(sorry, the post was delayed because I was hanging out with some friends - it is after all the summer)
I read one outrageously stupid article in the Times a few days ago by Anatole Kaletsky claiming that Tony Blair’s moral justification for the war in Iraq collapsed because he was unwilling to intervene in Sudan.
The article’s oversight was astonishing, by insisting Blair act in Sudan, Kaletsky neglected to mention that such action would effectively be military action in the absence of a UN Resolution or any mandate (France has already said it would veto anything even reaching the proportion of an economic sanction). The anti-war movement would likely jump on his case - just as Kaletsky himself did over Iraq.
“What is it to be?” I wondered.
Kaletsky cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot slate Tony Blair for not taking action when he dragged the PM through the mud when he did take such action. “Just be consistent” appears to be his message to the PM, why on earth should he when half a million people are willing to compare him to the most beastly, abhorrent murderers of the 20th century?
As it happens, the matter seems largely rhetorical, as according to the Guardian, Tony Blair has drawn up plans to send troops to stop the genocide in Sudan.
The Guardian lists three possible avenues for intervention:
British servicemen to help with the delivery of aid if the humanitarian agencies can no longer cope. At present, the Belgian air force is helping to fly in aid. Britain is using civilian planes because they are cheaper.
British logistical support for an African Union force of 60 monitors and 300-strong protection force being deployed in the Sudan. The AU force is short of equipment, including helicopters, vital given the poor state of Darfur’s roads.
British troops to protect refugee camps being harassed by marauding militias. This creation of safe zones would be the most risky of the options and would require the agreement of the Khartoum government, which would be reluctant to give it.
With any luck Blair will make the right choice and intervene. I wonder if the Anti-War movement is so morally far-gone as to oppose the prevention of genocide, after all wasn’t one of their favoured arguments that Saddam Hussein wasn’t currently engaged in genocide?
It is, after all a crime that apparently decreases in severity and slowly exonerates its perpetrators over time. So now, when we have a case so fresh that the blood is still being spilled, will we be allowed to take action?
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at July 23, 2004 02:04 AM | TrackBack