![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hurrah! Back to politics!
Jun. 12th, 2003 01:18 pmYou know, my LJ has been missing a good old political rant for a while, and ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
applez and raggedhalo might be starting to get bored, so I’m glad to say that Claire Shorts recent crackpot ranting has raised my blood pressure sufficiently for me to feel compelled to put pen to paper. I’ll apologise to a certain Mr. Kamm, whom I am flagrantly ripping off here.
For those of you who don’t know, Ms. Short was a member of the British Government who recently displayed a surprising degree of conscience by becoming the first member of government to quit on a mtter of principle since Michael Heseltine in 1986.
Sadly, any respect she may have got from me for this moment of decency on her part has been shot to tatters by her subsequent whinging.
Demonstrating a desire that nobody ever should ever take her seroiusly again, Claire starts off by saying…
"The terrible reality is that the world is more fragile, divided, bitter and unhappy post-11 September, in exactly the way that Osama bin Laden would want."
From his vantage point under a rock in the Tora Bora mountains, what remains of Mr bin Laden is in no immediate position to say whether he agrees, but it seems unlikely that the routing of his organisation in Afghanistan, the toppling of the theocracy that supported it, the capture or death of nearly half of his senior operatives, and the overthrow of an Iraqi tyrant with nuclear ambitions against the West is exactly what he had in mind.
The rest of Miss Short's article appears to have been compiled - I can't bring myself to say 'written' - by fitting the cliches together in random order. American power 'acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism', ensuring that the 'enormous tide of sympathy and support that flowed to America after the attacks – from all corners of the world - has now been dissipated', even while the world 'has become a global village'.
You get the picture.
In truth, as Jonathan Rauch lucidly explains, America has not dissipated international sympathy but spent it, and wisely. The Bush administration recognised that the proximity of Islamist terrorism to weapons of genocide required a change in policy towards bellicose tyrannies that might, and probably would, act as supplier.
US diplomacy had traditionally aimed at stability in the Arab world, and therefore sought ties with rulers who might be repressive but could be relied upon, so it was thought, to ally with the West. President Bush has undemonstratively rejected that approach and stressed – by the removal of Saddam, pressure on Syria and Iran, and the sidelining of the corrupt and duplicitous Yasser Arafat in favour of a man who appears serious about making peace – that the US will pursue democracy in the region. It is one of history's greater ironies that so unexceptionable and progressive a goal should be bitterly denounced by many who suppose themselves to stand on the liberal Left. Get it straight, my brothers and sisters: there is no Humanitarian International for the Preservation of National-Socialist Baathist Dictatorship.
Miss Short at least gets one thing right:
"The current administration has shown its disrespect for the UN throughout the Iraq crisis."
Exactly. Respect is not an entitlement: it is something you have to earn. The UN's performance over Iraq, not just in recent months but over 12 years, entitles it to no respect whatever. Throughout the 1990s the US worked with the UN to formulate its approach to Iraq. The result, was an unambiguous failure. The inspections regime was rendered ineffectual by French and Russian unwillingness to coerce Saddam. When Saddam refused to cooperate even with that arrangement, the Security Council failed to issue him an ultimatum. The UN, in short, wouldn't even demand limited inspections backed by the threat of air power.
The only reason the UN was persuaded to carry a tough new resolution, 1441, last autumn was America's threat to invade Iraq. Had President Bush 'respected' the UN and eschewed unilateralism, the inspectors would never have gone back in. Having returned to Iraq, the inspectors did not receive the cooperation mandated under Resolution 1441, and the UN ignored its obligation to enforce it. Fortunately this US administration – which, absurdly and disgracefully, Miss Short brackets with the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh - and this British government understand that upholding international law, human rights and pacific resolution of disputes still requires agents even if the UN declines the role.
As a member of the Cabinet for six years, Miss Short must know this sorry history, yet she makes no acknowledgement that the UN itself, and not just the US, has responsibilities to uphold international law. She has her mind on a higher calling:
"we have two possible ways forward: either a commitment to greater global justice, sharing knowledge and technology to give everyone in the world the chance of a decent life; or a growth in inequality, bitterness, environmental degradations, disease, war and displacement."
Let me see, now; it's a tough question, but which one should I plump for? Or should I cover my indecisiveness by protesting that the former International Development Secretary shows an alarming disinclination to convey to a popular readership the state of empirical research into international development?
Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University has conducted rigorous statistical tests on the world distribution of income and concluded that global poverty, on Miss Short's own definition, has sharply declined in the last 20 years, while – more surprisingly - global inequality has also narrowed, owing to the rapid growth in that time of populous India and China. The outstanding laggard in economic performance is Africa, where an increasing proportion of the world's poor are concentrated.
To be fair to Clare Short, she did good work in government in highlighting the issue of Africa and the moral obligation western nations have to assist that continent to lift itself out of poverty. She was willing then to incur unpopularity with the anti-globalisation crowd by pointing out that Africa needs trade and private investment, not fantasies of self-sufficiency and indicative planning.
