Watching the Chilcot yesterday caused Angels to shudder. As the mists of battle cleared there arose from them the dreary spires of the model for progressive post-democratic, global governance. This time not Europe, but the United Nations in all its corruption and placemanship - the notion that it should be ignored by any self-respecting sovereign state not even entertained. Saddam was not conforming to UN resolutions? That gave us the legal and moral right to shock and awe Iraqi cities and infrastructure to smithereens and then land invade the life out of the Iraqi people. "A serious, credible threat to regional stability' ? Kill them. Prime Minister Blair is "an absolute believer in internationalism and the United Nations as a force for good in the world". (Campbell, yesterday).
The United Nations is about as much use to the modern world as Bretton Woods.
And after Fermanagh, the Tyrone spire. It was right that the case for the invasion of Iraq should be 'intelligence based'. The Foreign Office had it made clear to it that their input - historical, political, informed, specialised, assessing risk and gain for the United Kingdom - was not required. The case would be evidenced-based, factual, beyond dispute; in a word, 'settled'.
Then it was for the prime minister, indeed it was the essence of prime ministerial duty, to take political decisions based on undisputed facts; drawing on his world view, which he would formulate over weekends by reading books and phoning people up who might be able to help.
'Was any record kept of this reading programme and of those consulted and what was said?' Well, no. But on Monday mornings Tony would tell Alastair all about it and present a brief note to his close circle on what he wanted presented to the administration and, if deemed useful, to the rest of us at large. More or less it was the rogue states, terrorism, proliferation of WMD world view.
Unfortunately the intelligence-based platform for action was no more robust than the global warming science-based platform. The dossiers of ostensibly consolidated intelligence information were propaganda presented as evidence-based truth; it irritated the intelligence community that it was put over their names just as the climatologists who found themselves besmirched by the East Anglian propaganda were irritated.
At least in Copenhagen they failed to agree to attack China.
Note:
Botogol gives a fine account of attending the Chilcot Inquiry in the flesh. And displays initiative in getting a cup of coffee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
"The United Nations is about as much use to the modern world as Bretton Woods"
I couldn't agree more. It's terminally corrupt, and essentially no more than a tool to allow the poorer and more despotic elements of the world community to bash the richer and more democratic - and take their stuff.
It might perhaps have value in allowing those elements to feel they have some influence on affairs, but that's all I will allow.
otoh it's only the existence of the UN that permits us to posit such concepts as legal and illegal wars - the latter being those not sanctioned by the UN's cabal of kleptocrats.
Which is why, whenever those concepts arise, I pour scorn on them; last time I did so here, you disagreed rather strongly.
Do I detect an inconsistency?
My view, fwiw, is that all wars are wrong, some are wronger than others, and some may be fought for the noblest of motives; but one sure sign of a sovereign state is that it will make its own decisions on such matters. The concept of a legal war can only arise within the purview of World Government, which I hope and fervently pray never to see in my lifetime.
Apologies for rambling.
"on Monday mornings Tony would tell Alastair all about it and present a brief note to his close circle on what he wanted presented to the administration and, if deemed useful, to the rest of us at large."
"They went and told the sexton, and The sexton tolled the bell"
Whatever we're told is, almost by definition these days, untrue and/or useless.
Post a Comment