Honour amongst thieves
by Max Wind-Cowie
Who would you ask to sit on the committee for your local Neighbourhood Watch? I’m guessing it would be people of good character right? Folk who you knew to be – at least broadly – law abiding, co-operative and community spirited. At a stretch you’d maybe just go to the busy-bodies, well-intentioned but irritatingly over-involved. The people you wouldn’t be approaching, those who’d fail to make your shortlist, would be the local hooligans. Practicing burglars and muggers, people with recent criminal records and no hint of remorse and repentance. These you’d leave on the pile. Because these are the people you’d be looking to police.
The UN is supposed to be a sort of international Neighbourhood Watch. They have limited powers, really, but a duty to oversee and to call out the bad guys. Its not a neutral organisation either – framed as it is in the language of human rights and democratic self-determination. On paper it’s pretty clear what it’s for. And yet it struggles to do its stated job, frequently managing to achieve stasis or, worse, negative impact. The reason for this became all the clearer at a meeting of the Security Council this weekend. It’s because the crooks have been invited onto the board of this particular Neighbourhood Watch and been given a veto on what action, if any, it takes.
China and Russia are autocratic and despotic countries ruled by corrupt cliques. In China this takes the form of a political party that at least pretends to some form of governing principles. Russia – as was memorably described in a leaked diplomatic cable last year – is merely a ‘mafia state’. Neither permits their populations a realistic say in how their countries are governed. Both repress rebellion and dissent with brutal ruthlessness. Both wield Security Council vetoes. And so it is little surprise, really, that when the UN was asked to vote to reprimand a fellow dictator with an equally tyrannical and murderous world-view for slaughtering thousands of his own people, Russia and China didn’t merely demur but rather blocked the whole thing entirely. Honour amongst thieves, as it were.
Of course, they have form here. They blocked UN endorsement of the UK's successful intervention in Kosovo too. And in the case of Iraq it was Russia and China (with the aid of the French) who prevented UN endorsement. They call our desire to save people from tyranny ‘imperialism’. And yet Europe, America and – crucially – the Arab League in whose region the murder of Syrians is ongoing were united in demanding action whilst far-flung China and Russia felt able to dictate the fates of innocents in a far-off land. These are wretched dictators free to autocratically overrule the wishes of the wider world just as they are able to overrule their own people. And the UN, with its turgid structure and refusal to live up to its own values, enables and encourages them.
We need UN reform. We need to place criteria on Security Council membership and override the veto system. In the meantime, though, we need intervention to save lives in Syria. It is imperative that Governments here and elsewhere ignore the illegitimate ruling of the Security Council and act anyway. Until the UN is a legitimate body with a legitimate make-up and structure we must feel free to ignore it and be guided by the higher law of humane intervention.
Reality
Ask the 100,000 plus dead in Iraq who the "muggers, people with recent criminal records and no hint of remorse and repentance" are;
Russians and Chinese? Or British and Americans?
Ask the deliberately crippled, maimed, blinded, deaf, mute, horribly suffering in body and mind in Iraq who the "hooligans" are; Russians and Chinese? Or British and Americans?
Ask the people of the old Empire who the "burglars" were; the British
or the Russians and Chinese?
Mr Wind-Cowie is an uneducated FOOL.
Mark Macho
It is not enough to say my thugs are nicer than your thugs.
Is Mr. Wind planning on fighting in Syria?
Syria is suffering terribly. But without battling away for international
understanding we are harming our children It is always tempting to
think our moral insights are superior to the moral insights of others
and we alone possess wisdom.
Russia and China both have lost millions to foreign invaders in recent times using their internal conflicts as an excuse. It is not a wonder they are wary.
As for control subtle and unsubtle by thuggish elites, the UK with its Monarchs and Lords and Etonians and Oxbridge tutorial apologists
has reason for fearing falling foul of this argument. But Mr. Wind does not. We all rather approve of our own men of power against foreign men of power. I do not recall the world
crying out for British rule in past centuries. And many British people
were quite sure it would be good for those they conquered and ruled. Were the British thieves?
Cooperaton and understanding are difficult. But in the age of air travel and the internet we have a chance at it. Without others we
are exiled to our own blindnesses. As we exile them to theirs.
Abandoning the art of listening is abandoning intelligence. Our
whole technical civilization depends on magpie ideas assembled from everywhere. Denying what others observe is to refuse to set foot
on the road to a wiser world.
