At the end of last month the UK and France presented a united front before the rest of the European Union. They were pushing for the EU to ease the arms embargo on Syria to allow weapons to be supplied to the rebels (Traynor, 2013).
The decision to push for greater intervention in the internal affairs of another nation - a move which has so antagonised the rest of Europe - is consistent with the advice of Robert Cooper, a senior British diplomat, who argued in a 2002 essay that civilised nations should have a 'double standard' in diplomatic relations:
'Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.'
That statement, that policy, holds an inconsistency that could be very dangerous. However it is an inconsistency born out of practicality. Peace is the ideal, but many find it impractical in the face of violence and aggression; and when that is the case, a struggle begins over defining what is a legitimate use of force.
The United Nations embodies that difficult position. Established to promote consensus diplomacy as an alternative to the old ways of war and conquest, the United Nations has often found itself trying to balance the practical response with the idealistic stance. For instance, the Charter establishing the United Nations tells us that:
'The Purposes of the United Nations are... To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.'
To achieve that purpose, United Nations peacekeeping missions have been deployed to troubled areas around the globe to provide security for civilians. However their missions are restricted by the rules that govern how and when peacekeepers can act, rules that the forces they come into contact with are not obliged to share. But the difficulties created by trying to juggle these dual purposes of peace and security are only one symptom of the problem.
There are long term repercussions in working to a double standard, not only to the UN and its peacekeeping missions, but also to the pursuit of peaceful diplomacy. To ditch the process of consensus diplomacy and international law when it is found to be impractical sets a dangerous precedent:
'What is important... is the example one gives. One of the big issues facing the European Court of Human Rights is teaching newly democratic States about democracy. One of its biggest client cases is Russia. Another one in terms of democracy is Turkey. It is a problem with the Council of Europe mechanisms that some States simply do not fix their systems as they should do and it would be a great pity if a long-established State — the United Kingdom, which was there at the founding and there at the drafting — were to set an example to other States in the Council of Europe that they do not have to abide by the law. This is where politics and international relations come in. It is incredibly important that the rule of law be respected at an international level because if we have law/law then we do not have war/war.' (Aidan O'Neill QC; 44:21; 2011)
It can be tempting to give in to the realities of the moment and take a practical solution when aiming for the short term gains or ends. Cooper's 'double standards' diplomacy is pragmatism in action - deciding on the outcome desired and then using whichever means is most effective, backed by the utilitarian ideal that the ends can justify the means.
But every time you do, you put your ideals at risk. The hypocrisies of inconsistent or arbitrary behaviour, in pursuit of end goals, creates contradictions that damage universal rights, legal justice and relationships. In times of strain, pressure, or violence, reinforcing our ideals and consistently applying them becomes more, not less, important - and we should be loath to ever let them be lightly put aside.
==========
References:
==========
+ Ian Traynor's 'UN Golan Heights mission in doubt as EU lifts Syria arms embargo'; in The Guardian; 28 May 2013.
+ Robert Cooper's 'The new liberal imperialism'; in The Observer; 7 April 2002; Originally published as 'The post-modern state'; in Reordering the World: the long term implications of September 11; The Foreign Policy Centre; 2002.
+ Charter of the United Nations
+ Aidan O'Neill QC in the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, 2011.
Written - 'Voting by convicted prisoners: summary of evidence' February 2011;
Video - Tuesday 1 February 2011 at 10.10am ended at 12.07pm;
No comments:
Post a Comment