Call me a paid agent of the interests of imperialism, but I prefer the Clare Short who wanted to improve Africa's growth rates to the one who now debases public life with vapid, sanctimonious and tautological ("crucial that we share and care for our planet much more carefully") posturing.
applez and raggedhalo might be starting to get bored, so I’m glad to say that Claire Shorts recent crackpot ranting has raised my blood pressure sufficiently for me to feel compelled to put pen to paper. I’ll apologise to a certain Mr. Kamm, whom I am flagrantly ripping off here.For those of you who don’t know, Ms. Short was a member of the British Government who recently displayed a surprising degree of conscience by becoming the first member of government to quit on a mtter of principle since Michael Heseltine in 1986.
Sadly, any respect she may have got from me for this moment of decency on her part has been shot to tatters by her subsequent whinging.
Demonstrating a desire that nobody ever should ever take her seroiusly again, Claire starts off by saying…
"The terrible reality is that the world is more fragile, divided, bitter and unhappy post-11 September, in exactly the way that Osama bin Laden would want."
From his vantage point under a rock in the Tora Bora mountains, what remains of Mr bin Laden is in no immediate position to say whether he agrees, but it seems unlikely that the routing of his organisation in Afghanistan, the toppling of the theocracy that supported it, the capture or death of nearly half of his senior operatives, and the overthrow of an Iraqi tyrant with nuclear ambitions against the West is exactly what he had in mind.
The rest of Miss Short's article appears to have been compiled - I can't bring myself to say 'written' - by fitting the cliches together in random order. American power 'acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism', ensuring that the 'enormous tide of sympathy and support that flowed to America after the attacks – from all corners of the world - has now been dissipated', even while the world 'has become a global village'.
You get the picture.
In truth, as Jonathan Rauch lucidly explains, America has not dissipated international sympathy but spent it, and wisely. The Bush administration recognised that the proximity of Islamist terrorism to weapons of genocide required a change in policy towards bellicose tyrannies that might, and probably would, act as supplier.
US diplomacy had traditionally aimed at stability in the Arab world, and therefore sought ties with rulers who might be repressive but could be relied upon, so it was thought, to ally with the West. President Bush has undemonstratively rejected that approach and stressed – by the removal of Saddam, pressure on Syria and Iran, and the sidelining of the corrupt and duplicitous Yasser Arafat in favour of a man who appears serious about making peace – that the US will pursue democracy in the region. It is one of history's greater ironies that so unexceptionable and progressive a goal should be bitterly denounced by many who suppose themselves to stand on the liberal Left. Get it straight, my brothers and sisters: there is no Humanitarian International for the Preservation of National-Socialist Baathist Dictatorship.
Miss Short at least gets one thing right:
"The current administration has shown its disrespect for the UN throughout the Iraq crisis."
Exactly. Respect is not an entitlement: it is something you have to earn. The UN's performance over Iraq, not just in recent months but over 12 years, entitles it to no respect whatever. Throughout the 1990s the US worked with the UN to formulate its approach to Iraq. The result, was an unambiguous failure. The inspections regime was rendered ineffectual by French and Russian unwillingness to coerce Saddam. When Saddam refused to cooperate even with that arrangement, the Security Council failed to issue him an ultimatum. The UN, in short, wouldn't even demand limited inspections backed by the threat of air power.
The only reason the UN was persuaded to carry a tough new resolution, 1441, last autumn was America's threat to invade Iraq. Had President Bush 'respected' the UN and eschewed unilateralism, the inspectors would never have gone back in. Having returned to Iraq, the inspectors did not receive the cooperation mandated under Resolution 1441, and the UN ignored its obligation to enforce it. Fortunately this US administration – which, absurdly and disgracefully, Miss Short brackets with the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh - and this British government understand that upholding international law, human rights and pacific resolution of disputes still requires agents even if the UN declines the role.
As a member of the Cabinet for six years, Miss Short must know this sorry history, yet she makes no acknowledgement that the UN itself, and not just the US, has responsibilities to uphold international law. She has her mind on a higher calling:
"we have two possible ways forward: either a commitment to greater global justice, sharing knowledge and technology to give everyone in the world the chance of a decent life; or a growth in inequality, bitterness, environmental degradations, disease, war and displacement."
Let me see, now; it's a tough question, but which one should I plump for? Or should I cover my indecisiveness by protesting that the former International Development Secretary shows an alarming disinclination to convey to a popular readership the state of empirical research into international development?
Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University has conducted rigorous statistical tests on the world distribution of income and concluded that global poverty, on Miss Short's own definition, has sharply declined in the last 20 years, while – more surprisingly - global inequality has also narrowed, owing to the rapid growth in that time of populous India and China. The outstanding laggard in economic performance is Africa, where an increasing proportion of the world's poor are concentrated.
To be fair to Clare Short, she did good work in government in highlighting the issue of Africa and the moral obligation western nations have to assist that continent to lift itself out of poverty. She was willing then to incur unpopularity with the anti-globalisation crowd by pointing out that Africa needs trade and private investment, not fantasies of self-sufficiency and indicative planning.
Call me a paid agent of the interests of imperialism, but I prefer the Clare Short who wanted to improve Africa's growth rates to the one who now debases public life with vapid, sanctimonious and tautological ("crucial that we share and care for our planet much more carefully") posturing.