It is not enough to say my thugs are nicer than your thugs.
We do not chose where we are born and our minds should not be
confined by it .
Neil Walker
Is Max above going to fight for freedom in Syria? Thought not.
Max Wind-Cowie
Gosh. I'll try to deal with the themes of the comments rather than each separately. First off, there is a recurrent message here that Syria and the UK are somehow comparable in terms of repression. This is abject nonsense. This is a country where individuals are free to protest on all manner of issues - from Islamic extremists burning poppies to students tramping the streets to voice their opposition to tuition fees. Yes, sometimes these protests end in moderate violence - when individuals refuse to obey the law - and when that happens our free press hold the police to account. NONE OF THIS happens in Syria or, while we're on the topic, in China and Russia. The Queen may be unelected but she certainly doesn't command the power or un-checked supremacy of Assad, Putin or the Communist Party of China. I call for the removal of the veto - especially from purely censorial resolutions - and the broadening of the Security Council membership to include large, emerging democracies. This would make it harder for the US to single-handedly silence debate about Israel as well as impacting on the ability of two autocracies to prevent censure of other autocracies. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself but the battle to reform the UN is more important than protecting a closed-shop which hinders international debate and conflict resolution. As for whether I will be fighting in Syria - no, I will not. But members of my family serve in our military and I think very carefully indeed before calling for action. I am also well aware, through years as a particularly rubbish Army Cadet, that I might turn out to be more of a hindrance than a help in any military exercise :)
Malcolm Rasala
Nice try Max but not really an adequate response. Morally, if you call for military intervention in Syria - which is your subtext - you should be prepared to put your body where your mouth is. Calling for members of your family to fight and die for your cause is a bit disgusting if you lack the moral backbone to do so yourself. Saying you were a rubbish Army Cadet, might be self deprecating but is not a moral position is it?
Of course you are right about the degree of difference between an Assad and Elizabeth Windsor. And you are right about degrees of repression. But it is only a matter of degrees. Tell that to those Britain killed at the Golden Temple in Amritsar. And the many others who have died resisting British rule in Kenya or elsewhere across the world let alone within Britain even recently. When did you last here of a British policeman or member of the military being convicted of beating anyone to death after they had clearly done so?
This does not negate your point. But you, like many, pretend or maybe believe myopically you live in the best of all possible worlds. Whereas you claim Russia is a Mafia State. And China is repressive. And by the way China is not an autocracy. There are thousands in the Chinese Communist Party. It may be an autocracy (bit like the Oxbridge dominated British politcal system). And if you read my piece fully you will observe I said 'similar evil' i.e. I do not condone the way Russia or China behaves. But your black and white way of seeing the world is truly juvenile and ill informed.
You did not answer my point about the numerous times we and the Americans have vetoed UN resolutions. And of course you can't. Because we have. And we have when human beings were similarly being murdered by the Israeli military as today the appalling murder
by Assads military clique. You say "I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself". What about the Palestinians right to exist and defend themselves? Silence. Hypocrisy or just again moral blindness?
Ditto your mafia quip. Cheap and silly given the human misery Wall Street and City of London bankers have inflicted in the last few years. Indicate could you the equal suffering caused by the Russian 'mafia'? We await your evidence supporting such neo-con nonsense.
Finally your piece de resistance. You call for the removal of the UN veto. Seriously Max are you for real? Do you seriously believe for a milli-second America will give up is veto? Or Britain? Or Russia? Or
China? What planet are you living on? I suppose you feel yourself to be a think tank guru so you are allowed blue-sky thinking. But this is not blue-sky thinking. It is as a famous American General once said 'Nuts'. As is of course, sadly, so much of the supposed thinking by right wing think tanks. No wonder this government is in a mess and digging itself in deeper when it has fantasists worse immoralists like you behind it.
Mark Macho
The UN is a talkshop of nations. That is its purpose. Some
governments may be more legitimate than others but in diplomacy that is not the point. Like any team,council or cabinet, if you want
its clout you must accept its rulings when you concur and when you do not.
No surprise then that it is often not in line with British policy and morals. It is not a British organ. And most of the world has had its fill
of foreigners including the British telling them what is desirable. As for law, conquerors always make law on the hoof and enforce it with a gun. Asad does this as would your invading force. At least he is a Syrian.
