THE LEFT'S MILLSTONE:

Why the Left is wrong on Saddam: With or without a second UN resolution, I support action against Iraq (David Aaronovitch, February 2, 2003, The Observer)

If you were to draw a map of the world based on the writings and speeches of the most fervent anti-war figures in Britain and America, two names would be found at the far edges of the known world, if at all: Bosnia and Rwanda. In the mid-1990s, events in these places convinced me that Noam Chomsky's definition of the sovereignty of nations as 'the right of political entities to be free from outside interference' had become a millstone around the neck of the world.

Bosnia and Rwanda made the case for action, because inaction was far worse and its consequences were morally intolerable. In the former, the West (rarely acting in concert) took the course of diplomacy backed up by the incredible threat of mild force. The Yugoslavian situation was deemed to be too complicated and too dangerous to resolve by firm action. Didn't they all just enjoy killing each other? [...]

If leaders must take responsibility for these terrible failures, then so must those who always urge inaction. Over Bosnia, Kosovo and over Afghanistan, voices on both the Left and Right have been consistently raised to object to the use of force. Where these voices have belonged to pacifists, they have my respect, but most often they have belonged to the purely selfish, the pathologically timid, or to those who somehow believed that however bad things were in Country X, the Americans were always worse. [...]

I don't believe that Saddam is a major backer of al-Qaeda (though he gives support to other groups) and I think it quite likely that he has had no effective nuclear programme for years. He would if he could, but he can't. But I want him out, for the sake of the region (and therefore, eventually, for our sakes), but most particularly for the sake of the Iraqi people who cannot lift this yoke on their own. If they could, that would be best; if he would agree to go into exile, that would be just dandy. The argument that Saddam's removal will of necessity lead to 'chaos' or the democratic election of an unsuitable Islamist government is worthy of Henry Kissinger at his most cynical. It is pretty disgusting when heard in the mouths of 'left-wingers'.

The Iraqi people, however, can't shift their tyrant on their own. Again, it would be preferable if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force, spearheaded by the Rowan Williams British Brigade. That's not on offer. It has to be the Yanks.

While it would be nice to find a smoking gun, it's not necessary under terms of the UN resolutions on Iraq and, as Mr. Aaronovitch makes clear, certainly not required for moral justification. The entire case for deposing Saddam can stand or fall on just UNSCR 688, which requires Saddam Hussein to end his repression of the Iraqi people.

Obviously the United States and its allies aren't going to intervene in every state where repression is ongoing, but where such repression exists and where we choose to intervene, we are justified. Political entities have no right to be "free from outside interference", but their peoples do have a right to be free.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 2, 2003 7:25 AM