Every military expedition by the West now dons the mantle of human rights. What happens to international law when justice is the name of power? The charade of NATO’s tribunal in The Hague.
DAVID CHANDLER
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4393905,00.html
Imperialism may be out, but aggressive wars and colonial protectorates are back
A response to Robert Cooper's provocative call for a new liberal imperialism. If the diplomat had used different language and stressed the universally 'empowering' nature of his project, his most vocal critics may well have applauded.
Observer Worldview
David Chandler Sunday April 14, 2002 The Observer
Prime Minister Tony Blair's policy adviser, Robert Cooper, has been seen as highly provocative in his bold assertion of the need for a 'new kind of imperialism'. He is an articulate advocate for 'a new age of empire', in which Western powers no longer have to follow international law in their dealings with 'old fashioned' states, can use military force independently of the United Nations and impose protectorates to replace regimes which 'misgovern'.
Labour MP Tam Dalyell complains that Cooper's comments run against the Labour Party's long history of anti-colonialism, while Alan Simpson argues that Cooper is attempting to offer some intellectual justification for the US and UK bypassing the United Nations. Clearly these MPs have not been paying much attention to international affairs for the last few years. Cooper's Foreign Policy Centre pamphlet 'Reordering the World' argues nothing new or exceptional and there is little surprise that Tony Blair endorsed these views in providing the pamphlet's foreword.
Long before 11 September, the Labour government had been at the forefront of moves to downgrade the role of the United Nations and create new powers for ad hoc 'coalitions of the willing' to wage war without the sanction of international law. In fact, the government has shown scant need for anything as concrete as 'intellectual justification' for bypassing the UN, relying on moral rather than intellectual support for its new interventionism.
The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded, for example, that the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia could be justified 'on moral grounds' rather than legal ones. Former Labour Defence Secretary, now NATO Secretary-General, Lord George Robertson argues that the job of Western leaders is the 'balancing of law, morality and the use of force'. Of course, once the law is secondary to what NATO leaders Blair and Bush consider to be morally necessary, the logical conclusion is that there can be no legal limits to intervention across the globe, as long as the cause is right. Lord Robertson explains 'the only morality is not to do what one has to do, when one has to do it'. In this context the decision of when and if to intervene is purely a matter for the selective 'conscience' of the leaders of the world's most powerful states.
Media headlines such as 'Blair aide calls for colonies' make little sense and accusations that Cooper is a 'maniac' show just how out of touch his critics are. The new age of imperialism is already well established. The UK government's Joint Consultative Committee called two years ago for the UN to restore the Trusteeship Council for managing the growing number of international protectorates. Tony Blair recently lobbied successfully to get Paddy Ashdown the job of colonial administrator of Bosnia. As the international High Representative, Ashdown now has the power to pass laws by decree and dismiss elected presidents, prime ministers and parliamentarians if he considers them to be obstructive. The power that had always eluded the former Liberal Democrat leader by way of the ballot box has been granted him by the patronage of Tony Blair and the other international leaders in the self- selected Peace Implementation Council, which has 'voluntarily' taken upon itself the duty of running Bosnia for the indefinite future.
The outraged response from some politicians and media columnists seems to have been caused by the words used by Robert Cooper, rather than the political content.
Cooper's crime is not that of arguing for the end of the UN framework of international law and respect for equal rights of state sovereignty. Liberal advocates of ethical human rights policies, such as Geoffrey Robertson QC have long argued that respect for state sovereignty is the UN's 'systemic defect'. His critics do not oppose his view that Western powers should have the right to intervene militarily against troublesome states or to institute new governing regimes friendly to a Western agenda. His views of 'pre-emptive' military actions are mild compared to those of Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Nobel Peace Prize-winning NGO M¿decines sans Fronti¿res who argues that Western powers should have the right to intervene 'to stop wars before they start and stop murderers before they kill'. His views of 'voluntary' colonial rule under 'the lightest of touches' from the new 'imperial bureaucracy' are wishy-washy compared to liberal commentator Michael Ignatieff's call for greater 'imperial ruthlessness' in Iraq, Somalia and Bosnia.
Cooper's error is to pose these policies in the old-fashioned language of realpolitik and Western power, rather than relying on the moral rhetoric of the day. Many commentators who agree with his conclusions about new mechanisms of international regulation find his straight-talking presentation of US and European superiority over the 'pre-modern' non-Western world and his highlighting of new 'opportunities' for 'colonisation' distasteful. His aside that this 'new kind of imperialism' should be 'compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values', in fact, demonstrates his failure to grasp the new 'etiquette' of what he terms 'postmodern imperialism'.
If Cooper had stressed the universally 'empowering' nature of his project and based it upon the 'equality' of human dignity in contrast to the 'oppressive' formal legal and political equality of state sovereignty he would have had fewer problems. If he had stressed that military action to prevent 'abuses of human rights' should be decided by 'international civil society' or the duties of 'cosmopolitan citizenship' rather than the consensus-dependent UN Security Council, no one would have batted an eye-lid. If he had written that what appear as colonial administrations overriding popular democracy are in fact necessary to confidence-build and empower local 'voices', to provide institutional 'capacity-building' and support the lengthy process of 'democratisation' and 'civil society-building' he would probably have the warm support of even his most vocal critics.
David Chandler is the author of 'From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention', published by Pluto Press on 1st April.
What do you think?
You can send your views to the author at david at dchandler.freeserve.co.uk.
spiked-liberties | Article | Where's the humanity in human rights ... ... rights? by Jon Holbrook. From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention, David Chandler, Pluto Press, 2002. When ... http:www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D897.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
spiked-liberties | Article | Human rights trump democracy ... Press are hosting a debate on human rights for the launch of David Chandler's new book, From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention, in ... http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D47C.htm