An apologist has his own ends in mind. A philosopher tries to see the flaws in all arguments including his own. You are not really making a
case for how your invasion would provide Syria with a native civil democracy and not just another type of bad government. Only that the present situation is desperate.
Now when the nascent United States sought to overthrow the British
they sought French help. Unsurprisinly the British did not approve. Do you wish to make an alliance with those who oppose Asad? So the whole world does not concur. So you are offended. Now what,Max?
Do you think with a few rejiggings the whole world will come on some occasion to seeing everything the way you do? That is not
philosophy or politics.
Malcolm Rasala
Sincere apologies my second 'autocracy' should have read oligarchy
(bit like the Oxbridge dominated political system). Sorry again!!!
Mark Macho
PS One coul write a serious scholarly work on how present
Middle East disarray rests at least partly on the
Mark Macho
PS One could write a serious scholarly work on how present
Middle East disarray rests at least partly on the cack-handed
interventions of Oxbridge English public schoolboys armed only with
a rudimentary grounding in classical languages and some
jingoistic newspaper articles at redrawing the map of the Middle East with new borders, new dispensations and rulers, and a blissful ignorance of the cultural, governmental, ethnic and religious divides of centuries.Forgotten Iraq already? Think they are fondly remembered?
Go ask someone who is not British.
Peter Rothswell
How is it that Un cares so much about Syria and laments the failiure of the security council vote to intervene when similar themes have gone unoticed elsewhere. For instance, no body even remotely cared about the Srilankan war on Tamils (not just the LTTE) and a similar control on free press. Burma, East Timor, etc. On a much larger scale: Israel !!!
I am no conspiracy theorist but the honour amongst the western theives is one dictated of "oil" and "strategic interests"
Max Wind-Cowie
Peter, you appear to have managed to misunderstand both this blog and the position of the UN. You ask 'why they care so much about Syria' - they don't, that's the point. The UNSC refused to pass a resolution merely condemning Syria's murder of its own people. The other examples you give - Sri Lanka, Burma etc have been the focus of UN attention. There are multinational sanctions against Burma and travel bans on members of the Junta, while in Sri Lanka there has been an extensive UN HR investigation as well as widespread international condemnation. I agree with you that both would have been candidates for intervention - and I am disappointed that we have done less in a myriad of places - but it is simply not the case that the UN ignores all other dictatorships. As for Israel, I'm afraid the comparison does not bear out. While mistakes may well hve been made by the IDF, the sheer scale of deliberate murder of civilians in Syria renders any attempt to cast Israel into a similar category absurd.
Biana De Silva
Can Max substantiate his assertion/bias above that Syria has killed more than Israel. Lets see the numbers Max. Otherwise you will appear a bit of a bigot.
Malcolm Rasala
You are right Bianca. Mr Wind does appear a bit of a bigot. Here are the facts as put out by the Israel Information Centre for Human Rights' 29 September 2000 to 31 March 2008. He should check his facts before writing the drivel that appears to be his forte. For the complete figures 1948 to 2012 just type 'Palestinians killed by Israel
1948 to 2012 on Google:
Occupied Territories Israel
Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces 4,608
Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians 44
Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians 234
Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians 242
Foreign citizens killed by Palestinians 17
Foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces 10
Palestinians killed by Palestinians 577 0
Source: B'Tselem (Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories)
Biana de Silva
Mr Winds blatant ignorance of the facts:
1948–49 Israel kills 13,000 Palestinians and drives 750,000
from their towns and villages in the Nakba (‘Catastrophe’),
occupying 78% of historic Palestine (map 3). Descendants
of these refugees live today in some 100 refugee camps
in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. UN
resolution 194 calls on Israel to allow the return of the
refugees; the resolution is ignored. Over 400 Palestinian
villages are subsequently razed to the ground.
1967 Israel occupies the West Bank, East Jerusalem and
the Gaza Strip (the ‘Occupied Territories’) during the 6-day
war with Egypt, bringing all of historical Palestine under
Israeli rule. UN resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw
from the territories. It fails to do so, and initiates a system of
increasingly brutal military control over the territories.
1987 Israeli settlement of the Occupied Territories grows
steadily, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Palestinians rise up in the first non-violent Intifada
(‘uprising’), calling for self-determination and an
independent Palestinian state.
