Humanitarianism and the Iraq Inquiry

To the surprise of few, Tony Blair has made a robust case to the Chilcot inquiry for his decision to join the Americans in the invasion of Iraq. His presence reminds us of what we have lost. That we have learnt not much new should be no surprise to anyone. We have had several previous inquiries. But it is still useful to be reminded of two things: we've had lots of process discussion, but Blair has made clear that in the end this was a matter of his making a decision, whatever one's subsequent view of it. And we need Prime Ministers who can take decisions.

But the second point is the context of Blair's own experience, as set out in the 1999 Chicago speech, but also enacted in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, both of which would be illegal in the eyes of those who believe that any action not supported by China and Russia should never take place. I was not in no 10 at the time, so merely observed the debate from outside. But I personally was never entirely convinced of the way the WMD argument was deployed, while believing that Saddam should go not only because of the threat he posed to the region but also to his own people. At the time, I remember thinking that the strongest case made by Blair was a speech to the 2003 Labour spring conference where he used strong moral arguments to link the humanitarian to the WMD case. Blair's evidence to the inquiry that the aftermath planning was focused on humanitarian planning rather than unexpected Al Qaeda insurgency or Iranian-inspired terrorism was particularly interesting in this context.

When one remembers the 110,000 people who died as a result of the inaction in Bosnia of John Major and Bill Clinton or the million deaths as a result of the deplorable failure of the UN in Rwanda, it is to accept that we should never act to stop such murder, which is the corollary of what most of Blair's critics suggest. The real tragedy of the failings in the aftermath of the quick military victory, and the near-consensus in the West about what has resulted, is that it is likely to leave other genocidal leaders like Milosevic or Saddam to continue unfettered unless China changes the habits of a lifetime and opposes them.

This posting has been picked up by the keeptonyblairforpm blog

When "people weren't dying" in Bosnia

According to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, defence secretary under John Major from April 1992- July 1995, on Today this morning, "people weren't dying on a regular basis" in Bosnia during the time he held that post and presided over serial inaction.

Really? Here's what the MoD has to say on the subject:

war broke out on 5 April 1992, when Bosnian Serbs besieged Sarajevo.....by mid 1995 the factions had almost fought themselves to exhaustion and rough equilibrium. NATO launched air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions from late August to mid-September to force them to the negotiating table, and a US brokered cease-fire came into effect on 5 October 1995. The Bosnian death toll after the war was originally estimated at around 200,000 by the Bosnian government. This figure is still often quoted by the Western media. However, the most recent research places the number of victims at around 100,000–110,000 killed (both civilians and military), and 1.8 million forcibly displaced.

How Karadzic thrived on appeasement

The welcome capture of the Bosnian Serb killer Radovan Karadzic is a victory for the international justice system and an encouraging sign - following this year's elections - that Serbia has opted for progress within Europe over irredentist nationalism. But it is also an opportunity to remind ourselves exactly why this self-styled poet and latter day 'alternative' therapist got away with it so long as he arranged the mass murder of up to 100,000 people. Nobody does this better than Ed Vulliamy in today's Guardian:

Karadzic was no fool; he spoke the diplomats' language, and, in return, Britain, France and the UN led the prevalent international policy of calculated refusal to stop him, thereby advancing his aims. The governments of Britain and France especially - as well as the United Nations leadership - saw in Karadzic not the war criminal they call him today, but a fellow politician with whom to do business. Karadzic dealt - directly or indirectly - with Lord Peter Carrington, Malcolm Rifkind, Lord David Owen, Cyrus Vance, Douglas Hurd and Dame Pauline Neville-Jones as an equal deserving full diplomatic protocol. A recent book by the lawyer Carole Hodge finds Karadzic, in return, praising Britain's "refined diplomacy". To the private hilarity of the Serbs, western diplomats accepted Karadzic's endless, empty guarantees and his posturing and fleeting "ceasefires". They agreed to turn back aid to the desperate safe areas" declared but betrayed by the UN. They connived in maps and "peace plans" that gave Karadzic everything he had won by violence and tolerated the siege of Sarajevo, which he is accused of personally overseeing.

Gordon should meet the Dalai Lama, but take no lectures from Malcolm Rifkind

Of course, Gordon Brown should meet the Dalai Lama. And he should make clear to China what we think of their suppression of Tibetan dissent. But he should take no lectures on ethical foreign policy from Sir Malcolm Rifkind, defence secretary (1992-5) and foreign secretary (1995-7), who was sounding off (20 minutes into clip) on the Today programme this morning. Here's a reminder of Sir Malcolm and Lord Hurd's ethical foreign policy in action (result: at least 100,000 Bosnian deaths, and well over a million displaced people). And here's another. Perhaps the Today programme's selectively combative interviewers could spend as much time reminding pontificating ex-Tory ministers of their role in allowing these events to happen, as they do stamping on the jargon of children's ministers?

Palin's new Europe

Michael Palin's latest series on The New Europe (Sunday nights, BBC 1) had a brilliant start last night with visits to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Albania. It is excellent to see the programme enjoyed 7.5 million viewers. Albania presented itself as if to caricature and clearly failed to impress Palin, but the most moving testimony came in Sarajevo and Mostar, where Palin talked gently to local people who had experienced the full effect of the terrible war in the nineties. Lest we forget, this war which left Sarajevo under siege for three years and dotted with landmines for the next seventy years, happened with the connivance and complicity of the Major government. Indeed some of those whose inaction allowed so many to perish have the gall to present themselves as honest brokers in debates on foreign policy today. It is good to be reminded so elegantly of just what the war meant to so many people's lives.