by Peter Watt

I remember in the aftermath of the second Iraq war engaging in a discussion with some people opposed to the war.  It was a very hot topic and many people had very strongly held views.  I was then and still am a supporter of the decision to invade Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein; the people I was debating were not.  But it was in fact a friendly discussion and there was mutual respect despite fundamental disagreement.  I certainly understood their objections and could see their point.

But there was one thing that I couldn’t understand.  I asked whether they could see any circumstances in which there was evidence that a “rogue” country had weapons of mass destruction that we should act forcibly to disarm them.  They said “no”.  I pushed; what if Iran or North Korea for instance developed a nuclear weapon?  Again they said ‘no’.  In fact they said that we had no right to stop them having a nuclear weapon as we and the U.S. had them.  If we or the United States had them (so their argument went) then it was only fair that Iran or North Korea could have them as well if they wanted them.

Now personally I think that this is palpable nonsense.   We and the U.S. are democracies, respect human rights, basic freedoms and free-speech.  To be frank we have every right to both have nuclear weapons ourselves and to demand that others do not.  Something incidentally that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its 190 signatories agree with.

Does that means that I think that our liberal, democratic way of life is better than the totalitarian or unstable alternatives then yes I bloody well do!  And I think that these ideals are worth defending.  And so I just couldn’t see how it was possible to argue that there weren’t circumstances that force may have to be used to ensure that some states did not become owners of the ability to kill millions.

And I think the same is true when it comes to chemical weapons.  Should rogue states be allowed to possess them and threaten their own populations or those of their neighbours?  Again “no.”  And in the last resort we should be prepared to use force if necessary to ensure that this does not happen.  To do otherwise would be irresponsible in the extreme.

Which brings us to Syria.

History will judge us harshly for the way that we have allowed the people of Syria to suffer and to be massacred by the Assad regime.  It will shame us all and we will have to explain to our children how we have stood by and let 70,000 people die so far.  It is not just the immediate and on-going killing.  Who knows what the long term consequences will be for the region and indeed the world of a generation of Syrians so systematically brutalised?

(more…)