Things don't just 'happen' in a vacuum

Tweet

 

It would be an understatement to say that it isn’t often that I agree with anything said by US Vice-President JD Vance. There is, though, an exception to every rule, and his comment that “sometimes things happen” during a war is surely true. For all the talk of precision munitions, the reality is that, once a shooting war starts, there will be casualties outside the armed forces of the states involved. Whether it’s human error, equipment malfunction, or outdated targeting information matters little – non-combatants will inevitably be killed or injured. “Things happen”.

It’s standard practice for both sides in every conflict to point to things done by the other side and shout ‘war crime’. And there is no doubt that war crimes, as defined under international law, are almost invariably committed by all sides in any armed conflict. I wonder, though, how useful the distinction is. In what sense, for instance, is a reluctant teenage conscript who has had a gun thrust into his or her hand before being sent to the front line any less ‘innocent’ than the family and friends they left behind? Wars aren’t started by soldiers, whether voluntary or conscripted: the soldiers are simply the ones sent to kill or be killed by the rulers of the state in which they happen to live, or have been born. Maybe we should draw a distinction between the volunteers and the conscripts in terms of their degree of innocence, maybe not: those signing on are as likely to have done so out of hopelessness about the economic situation in their communities as out of any desire to go out and kill.

The real war crimes are committed by those who start the wars in the first place, and those who commit or commission violent attacks which stop short of actual war but which provoke an even more violent reaction. Vance might be right to say that ‘things happen’, but that doesn’t excuse those who created the situation in which they happen. Preventing ‘things’ from happening depends on moving away from violence as a means of resolving disputes – and Vance has no excuse for the actions and decisions of the government of which he has been a part.

Double standards usually apply

Tweet

 

It’s probably reasonable to assume that US Vice President Vance didn’t know that he needed a licence to go fishing on the lake at Chevening. Whether he would be so indulgent about a visitor to the US breaking a local law of which (s)he was ignorant is another question, but being fair-minded and reasonable doesn’t depend on reciprocity. Lammy, however, and the staff at Chevening should have known, and he certainly would have known had he been an avid angler.

It's apparently a non-trivial offence: it seems that the fine for fishing without the requisite licence is up to £2,500, even if you’re fishing in your own lake on your own land to which there is no public access, although unless you’re dull enough to invite a photographer to film the crime, you’re unlikely to be caught. It does sound a bit like what politicians normally like to call unnecessary red tape. In Lammy’s defence, inviting a photographer to capture the scene is hardly the action of someone who knows that he is breaking the law. My best guess is that he’s never fished before, and angling is one of those life-long passions which politicians suddenly remember when a good photo-op presents itself. That, though, begs the question – where did the rods come from? It’s possible that they are kept at Chevening for the use of guests (which might make this a case of serial offending) or that some underling was sent out to acquire them. In either case, someone should have known that a permit was required, even if that someone wasn’t Lammy himself.

Lammy has owned up to the problem, paid for a licence and apologised, and that seems to be the end of the matter. I can’t help wondering, though, whether offering to pay for a licence retrospectively would have worked the same magic for those who have been fined for similar offences, or whether double standards are in operation. Lammy has actually handled it rather well – none of the usual bluster about no wrongdoing, just a rapid apology and retrospective purchase of a licence. It does still, though, underline the eternal truth: them what owns or controls the land can get away with more than the rest of us.