Dictatorship is not the answer

Tweet

 

It seems as though Trump’s proposed ‘Peace Board’, initially mooted as part of the ‘peace plan’ for Gaza, is being given a much wider remit by its sole owner and proprietor, one Donald Trump. It looks more like an attempt to replace the UN with a handpicked core membership (to include a chair for life appointed because he’s called Donald Trump, as well as that well-known purveyor of peace, former UK PM Tony Blair, and Trump’s son-in-law, Secretary of State, and special envoy), and a wider membership to be invited to participate by the chair. This wider group includes one Vladimir Putin, a man particularly well-known for his love of peace, and that staunch defender of democracy, Lukashenko of Belarus. Those accepting membership can opt to upgrade to a premium membership in exchange for handing the chair a mere $1 billion (to be spent as decided unilaterally by the chair), whilst anybody who turns down an invitation can expect to be hit with further tariffs (such as the proposed 200% tariff on French wines and champagne which Macron has earned by politely declining. Like any good mafia don, Trump is making people offers that he thinks they can’t refuse.

That there are problems with the UN is undeniable. Reaching a consensus is a difficult and time-consuming task, especially when five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto. It’s not entirely clear exactly how Trump’s proposal overcomes that weakness, although he presumably expects all members to simply accept his ultimate authority on all decisions. Theoretically, that works, but practically it’s problematic even when he’s president of the US; if he remains as chair when (or if) he ceases to be president, by what power exactly does he impose compliance? That problem of seeking and achieving consensus, leading to painfully slow decision-making, isn’t confined to the UN, of course: the EU suffers from the same issue. The question we are faced with is whether we accept that as a cost of seeking consensus and agreement through negotiation, or whether we simply vest all power in an individual – or rather, in Trump’s case, allow an individual to vest all power in himself. For all the frustrations of dealing with a multitude of different parties with different interests and agendas, I’m sure that I’m not alone in rejecting the dictatorship which is what the alternative amounts to.

Here in the UK, another former UK PM has weighed in with his own take on the solution. It’s full of fine words, as in this paragraph: “The democracies of the world should draft a short values statement, echoing the UN charter’s starting point – “We the peoples …” – and this time showing we mean it. Its first section would assert our full support for self-determination and the mutual recognition of nation states*; for the outlawing of war and coercion; and for the primacy of law, civil rights and democratic accountability as the essential means by which human dignity is advanced. A second section would outline the rules that govern the cooperation essential to guarantee food, water and security, economic opportunity and social justice, and climate resilience and health for all, including pandemic prevention”. But it, too, is short on telling us how this can be enforced.

Both Trump and Brown have identified a real problem when it comes to taking international decisions, but only Trump has come up with a ‘solution’ – personal dictatorship by one D. Trump. The reality is that, if we reject the ‘might is right’ approach of Trump, there is no simple solution. Not electing people who are clearly deranged would help a little, but there’s no obvious way of preventing that either.

^* Obviously, Gordon Brown does not intend this to be taken as being in any way support for nations not currently regarded as states – Wales, Scotland, Catalunya etc. – having any right to self-determination. That would never do.

How badly do we want to change?

Tweet

George Osborne’s speech in parliament yesterday has been widely reported.  And in saying that the UK should have done more to prevent the unfolding tragedy in Aleppo, I’m sure that he’ll have struck a chord with many.  He’s far from being alone in feeling frustration at what has been happening over the months and years, as well as anger and sorrow over the loss of life.

I’m not sure though that he’s offered much of an alternative.  As I understand what he’s saying, it is that lives are being lost as a result of the bombing and fighting now because the UK decided not to bomb the other side three years ago.  Now it is, of course, possible that the total number of people killed might have been lower had the UK decided to start bombing Assad’s forces (although it’s not certain – it could, on the other hand, have led to a more direct clash between Russia and the west, with even more far-reaching consequences). 