Palestine and occupation
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, after visiting the West Bank,
declared: ‘it reminded me so much of what happened to
us black people in South Africa.’ He saw ‘the humiliation
of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks,
suffering like us when young white police officers
prevented us from moving about’.
1993–5 The US brokers a series of agreements between
the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships. The ‘Oslo Accords’
are intended as a first step towards Palestinian self-rule,
with a staged withdrawal from the Occupied Territories by
Israeli troops. However, illegal Israeli settlements in the
Occupied Territories double in number during the ‘peace
process’. By the year 2000 there are about 350,000 Israeli
settlers in the Occupied Territories.
2000 Israel’s increasingly brutal military rule and its
widespread seizure of Palestinian land for settlement
building ignites a second Intifada. Thousands are killed
as Palestinian towns and refugees camps are invaded and
shelled by Israeli tanks and targeted by F16 bombers.
2002 The Arab governments declare they are prepared
to recognise Israel within the pre-1967 borders at the
Beirut Conference. Israel ignores this offer, violently invades
every Palestinian city except Jericho and starts building a
separation wall, largely on Palestinian land.
2005 Israel pulls out its 8000 illegal settlers from the Gaza
Strip (which has a population of 1.4 million Palestinians) —
and settles another 30,000 in the West Bank. It then seals
off the Gaza Strip.
2006 After elections judged free and democratic by the UN,
the Islamist Hamas party comes to power. Israel abducts
and imprisons 35 Hamas MPs and many supporters and
subjects Gaza to major military attacks, destroying the only
power plant. Backed by Western powers, Israel imposes a
complete blockade of the Gaza Strip.
2008–9 Israel breaks a six-month ceasefire with Hamas and
for three weeks bombs and shells Gaza, reducing 25% of
the buildings to rubble, including homes, schools, mosques,
police stations and the university. Over 1,300 Palestinians
are killed, about a third of them children. 13 Israelis are
killed. The UN-sponsored Goldstone Report condemns
Israeli actions as war crimes.
Simon Roberts
Ironical to read the above by Bianca, Malcolm and Mark and then
find Max having the audacity to accuse others of Honour Amonst Thieves. What a complete Dildo!!!
Max Wind-Cowie
The absurdity of these comparisons speaks for itself rather. Taking an international, ongoing conflict in which significant numbers on both sides have been displaced, injured and killed over a sixty year period and holding it up against a short, civil conflict in which the state has used its machinery to deliberately murder thousands over a period of months is disgusting. Even if I accepted your figures for the casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict (I do not by the way) then I would still be obliged to point out that you are attempting to draw a moral equivalence between figures over a sixty year conflict with those over less than a year. That is bizarre. And why is it that apologists for Ba'athists and Iranian theocrats ALWAYS want to talk about Israel? Why not talk about the countries in question, why not propose solutions other than intervention for defending Syrian civilians? Why not say something about what this blog is about?
James Cameron
In an attempt to get this discussion back on track, I would question the means by which you intend to facilitate greater intervention by the UN in the internal affairs of states. It is unclear exactly why you believe that the imposition of new democratic criteria for Security Council membership would necessarily mean that intervention would be more likely in the future. Reform in this way would remove Russian and Chinese vetoes, but democracies such as Brazil, India and Germany have been extremely hesitant in backing action in the past. Moreover, such a move would remove considerable influence from just those states that have both the will and the means to take part in such operations -- notably the US, UK and France.
Malcolm Rasala
Because Max you are a bigot. You pick and choose facts to suit your bias. You are not objective. No one above has said either Israeli murder or Syrian murder is morally equivalent. It isn't. It is murder. It is wrong. Period.
But you started this. You like a small child called the behaviour of two countries silly names like a Mafia state. Read your own pathetically
childish and bigoted words Max. All anyone above appears to have done
is to point out that what you myopically accuse China and Russia of has equally been done by America and Britain. Myopia is one thing. Open hypocrisy takes your pathetic bigotry to a new low.
Max Wind-Cowie
James, lovely to hear from you and I hope you're well. My proposal is two-fold, that we expand the UNSC to include some of the emerging, democratic economic powers in order to better balance it and that we replace the veto system with a form of qualified majority voting. Would this mean we intervened always and everywhere? Certainly not - as you rightly point out, democracy at home does not mean interventionist in foreign policy. But it would do two things - weaken the grip of authoritarian states on deciding the UN's agenda (thereby lessening the moral absurdity of the UNSC) and make the UNSC more inclusive and reflective of changing power alignments. If we look at the General Assembly's recent vote on Syria we can see the overwhelming majority prepared to declare their condemnation while a relatively small group of dictatorships and/or faux-democracies opposed.
