Prime Minister David Cameron speaks very firmly against violence when it is being used by those of whom he disapproves but not when he himself uses it or votes for it to be used. He was outspoken against the London rioters, whom he did not hesitate to label as criminals. He is now outspoken against Assad in Syria, again labeling him as criminal.
But Cameron voted for the Iraq War, for the Afghanistan War, and was a major instigator of the Libyan War; and in all three cases his actions supported great violence being imposed on innocent people. He continued to support the Iraq War in 2006. In a visit to Iraq in 2006, he acknowledges the great difficulty of creating a new government in which Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds all participate. He says that it is a key problem, that there is enormous violence, and that it’s difficult to get these three groups to “talk rationally and agree rationally.” This is a condition that he voted for and helped to create. He should condemn himself and his own vote.
Compare his testimony yesterday in which he acknowledges the difficulty of foreseeing the shape of a future government in Syria, acknowledges the lack of a visibly legitimate opposition group that is working together, and acknowledges that pressures must be continually applied to create such a group. If these pressures do not bring about a new government, it would not be out of character for Cameron to seek ways to apply force against Assad as he did in Libya.
Cameron grabs any argument he can against his targets, no matter how great the hypocrisy. In these remarks before Parliament with respect to threatening Assad, he speaks of “international justice” having a “long reach.” But no such reach or threats has he uttered with regard to the war crimes of the U.S. or his own government in their own applications of violence.
Cameron’s double standard has not been lost on the Syrian government.
Moralism in international political matters as applied by states is deeply flawed because the states all have dirty hands and all have ulterior motives. The U.S. disapproved morally of Saddam Hussein and used that as one excuse to attack and destroy the country, but the U.S. had other deep reasons for attacking Iraq. France spoke against Gaddafi on moral grounds, but it had other reasons for attacking Libya and supporting rebel forces. So did Great Britain, and so did the U.S.
The “moral” card as played by states is a trick or lie to gain support for its covert reasons for introducing violence or subverting some regime.
A consistent application of the moral condemnation of aggressive violence will condemn states themselves and Caesar himself, everywhere and at all times.
8:40 am on March 7, 2012
