Democracy in the UK appeared to be in good health in the past few weeks when Parliament, in tune with public polling, voted against the Government's wish to prepare for a military intervention in Syria (Cowling, 2013). However, not everyone seemed to find the results of this democratic display particularly satisfying.
Mr Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats - and Member of the the House of Lords for that party - spoke out against the isolationism he claimed that the outcome displayed (Ashdown, 2013). He and party leader Mr Nick Clegg agreed that Britain should be unafraid to protect liberal values and international law through humanitarian interventions and 'targeted military action' (Clegg, 2013).
The views of these senior figures within Britain's main liberal political party presents a poignant picture about the political orthodoxy when it comes to the role of a modern state within an international community. But, when a country's main liberal party presents intervention as an obvious policy - should conditions be right - it raises an important question: have we become so wrapped up in the question of whether or not to intervene, to ask whether we even have the right to ask that question?
Ashdown and Clegg, and in many ways also the leadership of the Labour Party (Guardian, 2013), hold similar views on international interventions to the Conservatives. Some leading Tories have presented openness to unilateral intervention in Syria - in co-ordination with the United States - as being an integral part of a 'a big open and trading nation' 'upholding the international system' (Mason, 2013).
With all of the parties displaying similar opinions towards intervention, the main debate between the parties, over whether or not to intervene, was essentially overshadowed by a secondary debate. Accompanying the main vote, where Cameron sought permission to involve the UK in the United States' unilateral intervention (BBC, 2013),
was a debate over the wording of the grounds upon which Britain would become militarily involved in any intervention. Despite the different wording, the approach of all sides amounted to requiring a clear, legal, internationally sanctioned intervention to be agreed before Parliament would allow for British military action.
While it is positive that one nation is deferring on a unilateral decision in favour of multilateral debate, the international debate - taking place within institutions such as the United Nations and NATO - will however likely focus upon the same principles. The questions asked there will likely be the same as those sovereign nations will be asking themselves, with the same predetermined acceptance of intervention where the right conditions are in place.
More questions need to be aimed at how readily interventions, particularly military solutions, are accepted as an option. It is without doubt that when one country defies, ignores, or rejects international law and human rights to commit terrible crimes, the choice not to intervene takes on terrible weight.
But the opposite, the choice to act becomes no less fraught with danger. Do we use the same sort of aggressive actions to stop rogue nations and bring them back into line with international law as they have used to forge their criminal path - as British Diplomat Robert Cooper (2002) put it:
While it is positive that one nation is deferring on a unilateral decision in favour of multilateral debate, the international debate - taking place within institutions such as the United Nations and NATO - will however likely focus upon the same principles. The questions asked there will likely be the same as those sovereign nations will be asking themselves, with the same predetermined acceptance of intervention where the right conditions are in place.
More questions need to be aimed at how readily interventions, particularly military solutions, are accepted as an option. It is without doubt that when one country defies, ignores, or rejects international law and human rights to commit terrible crimes, the choice not to intervene takes on terrible weight.
But the opposite, the choice to act becomes no less fraught with danger. Do we use the same sort of aggressive actions to stop rogue nations and bring them back into line with international law as they have used to forge their criminal path - as British Diplomat Robert Cooper (2002) put it:
'Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.'
Is that the solution? When one country deviates from the course determined by the combined will of the international community, the others intervene to impose their values? Does playing a role within an international community of nations mean intervening militarily in other countries, with or without the consent of the rest of that community, to uphold that international system when it is threatened? Is it right that one state does not have the right to unilaterally decide to interfere with another state, even with the best of intentions; yet that standard can be removed under particular conditions? Can the whole community enforce human rights on an international scale through agreement to intervene, together?
Until we ask these kinds of questions, and until we can find convincing answers to them, we should not be eager to even begin the debate about when we will or won't intervene. The fact is that responding to the kinds of crimes that Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime is accused is too important - these questions of law, legitimacy and just action are too important - to respond with anything less than the most carefully considered, planned and scrutineered actions.
Until we ask these kinds of questions, and until we can find convincing answers to them, we should not be eager to even begin the debate about when we will or won't intervene. The fact is that responding to the kinds of crimes that Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime is accused is too important - these questions of law, legitimacy and just action are too important - to respond with anything less than the most carefully considered, planned and scrutineered actions.
==========
References:
==========
+ Roy Greenslade's 'David Cameron humiliated - the newspaper reaction to his defeat'; in The Guardian; 30 August 2013.
+ David Cowling in the BBC's 'Syria crisis: MPs "right to reject military action" - BBC poll'; 2 September 2013.
+ Paddy Ashdown on The Guardian's 'Paddy Ashdown: Syria intervention vote 'a bad night for Britain' - video'; 30 August 2013.
+ Nick Clegg's 'Letter from the Leader: Our Priority is Syria'; on Lib Dem Voice; 1 September 2013.
+ The Guardian's 'Labour frontbencher opposed to Syria military action 'full stop' resigns'; 29 August 2013.
+ Rowena Mason's 'George Osborne: UK should not turn its back on world after Syria vote'; in The Guardian; 30 August 2013.
+ BBC's 'Government loses Commons vote on Syria action'; 29 August 2009.
+ 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.
- More on the UK Parliamentary debate
Cameron's language in the debate, BBC, 2013; Cameron's case for intervention, BBC, 2013; Issues to consider for a rerun of the vote, BBC, 2013; Cameron loses the vote, The Guardian, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment