Posted in Foreign affairs, Middle East, Protests, tagged liberal interventionism, Syria, UN on February 6, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
An interesting development, after the grotesque appeasement of Russia and China at the UNSC…
Western and Arab states voiced outrage yesterday (5 February) after Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution that would have backed an Arab plan urging Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up power. French President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed creating a “Friends of Syria” group to advance initiative.
Posted in Blogs, Foreign affairs, Protests, tagged liberal interventionism, Syria, UK bloggers, open letter on February 5, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
More than 2,000 people have died since Russia and China vetoed the first UN Security Council Resolution in October 2011. Between 6-8,000 people have died since the uprising began. Hundreds more have been tortured and illegally detained.
We believe that we should protect those who are striving to enjoy the same rights that we in the Free World enjoy every day as articulated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
A new standard for international intervention in the affairs of states that undermines those basic rights and freedoms must be developed. We believe that it is important that where the global community has the ability to save lives then it has the imperative to do so.
Intervention, where it is for humanitarian purposes, is not something to be feared. We believe that humanitarian intervention in states which torture and murder their own citizens as an act of political and social repression is not only justified but it is of the upmost importance.
We accept that in the past interventionism has not been as successful as it might have been; nonetheless, we see the action by the international community in Libya and that of NATO in the Bosnian and Yugoslav Wars as a model for intervention.
The Libyan no-fly zone prevented a potential massacre in Benghazi. We cannot allow that kind of mass killing to happen in Syria either. Iraqi Marsh Arabs, Rwandans, Bosniaks at Srebrenica and Kurds have suffered where the international community did not intervene, and we believe that that mistake cannot be repeated again.
We condemn the veto by China and Russia of the draft UN Security Council Resolution supporting Arab League efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria and calling for an immediate end to all violence.
A Syrian-led transition of power away from the corrupt and murderous Assad regime must happen as soon as possible to prevent further deaths in Syria.
Signatories (All in a personal capacity):
Harry Langford (Author), What’s Next?, Labour.
Daniel Furr, Too Liberal, Liberal Democrat.
Cllr Pete Bowyer, Labour & Co-Operative Member for Stockwell.
Dominyk Tiller, Weighing the World, Member of Unite, Progress and Former Labour Candidate for Northville
Julie, Julie’s Think Tank
Deanna Quirke, Exeter University Labour Club, Labour.
Tom Williams, KCL Labour Society Executive, Labour.
Daniel Mayhew, NTU Labour Club Executive, Labour.
Harry Matthews, Yellow Spectacles, Sheffield University Liberal Youth, Liberal Democrat.
Brad Marshall, University of Leicester Labour Club, Labour.
Jamil Dhanani, Vice-President, Thornhill Young Liberals.
Danny Hackett, Labour
Samuel Baxter, University of Manchester Conservative Future, Conservative.
Jon Boulton, Conservative.
Ben McCabe, Conservative.
Stephen Fulham.
Christopher Aldous, Community Activist.
Brian Devlin, Labour.
John Brooks.
Leon Ward.
David Doig, Socialist
Peter Lord
Tariq Rahuma.
Mike Knight.
Adam Gray.
Peter van Vilet.
Posted in Foreign affairs, Middle East, Protests, tagged liberal interventionism, Syria, UN on January 31, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
An interesting development mentioned by the Guardian, regarding Syria;
Hillary Clinton, William Hague and Alain Juppé are due at the UN security council in New York on Tuesday to support an Arab League plan to end the violence in Syria and to try to overcome Russian-led opposition to a UN-backed demand for political change in Damascus.
Posted in Foreign affairs, Thoughts, tagged 911, foreign policy, liberal interventionism, Liberals on September 14, 2011 | 1 Comment »
Al Qaeda preached violence and terrorism as the mantle for martyrdom. Sacrificing your own life and maiming countless others in the process was a heroic death; but the Arab Spring refuted that doctrine. Completely negated it. Martyrdom was restored to the disciples of liberty and freedom. On the 10th anniversary of September 11th, the revolutionary movement of the Middle East is a remarkable tribute. These young men and women helped captivate the true essence of the Arab people; they refused to be defined by Osama Bin Laden and rejected a call for bloody Jihad against the West and Israel. The principles of liberty and freedom were not just American values, but were genuine principles of humanity.