It’s certainly true that it would have been different people being killed.  However, the argument that fewer people would have been killed in total if only we’d killed different people earlier isn’t one which is going to convince any of those of us who were opposed to UK military intervention.  It’s akin to comparing two piles of bodies, and deciding that what’s ‘right’ is whatever produces the smaller pile; it reduces casualties to numbers rather than seeing them as people.

But I’m equally uncomfortable with the idea that the rest of the world should, in situations like this, stand aside and let events take their course until one side or the other emerges ‘victorious’ over the piles of rubble and human bodies.  I wish that those of us who reject the simplistic proposition of military intervention from outside could propose an equally simplistic solution which did not involve inflicting more death and destruction on a country.  The immediate problem is that there are no easy, simple, short term solutions; peace is an elusive thing which needs a great deal of human endeavour to bring about.  The bigger problem is that current international agreements and institutions barely scratch the surface of what is required. 

There are places we could start, however.  Controlling and reducing the trading and manufacture of armaments would be one good step to take; rejecting the concept of unilateral intervention in the affairs of another country would be another.  Both of those require a strengthening of international institutions, particularly the UN.  But all of those things are tackling the symptoms rather than the underlying causes, which are about power, and control of resources, and the real, or merely perceived, differences between the earth’s tribes. 

In an age where there seems to be an increasing tendency to split humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ rather than building an understanding that we have a shared existence on one small and fragile planet, I’m pessimistic for the future.  On this issue, as on so many others, it seems that most of humanity is currently determined to advance its own interests at the expense of those of others.  I still believe that things can be different; but presently, there just aren’t enough of us who want them to be.

Or else...

Tweet Two short words often used by parents to children.  They don’t often work – the rebellious will ask “or else what?”,  whilst the even more rebellious will carry on and see whether any sanction is forthcoming or not.  Unless accompanied by a clear statement of the consequences – and a firm belief in the mind of the target audience that those sanctions will actually be imposed – it’s something of an empty threat.  Bluster and bluff.

Nor is that analysis is restricted to parents and children, as Obama, Cameron and others have discovered in relation to Syria.  Admittedly they face the not insignificant added complication of establishing beyond doubt that the miscreant is who they say it is; and given the past record of the UK and US governments in such matters, there will be some who will never believe even the apparently most incontrovertible evidence.

The lack of clarity about how to respond when their bluff was called merely underlines the extent to which the “or else” was indeed mostly bluff in the first place – it’s as though they believed that that the mere threat to do “something” would be enough of a deterrent in itself.

That isn’t the end of the confusion however – there also seem to be several elements of moral confusion involved in their thinking at present.

Horrific though chemical weapons are, and outlawed as they are under international law, the method by which Syrians are being killed daily is surely secondary to the fact that they’re being killed – from their point of view at the very least.  There is a real danger that the US, UK, and others are telling Syria that killing people on a large-scale is fine with the international community, as long as they use the “right” weapons to do it.

Further, the outrage at the use of chemical weapons is coming from people who themselves own, and want the rest of the world to believe that they would in certain circumstances use, weapons of mass destruction.  It’s not a particularly high ground on which to stand and moralise.

Outrage at the use of chemical weapons is understandable, and the desire to “punish” Assad for their use is also relatively easy to understand.  But in which way precisely does killing Syrian soldiers, and the inevitable civilian casualties which even the most precise “surgical” strike would kill, actually punish Assad?  As in all wars, those who suffer most are those at the bottom of the pile, not those at the top.

Then we have the US military elements who are apparently looking for ways to damage the Assad regime a little but not so much as to help the rebels win, given the influence of Al Qaeda in their ranks.  This is a recipe, if ever there was one, for prolonging the slaughter not ending it.

The inability of the international community to respond effectively to events in Syria is frustrating; the UN seems to be impotent.  The breach of international protocols in the use of chemical weapons is clearly unacceptable.

But the most unacceptable aspect of all is the daily slaughter which is taking place in the country, and none of those demanding “action” has given an adequate explanation to date as to how the “action” they propose will actually stop that slaughter, rather than simply add to it.