Smeagol-Gollum
22-05-2004, 22:10
Solidarity: what the world needs now
May 22, 2004
It's a dangerous time to have both America and the UN held in such low esteem, writes Pamela Bone.
'To be opposed to this war is not left-wing," columnist Frank Johnson wrote in the high Tory British magazine The Spectator recently. "The war can be opposed on sound Tory principles. Sound Tory principles teach that Britain should only go to war in defence of our national interest and our security."
The sound Tory view is that if we are not threatened we don't need to act. The left view, or at least of that part of the left that sees itself as internationalist, is that the world does not stand by while dictators murder and torture their citizens. Words like international solidarity and global unity come to mind.
I make this point to give comfort to those members of the old left who supported the Iraq war (you'd be surprised how many of us there are). Because heaven knows, the war's opponents have been getting more than their share of comfort.
I recently came across a newspaper article written in 1993, at the time of the big United Nations International Human Rights Conference in Vienna, and was struck by how strongly I agreed with it. No wonder. As I saw when I looked at the byline, I wrote it.
What brave hopes there were then for international solidarity. What a wonderful organisation then was the UN. At that conference, it was asserted that human rights were universal, rather than culturally or economically determined.
There was then UN secretary-general Dr Boutros Ghali warning that the world would take over states if they failed to fulfil their human rights obligations. There was Australia's then foreign minister, Gareth Evans, telling the conference that despite different cultural and religious traditions, throughout history all philosophies had recognised that within human relations some things were always right and some always wrong.
Where have all those fine words gone? In a UN Security Council whose members were so obsessed with self-interests that they could not agree to enforce their own resolutions, or to show solidarity against a leader who had murdered at least 300,000 of his own citizens, invaded two neighbouring countries, forced millions into exile.
In a single world superpower that refuses to be part of global human rights and environmental initiatives, or to allow its forces to be subject to the International Criminal Court. And which, in going it virtually alone, has made so many serious misjudgements as to dissolve most of the goodwill and gratitude it undoubtedly earned from the Iraqi people in getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
In world public opinion that would not support an invasion in defence of human rights, but only a crude security argument - so that as soon as it appeared there was no (immediate) threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, popular support for the war collapsed. And in a determined anti-imperialism and a cultural relativism so broad that little objection is expressed to the election to the UN Human Rights Commission of such massive human rights violators as Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe.
Terrorist madmen have declared war on the West. In much of the Arab world a vigorous debate is taking place that will decide whether fundamentalist or moderate Islam becomes the dominant force. It is a dangerous time to have both the UN and the US held in such low esteem.
We are blessed with a free media and now Iraq is, too. Yet I can't help wondering what good it does for Western journalists to be endlessly thrusting microphones in front of Iraqi men so they can tell the world they want to "drink the blood" of the coalition forces. Or if they must, whether they could try to balance it by interviewing people like the woman lawyer I talked to from Baghdad this week, who said, "What we have now is hope. That is the most important thing for us."
No matter how flawed both are, we need the US and the UN, and they need each other. History may judge the US better than the present does. To help restore its credibility now, it should hand over as much control, as soon as it can, to the UN. Troops stationed in Iraq should be an international peacekeeping force, not an American peacekeeping force. The UN, not the US, is the appropriate overseer of Iraqi elections.
There is still hope that peace and democracy may come to Iraq. But if there is ever to be peace in the world, it can only come by the world being run co-operatively, by collective security, by all countries agreeing to abide by international laws.
As the Arab expert Fred Halliday said in a lecture this month: "In the midst of crisis, politicians are reluctant to act, the press is too easily swayed by short-term sensationalist irresponsibility, and professional armed forces are often doubtful about action, especially where it appears guided by humanitarian considerations.
"Yet if Western democracies do not wish to address the issue of solidarity with suffering elsewhere on the globe, others with less scruple will take advantage.
"Osama bin Laden is certainly doing so."
Pamela Bone is an associate editor of The Age.
SOURCE
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/21/1085120116780.html
COMMENT.
I found this to be an interesting and thought provoking article, and hope others do as well.
In particular, I think that the theme of fighting terrorism on the political front, as well as on the military front, is an important one.
I really do want the US to win the fight against Al Qaeda and terrorism in general.
But I believe that they are losing the "hearts and minds" battle, and I fear that this battle is a far more important front than the military one if you are fighting against terrorists or insurgents.
The US appears not to have learnt this lesson from previous conflicts, and seem to be doing themselves considerable harm in the present conflict.
I don't know how, or even if, they can now turn this around, but believe that to do so is vital in the real war against terrorism.