In the last 10 years, many have questioned the role of the United States-and the West-in foreign affairs. Especially the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Critics will argue policy makers were consciously unaware, or ignorant, of increasing the threat of international terrorism during the ‘War on Terror’ and the subsequent attacks in Madrid and London justified those concerns. The adversaries of Britain and the United States were receiving unimaginable recruiting opportunities due to military conflicts in the Middle East, according to critics. With Mubarak and Gaddafi deposed; Assad losing authority and an uncertain future Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the role of liberal interventionism unfairly stigmatised?
As I liberal, it is my duty to oppose authoritarianism – whether domestically or aboard. Tyrants are the antagonists of liberals and liberty. Granted, it is extremely controversial position to undertake, but it is morally correct. Opposing liberal interventionism because of the United States is a deeply preposterous position to take. There seems to be this fallacy, or moral equivalence, that Britain and American foreign policy is automatically wrong. For example, Saddam Hussein committed crimes against humanity towards his own people (and Iranians, during the Iraq-Iran War) but it was never mentioned during the Iraq War build up. The condemnation fell towards the West, not the actual fascist dictator. I recall an interview featuring John Stewart, where he said it was absurd for the left to characterise Bush as a war criminal and not reference the crimes committed by Saddam (he was later criticised for those remarks). And John Stewart opposed the Iraq invasion. The Earth will become a very dark place if the great democracies of this world became subjected to Vietnam Syndrome. Libyans would still be under the authority of a mindless dictator, if we turned a blind eye to their suffering.
In time, though, Brazil and India will no doubt join as potential protagonists for liberal interventionism. Brazil already maintains a significant role in the United Nations Peacekeeping operations and I suspect their expanding superpower status will provide an umbrella to the repressed in Latin America and other parts of the world. The stability and future prospects of Afghanistan will require a protective India, to ensure Pakistan does not exploit its neighbour and create a client state. The mantra of liberal interventionism should be a requirement of all democracies and their foreign policy, not a select few. Democratic nations have a moral duty to nurture young free nations, especially those building a free and open society.
The post 9-11 world showed how fragile we were, but how strong democracies could be. Revolutions in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and others provide the true insight into the political aspirations of the Arab people. Liberal interventionism is not a form of 21st Century imperialism, but a vital tool in promoting and defending democracy.
Posted in Foreign affairs, Thoughts, UK Politics, War, tagged anger, arab world, Blair, Cameron, democracy, Ed Miliband, evil, freedom, Gaddafi, government, human rights, Iraq, liberal interventionism, liberation, liberty, Libya, neocon, PM, protest, protests, UK, UK politcs, War on March 22, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
A strange air was over the Parliamentary debate about military action on Libya. Cameron, who once wrote a critique on neo-conservatism, spoke mellifluously on the subject of intervention and defending British interests aboard. The Project for A New American Century advocated such stance on foreign affairs.
The Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Ed Miliband, defending the Right To Protect under the United Nations Charter and justified military action, in order to defend and promote freedom of the individual. More surprisingly, Sir Ming Campbell made reference to Blair’s infamous Chicago speech to morally argue our duty to use hard power as a potential force for good.
No one wanted to admit to one potent fact; Blair’s liberal interventionism is admirable and agreeable in its most purist form. But Tony’s position as the avatar for it means no sensible politician will publicly admit support. That is why we saw lukewarm and coded, cryptic and subtle references during the debate.
Regime change is the main principle of the Libyan conflict; the no-fly zone is only a means or product to achieve a greater goal. Targeted assassination is controversial, and arguably illegal, under international law. But if an opportunity arises the coalition would ‘take the shot.’
This is similar to Iraq in all but an invasion and occupation.
Blair might be a great antagonist and a divisive character, but all three leaders of our main political parties see him as a ‘master.’ Even Nick Clegg, during his trip to America, confessed to Good Morning America that he agreed with Blair on “many things.” None of them questioned what he did as Prime Minister – it was the means he did it, that they objected to. And foreign affairs is a prime example.
Nick Clegg said Libya is not another Iraq and that is why he supports it. Translation: If Blair got authority from the United Nations I would have supported military action against Iraq. So would’ve Ed Miliband, too.
Yesterday was an endorsement of Blair’s final public speech before ceasing to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain had to be able, and ready, to use military force in order to defend and maintain her position as a world power. Only 13 MPs voted against that yesterday; the rest rapturously applauded it and Tony Blair.
danielfurr