Malcolm, I'm really not sure what to say. As I point out in my blog, 'Mafia State' is not my term - it's the words of the US State Department. And I cannot accept your argument that the behaviour of Russia and China is comparable to the historic record of the UK and Britain. Israel-Palestine is a complex international conflict with many more moral grey areas than the use of force by the Syrian Government to execute thousands of its citizens. I am a supporter of Israel, as you well know. But I also acknowledge that removing the veto - despite the lessening of the protection afforded to Israel that would be entailed - is still worthwhile. I am unsure as to how this makes me a 'bigot'. I am prepared to sacrifice Western vetoes - and the assistance they have given Israel - in exchange for a fairer and less hypocritical UNSC. That's not myopia, it's compromise.
James Cameron
It's an interesting idea, but politically impossible. The Chinese and Russians would veto any such move as a diminution of their influence. The politics of whom to admit would be incredibly messy.
Malcolm Rasala
Golly Max
I realise 'bigot' is a hard and cruel epithet. But at best Max you appear unable to practice empathy. Try, very hard to imagine you are a young guy - born through no fault of your own as a Palastinian in the occupied territories. You are dictated that everything you do is at the point of a gun; an Israeli gun. If you step out of line, if you rebel because you feel this imposition is immoral (as do those increasinly in Syria) you are shot or locked up (exactly in Syria). Pray tell the difference?
And then you read this blogger who appears knee jerk like to approve
behaviour by 'rebels' in Syria but not 'rebels' in Palestine.He criticises tyrannical rule in Syria but not tyrannical rule where you live. As a young Syrian you see Russia and China supporting the 'dictatorship' of the Baath party and maintaining their appalling rule. As a young Palastinian you see America and Britain supporting the 'dictatorship' under which you live and maintaining nay arming Israels appalling behaviour. How would you feel?. Empathise Max.... just for a few seconds. And then reread the double standards of what you wrote above. Not nice is it? Not very objective? A bit biased. A bit hypocritical. Get it?
Malcolm Rasala
Don't you just love hypocrisy!. When America and Britain vetoed a Palastinian resolution recently we heard not a peep from fanatical right-wingers like Mr Wind-Cowie above.
When America vetoed what is it 100 resolutions criticising Israel over its continual breach of UN resolutions heard we a peep from Wind-Cowie and his right wing neo-cons. Not a whimper.
But when China and Russia copy Britain and America and veto something they do not like the roof falls in. Mr Wind-Cowie has a fit.
You seriously have to laugh at his blatant hypocrisy.
Worse is his clinical myopia. "Both China & Russia' repress rebellion and dissent with brutal ruthlessness" Patently our hero has never been on a British demo. Get up the images of British police action on YouTube and TV News items.
"China and Russia are autocratic and despotic countries ruled by corrupt cliques". Last time I looked Britain had a Head of State that had been there for 60 years unelected. True or False? And we have the temerity to criticise tyrants who sit unelected over their people for half this time. The Wettin family reigning over us does not accrete money from taxpapers coffers like Gaddafi or Mubarek? And who by the way elects the clique that is the House of Lords?
"Neither permits their populations a realistic say in how their countries are governed" Who elected this Coalition? Who elected
the Tory wing of this Coalition to destroy the National Health Service? Over the top? Think for a moment of going to your GP and
he now commissioning you to have an operation that he commissions from a private company he owns. Conflict of interest? How will you ever know if you really need this treatment or he is just commissioning it to line his pocket Tory Banker style. Did anyone vote for this?. Did anyone vote for the tripling of University Tuition fees?
"A Mafia state". Look around you at the millions unemployed, the growing poverty, the collapsing companies, the empty high streets.
The cause; a mafia corrupt clique of bankers. Open your eyes Max. You talk nonsense.
The problem with the clinically myopic is they always think they are the good party and that they - Liebnitz style - live in the best of all possible worlds. The others who do similar evil are alone the bad party. As Voltaire observed such observations are delusional nonsense. Worse, like Mr Wind-Cowie so aptly portrays above hypocrisy clouds intelligent judgment. And this chap calls himself a thinker. Don't you just love his child-like naivety.