Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Better late than never

There is not much in this Robert Fisk article I disagree with: 15 Years Too Late.

But better late than never. I am not sure who the "we" is that he talks about, it seems to imply some sort of general culpability of the entire West.

If it would have been right to get rid of Saddam 15 years ago then it was right to get rid of him now. If his trial leads to a spot light being put on the West's dealings with Saddam then I'm all for it. Perhaps Rumsfeld will have some explaining to do but I suspect that it will be France and Russia who will be feeling the most uncomfortable at the moment.

Amnesty International in The Guardian:

...will any court that tries Saddam Hussein be able to examine crimes committed when Iraq was an ally of the west as well as its acknowledged enemy? Or will there be time limits imposed?"

While I think the allegations that the West, especially the US, created Saddam are a nonsense it is true that the West acquiesced at the every least in Saddam remaining in power, just as happens now with Burma, North Korea and Cuba etc. It is still necessary that we try and clarify the ethics of this sort of cohabitation with the devil. The Left have consistently failed in this regard, preferring to wallow in moral outrage, using human rights as a mere weapon to attack Bush with.

It is necessary to criticize the US for any complicity in Saddam's rule, but it has been the US that got rid of Saddam. And for all those who opposed this, they need to ask if their position of allowing Saddam to remain in power has any morality.

Johann Hari and Richard Dawkins exchange views on this area: here .


Post a Comment

<< Home