Paul Buckingham - Philosophy and life in general

On Sunday, by chance, we found a manor house – Winterbourne House – in the middle of Birmingham. I'd taken a wrong turning by Birmingham University and used the entrance into the grounds of Winterbourne House in order to turn around. From the notices there, which I must have driven past many times, I realised that it was an entrance to a minor stately home with botanical gardens which was open to the public. Almost every Sunday, we try to take our mothers out for lunch and then to visit somewhere – preferably somewhere with a tea room. This place had a tea room... and so that same afternoon, we went back to have a look around. We found that it had been constructed in 1904 in the Arts and Crafts style, very popular at the time. It was an artistic movement based on communion with nature and with a backwards look at an idealised past when agriculture and manufacturing were on a small scale, rather than the industrialised manufacture which had become normal in the 19^th century. This was somewhat ironic in that the family which had the house built in its 6 acres of land was the Nettlefold family, of Guest Keen & Nettlefold (GKN plc) fame. They had become rich through the industrialisation of the production of wood screws ...and munitions. Which reminds us that behind every war there is someone profiting from it - even if it is not always obvious who it is or how.

As I write this, we await the decision of the USA regarding their reaction to the alleged use of nerve gas by Assad against his own people, with a resulting death toll of between 400 and 1200 men women and children. There is on the table a proposal, made firstly by the Americans and then in a modified form by the Russians which could change things radically. The Russians have proposed that Assad puts his stores of chemical weapons under international control so that they can be destroyed. A good idea. We'll see what happens.

But if in the end it doesn't happen? We would need to decide if we are for or against the action threatened by the Americans and the French. But not by us. The law was changed by our government in order to make sure that we would never have another Tony Blair situation who, as former prime minister, many times exercised the right to go to war without parliament's consent. And Dave didn't win the consent required. I heard the beginning of the debate and I read the two opposing resolutions and I cannot see anything of substance between them. But Ed was opposed to the governments resolution and Dave was opposed to Ed's resolution. The two of them said that an attack could be justified, but not straight away. The debate and the vote were to be only the beginning of a process. As we know, neither of the resolutions were passed and to Ed's great surprise, Dave decided straight away to accept the will of the House. No meant no. Instead he is now able to concentrate on humanitarian aid for the victims of the war, something much more necessary.

But the debate continues – if there is the evidence that Assad is responsible, there are two related questions: would an armed intervention be (1) legal and if yes (2) effective? At first sight it is easy to reply to the first question. Without a resolution of the Security Council of the United nations approving it, the answer is “No“.. But we have already seen the inertia of the Security council, an inertia normally explicable in terms of the interests of the big powers. Syria is a Russian client state. Which underlines the fact that international law is not like national law. It is in a different category. Our British law applies to everyone in the same way. We have courts which enforce it. International law on the other hand is enforced only if the Security Council so decides. There is no independent international police force or court system which enforces it. And when we have not acted in accordance with international law, we have received praise (Kosovo) and blame (Iraq). It seems to me therefore that we cannot be limited by the United Nations, providing that what we do would be legitimate if we had its authorisation – and to enforce the treaty against the use of chemical weapons is legitimate by definition.

But effective? The purpose of intervention is to discourage the use of chemical weapons by Assad and other dictators. But how to do it? The original proposal was to punish Assad and then there was added to it the idea of degrading his military machine. Which means that it will be an intervention in what is a civil war which will help the rebels. But up until now we were saying that we didn't want to intervene. It's not even a civil war between two well-defined groups, but at least three – the government, a group which wants a democratic future for the country and another which wants a future dominated by the ideas of Al Qaeda. And each group has its sub-divisions. Even if we were to accept that this time there would be no innocent victims of the American missiles, could we be even reasonably sure that our intervention would not cause a worse outcome? In view of the existing chaos in the are I'm not convinced. To intervene would be to change the result of the war in an unpredictable way.