And the UN needs to be revitalised, not bypassed, in the same struggle.
May 22, 2004
It's a dangerous time to have both America and the UN held in such low esteem, writes Pamela Bone.
'To be opposed to this war is not left-wing," columnist Frank Johnson wrote in the high Tory British magazine The Spectator recently. "The war can be opposed on sound Tory principles. Sound Tory principles teach that Britain should only go to war in defence of our national interest and our security."
The sound Tory view is that if we are not threatened we don't need to act. The left view, or at least of that part of the left that sees itself as internationalist, is that the world does not stand by while dictators murder and torture their citizens. Words like international solidarity and global unity come to mind.
I make this point to give comfort to those members of the old left who supported the Iraq war (you'd be surprised how many of us there are). Because heaven knows, the war's opponents have been getting more than their share of comfort.
I recently came across a newspaper article written in 1993, at the time of the big United Nations International Human Rights Conference in Vienna, and was struck by how strongly I agreed with it. No wonder. As I saw when I looked at the byline, I wrote it.
What brave hopes there were then for international solidarity. What a wonderful organisation then was the UN. At that conference, it was asserted that human rights were universal, rather than culturally or economically determined.
There was then UN secretary-general Dr Boutros Ghali warning that the world would take over states if they failed to fulfil their human rights obligations. There was Australia's then foreign minister, Gareth Evans, telling the conference that despite different cultural and religious traditions, throughout history all philosophies had recognised that within human relations some things were always right and some always wrong.
Where have all those fine words gone? In a UN Security Council whose members were so obsessed with self-interests that they could not agree to enforce their own resolutions, or to show solidarity against a leader who had murdered at least 300,000 of his own citizens, invaded two neighbouring countries, forced millions into exile.
In a single world superpower that refuses to be part of global human rights and environmental initiatives, or to allow its forces to be subject to the International Criminal Court. And which, in going it virtually alone, has made so many serious misjudgements as to dissolve most of the goodwill and gratitude it undoubtedly earned from the Iraqi people in getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
In world public opinion that would not support an invasion in defence of human rights, but only a crude security argument - so that as soon as it appeared there was no (immediate) threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, popular support for the war collapsed. And in a determined anti-imperialism and a cultural relativism so broad that little objection is expressed to the election to the UN Human Rights Commission of such massive human rights violators as Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe.
Terrorist madmen have declared war on the West. In much of the Arab world a vigorous debate is taking place that will decide whether fundamentalist or moderate Islam becomes the dominant force. It is a dangerous time to have both the UN and the US held in such low esteem.
We are blessed with a free media and now Iraq is, too. Yet I can't help wondering what good it does for Western journalists to be endlessly thrusting microphones in front of Iraqi men so they can tell the world they want to "drink the blood" of the coalition forces. Or if they must, whether they could try to balance it by interviewing people like the woman lawyer I talked to from Baghdad this week, who said, "What we have now is hope. That is the most important thing for us."
No matter how flawed both are, we need the US and the UN, and they need each other. History may judge the US better than the present does. To help restore its credibility now, it should hand over as much control, as soon as it can, to the UN. Troops stationed in Iraq should be an international peacekeeping force, not an American peacekeeping force. The UN, not the US, is the appropriate overseer of Iraqi elections.
There is still hope that peace and democracy may come to Iraq. But if there is ever to be peace in the world, it can only come by the world being run co-operatively, by collective security, by all countries agreeing to abide by international laws.
As the Arab expert Fred Halliday said in a lecture this month: "In the midst of crisis, politicians are reluctant to act, the press is too easily swayed by short-term sensationalist irresponsibility, and professional armed forces are often doubtful about action, especially where it appears guided by humanitarian considerations.
"Yet if Western democracies do not wish to address the issue of solidarity with suffering elsewhere on the globe, others with less scruple will take advantage.
"Osama bin Laden is certainly doing so."
Pamela Bone is an associate editor of The Age.
SOURCE
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/21/1085120116780.html
COMMENT.
I found this to be an interesting and thought provoking article, and hope others do as well.
In particular, I think that the theme of fighting terrorism on the political front, as well as on the military front, is an important one.
I really do want the US to win the fight against Al Qaeda and terrorism in general.
But I believe that they are losing the "hearts and minds" battle, and I fear that this battle is a far more important front than the military one if you are fighting against terrorists or insurgents.
The US appears not to have learnt this lesson from previous conflicts, and seem to be doing themselves considerable harm in the present conflict.
I don't know how, or even if, they can now turn this around, but believe that to do so is vital in the real war against terrorism.
And the UN needs to be revitalised, not bypassed, in the same struggle.