|
« Biased Broadcasting Corporation
Main |
December 16, 2003
Whited sepulchres
The shameless contortions of the Iraq appeaseniks know no bounds. Having shrieked abuse at messrs Bush and Blair for their colonialist and imperalist (sic) motives in going to war against Saddam and thus steamrollering into the ground the autonomy of the Iraqi people (to have the freedom to be tortured, murdered and otherwise oppressed, of course), they are now shrieking that these same Iraqi people cannot be allowed to try and sentence the dictator who has caused them such untold suffering. Instead, this must be done by an international tribunal and there must be no question of the death penalty, which the Iraqis almost certainly would wish to inflict. If they were to execute Saddam, these appeaseniks threaten through primly pursed lips, then the world would withhold its approval. The Guardian's leader (where else?) illustrates this sanctimonious hypocrisy perfectly: 'The crux of this matter is that the Bush administration, opposed to international courts in principle, opposed to UN involvement, planning to hand back direct political control in Iraq next summer, hopeful of a quick judicial result and all in favour of the death penalty, wants the Iraqis alone to deal with Saddam, with semi-optional outside advice. This is despite concerns about fairness, expertise, evidence, flaws in the penal code, undue US influence and the transnational nature of his offences. This will not do. The government, when it has finally collected its thoughts, must oppose such a process - or else suffer a further gross distortion of its policy aims at US hands'. The only people entitled to distort Iraq's policy are, of course, the western left who believe -- no, they know it as an indisputable fact -- that their values brook no opposition and must therefore be imposed on cultures whicb resist them. This liberal imperialism is, of course, deeply illiberal. It also misrepresents the purpose of the Iraq war. It was not to bring about regime change for the benefit of the Iraqis. It was first and foremost to topple Saddam in order to remove a threat to the west which, post 9/11, was simply unconscionable. It was also, more controversially, to enable the Iraqis to produce a democracy which, by bestowing freedom and prosperity, would destabilise neighbouring terror regimes and thus strike at the roots of global terrorism. Whether or not that goal was or is attainable, it was always essential that the Iraqis, having been freed from tyranny, should now govern themselves. That means governing in accordance with their own culture. If they want help to bring about a democracy -- great, and we should readily give it to them. If they want a democracy that meshes with their own cultural assumptions, that's their privilege. And if that offends the rest of the world -- tough. The only legitimate interest the world has in interfering in another country is in order to defend itself from the threat of attack. The rest is imperialism, of which the illiberal left is now the prime exponent. Posted by melanie at December 16, 2003
Comments
The Nuremberg Trials concerned ONLY those crimes committed against the INTERNATIONAL community, not those committed against Germans......they were a matter for the German Administration under Konrad Adenauer to pursue. These trials were conducted because the USSR wanted 50.000 German Officers turned over to them, and threatened to shoot anyone they decided was suspect. To create a legal framework FDR agreed to a proper trial, but only for crimes against the International Community. The Iraqis are the ones that suffered Saddam's cruelty; it was they that lived or fled this terror.....and it was the UN and the bien-pensants who carried on as if nothing had happened......it is surely for them to decide upon what basis they wish the crimes of the past to be accounted for.......in the meantime let the Americans interrogate him for a couple of years Posted by: Didact at December 16, 2003 11:33 AMI'm an imperialist at least to this extent : if an undemocracy or sharia law regime emerges in Iraq, then while we're there we should prevent it in favour of secular capitalist democracy as an example to Arabs of the right way to live. "The only people entitled to distort Iraq's policy are, of course, the western left who believe -- no, they know it as an indisputable fact -- that their values brook no opposition" Yes, I have noticed the Guardian views being delivered with an absolute certainty of their correctness & absolute disregard for any alternative. I recall the Romanians arrived at a speedy solution to a similar problem a few years ago. Posted by: John Elliot at December 16, 2003 02:38 PMIt is very clever of the the allies to declare that he will be tried in his own country. It will be most fascinating to see what happens when he gets the death penalty. Will the anti-capital punishment try to push for international intervention? I personally hope he is drawn and quartered, and then his body burnt. It will be interesting to see what form of death he gets, I am willing to bet it won't be a simple firing squad. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 16, 2003 03:26 PMDeath penalty? Who's to say he would be convicted? Myself, I find myself nostalgic for the Taliban. Put a shredder at midfield in some large stadium and feed that son-of-a-bitch in feet first. Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at December 16, 2003 05:02 PMYour colleague Anne Leslie has summed up nicely the solution to the dilemma of what to do with Saddam in her article in today's Daily Mail. "If the Iraquis believe that only his execution will bring 'closure' to this appaling period of their history, then so be it. We anti death penalty hand-wringers will just have to stomach it". As she muses in her piece, imagine how the chatterati will exploit a long drawn out trial and imagine how Saddam will rouse the rabble from the dock. And, I would add, imagine, too, the bonanza that awaits the 'international lawyers'. Let's hope that the squaddie who almost plopped a hand grenade down the rat-hole, doesn't regret having failed to pull the pin. I suppose he was between a polystyrene lid and a hard place. Posted by: at December 16, 2003 05:54 PMSorry! Forgot to sign in before drawing attention to Ann Leslie (and misspelled her name!) Posted by: Frank Pulley at December 16, 2003 05:57 PMI was pleased to hear from Kofi Annan....he has great ideas about Saddam being given the A-Train.....but could Kofi explain what he was doing as the UN Official in charge in Rwanda ? Does he ever think prevention is better than ex-post punishment ? Posted by: Didact at December 16, 2003 07:03 PMI am sure the Iraqi people will themselves call for turning Saddam over to the "international community" which has done so much for them. We really do need a Fair Trial to establish whether Saddam is guilty of any crime...and the lawyers' fees must add up to a million pounds at least. Seems that Phillips is now a cultural relativist? Seems bizare given that the US neo-cons rehtoric is very much one of the universalisation of specifically western, liberal (in the 19th century sense) understandings of terms such as "freedom" or "rights". Also, it seems that she frequently buys into this discourse in attacking the backwardness of Arab societies in relation to the glorious beacon of democracy and freedom that is Israel. I thought Neo-Cons were Trotskyites who crossed the street as they grew older Posted by: Romulus at December 18, 2003 02:04 PM |
