it is, there’s a grain
of truth there. The truly powerful may hold powerful missiles, but use them
very sparingly.

The problem with the Syria question is that it isn’t a simple question. On
the face of it, it’s about a civil war within Syria’s borders. Should we
intervene militarily? Arguably no; The warring factions must sort out their
differences themselves. Should we offer humanitarian assistance to the
displaced civilian population? Of course we should – to the best of our
abilities.

But, the Syria question is so tied up with so many other Middle East and
wider foreign policy questions that the decision -making becomes infinitely
more nuanced. What would the consequences be of the West bombing the Assad
regime, even in a limited way? How would Iran and Hezbollah react? How would
Russia react?

I feel that we should ask two questions. First, would Britains’s interests
be advanced or protected by the proposed military action against Syria? It’s
hard to see how they would. Secondly (perhaps the more pertinent question),
how would the cause of peace in the Middle East be advanced by the proposed
military action? Sadly, it’s also very hard to see how any positive outcome
could result (I doubt it would do much to dissuade a desperate dictator from
using all the weapons in his armoury), and the possible ‘unintended
consequences’ could be decidedly negative, and not just in the immediate
region.

My conclusion – in this instance, military action will not be in the
long-term best interests of either Britain or the Middle East.

Justin August 30, 2013 at 13:10

>“My missiles are more powerful than your missiles. Therefore, my
International Law trumps your International Law.”
And when they’re not?
When my weapons are evenly matched, what then? What US/UK/UN interference
could we expect were this China? When it *was* China (1989, Tiananmen
Square)? I agree with your quotation, Engineer, but my point is They’ll
interfere because Syria cannot retaliate – at least not without being
crushed afterwards.

Additionally, why stop with punishing Syria, the user of such weapons?
I’ve read a lot of angry blogs by smokers incensed at the ecig / tobacco
hatred from various self-appointed guardians of public health, and the
current method to prevent their [cigarettes] use, after demonisation, is to
target the shops and businesses which supply them. Assad uses these weapons
because he can and he has them, but where did they come from; who sold them
to him (rhetorical)? Rather than their usage, shouldn’t the SALE of them be
banned, and with what consequential punishment?

Further – if the use of these weapons is “illegal”, how can it be right
to make and sell them?

Engineer
August 30, 2013 at 13:24

As far as I’m aware, no Western country makes or sells chemical or
biological weapons. The fact that the technologies and techniques required
to make them are relatively easy to aquire, and have been for many
decades, means that governments of – shall we say – less scrupulous states
can quite easily make their own.

ivan August 30, 2013 at 20:49

Justin, you have missed the main point. We can not be sure that Assad
did in fact use chemical weapons. What many of the survivors describe
sounds more like home made chemical weapons just like the more normal home
made weapons the various terrorist factions are using.

Randy Hack August 30, 2013 at 12:32

Just watched the BBC video of victims of the school attack. Horrific and
moving. But time and again I come back to the question: can we end all ills in
the world? And if not why this one? Is is death by burns worse than death by
gas, or indeed, being blown up and left to die? So do we leave Assad alone if
he blows people up, or burns them, but not if he gasses them?
In short, do
we have a consistent moral code at all?
But we have been led down this path
before, and to no avail.

Ed P August 30, 2013 at 12:30

If using chemical weapons is illegal, why have the USA & UK waited for
nearly two years to consider punitive measures? Assad allegedly used chemical
weapons last year too, although in smaller attacks. (Could the more recent
mineral & oil deposits nearby have anything to do with it?)

I have zero trust in Cameron or Obama revealing accurately any military
“intelligence” confirming what actually happened and who was behind it. These
people tell terminological inexactitudes the way most of us breathe. And
working out who’s side all the factions are on is well nigh impossible: if we
become involved it’ll have unforeseen and unpleasant outcomes, like
Bush/Blair’s messes.

Dioclese August
30, 2013 at 12:23

It always amuses me that there can be ‘war crimes’ but that war itself is
not necessarily a crime. This seems like selective standards to me. Also I
bring to mind the old saying “Ask three experts and you’ll get four opinions”
or something like that.

I’m running an open thread on this over at
http://dioclese.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-thread-syria-have-your-say.html
to
let people speak their minds without comment moderation or censorship. Might
be of interest to those of your readers here that are too polite to be abusive
on this site and let the steam escape from their ears when this subject is
mentioned?

MTG August 31, 2013 at 19:24

“It always amuses me that there can be ‘war crimes’ but that war itself
is not necessarily a crime.” Impressively Hemingwayesque, Dioclese.

Den August 30, 2013 at 12:19

That’s all very well but who gets to control the gas pipeline and any oil
that might be knocking about down there? And now we’ll have to find another
way to get at Iran. Isn’t that what this is all about really? Morality,
compassion, empathy, sympathy: they’re all just words to politicians and
banksters.

belinus August 30,
2013 at 12:03

Well said Gildas as for the Napalm well, the term United States and Napalm
are an esoteric meme, and we fair no better using phosphorous grenades even in
the Falklands.
Last night was a great thing for Britain, it shows the war
mood is subsiding and may well be the platform for a Labour return, not that I
am Labour, but Cameron’s does look like an arrogant pleb, I suppose it depends
on how well Cameron’s ego can bear the shame and far more importantly, what
will military intelligence be planning to try and shift this breath of fresh
air and sanity at Westminster evidenced last night, back into insanity and
blood lust…