It's not the first time that it seems that Assad has used chemical weapons. The American and British governments seem convinced that it has happened at least 15 times before. Perhaps it's because we haven't reacted before that his alleged use has continued and increased. And perhaps we wouldn't need to intervene militarily if there were a method of punishing Assad without such an intervention, but a real punishment, something with consequences. There is a possibility. It would not be immediate, but it would be a continuation of what we have seen after other conflicts recently in ex-Yugoslavia and in Africa. What we need is an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague against Assad and his henchmen based on the existing allegation of a crime against humanity – the use of chemical weapons.. It would need a Security Council resolution as Syria is not a signatory to the treaty (just like the USA!) which means that the tribunal does not have automatic competence. But such a resolution ought to be less controversial than a resolution authorising armed intervention. No, it won't happen and it wouldn't be as spectacular as a hail of Tomahawk missiles, but for someone who prefers the rule of law, it is a solution which has a lot to commend it.

	War and International law

	On Sunday, by chance, we found a manor house – Winterbourne House – in the middle of Birmingham. I'd taken a wrong turning by Birmingham University and used the entrance into the grounds of Winterbourne House in order to turn around. From the notices there, which I must have driven past many times, I realised that it was an entrance to a minor stately home with botanical gardens which was open to the public. Almost every Sunday, we try to take our mothers out for lunch and then to visit somewhere – preferably somewhere with a tea room. This place had a tea room... and so that same afternoon, we went back to have a look around. We found that it had been constructed in 1904 in the Arts and Crafts style, very popular at the time. It was an artistic movement based on communion with nature and with a backwards look at an idealised past when agriculture and manufacturing were on a small scale, rather than the industrialised manufacture which had become normal in the 19^th century. This was somewhat ironic in that the family which had the house built in its 6 acres of land was the Nettlefold family, of Guest Keen & Nettlefold (GKN plc) fame. They had become rich through the industrialisation of the production of wood screws ...and munitions. Which reminds us that behind every war there is someone profiting from it - even if it is not always obvious who it is or how. As I write this, we await the decision of the USA regarding their reaction to the alleged use of nerve gas by Assad against his own people, with a resulting death toll of between 400 and 1200 men women and children. There is on the table a proposal, made firstly by the Americans and then in a modified form by the Russians which could change things radically. The Russians have proposed that Assad puts his stores of chemical weapons under international control so that they can be destroyed. A good idea. We'll see what happens. But if in the end it doesn't happen? We would need to decide if we are for or against the action threatened by the Americans and the French. But not by us. The law was changed by our government in order to make sure that we would never have another Tony Blair situation who, as former prime minister, many times exercised the right to go to war without parliament's consent. And Dave didn't win the consent required. I heard the beginning of the debate and I read the two opposing resolutions and I cannot see anything of substance between them. But Ed was opposed to the governments resolution and Dave was opposed to Ed's resolution. The two of them said that an attack could be justified, but not straight away. The debate and the vote were to be only the beginning of a process. As we know, neither of the resolutions were passed and to Ed's great surprise, Dave decided straight away to accept the will of the House. No meant no. Instead he is now able to concentrate on humanitarian aid for the victims of the war, something much more necessary. But the debate continues – if there is the evidence that Assad is responsible, there are two related questions: would an armed intervention be (1) legal and if yes (2) effective? At first sight it is easy to reply to the first question. Without a resolution of the Security Council of the United nations approving it, the answer is “No“.. But we have already seen the inertia of the Security council, an inertia normally explicable in terms of the interests of the big powers. Syria is a Russian client state. Which underlines the fact that international law is not like national law. It is in a different category. Our British law applies to everyone in the same way. We have courts which enforce it. International law on the other hand is enforced only if the Security Council so decides. There is no independent international police force or court system which enforces it. And when we have not acted in accordance with international law, we have received praise (Kosovo) and blame (Iraq). It seems to me therefore that we cannot be limited by the United Nations, providing that what we do would be legitimate if we had its authorisation – and to enforce the treaty against the use of chemical weapons is legitimate by definition. But effective? The purpose of intervention is to discourage the use of chemical weapons by Assad and other dictators. But how to do it? The original proposal was to punish Assad and then there was added to it the idea of degrading his military machine. Which means that it will be an intervention in what is a civil war which will help the rebels. But up until now we were saying that we didn't want to intervene. It's not even a civil war between two well-defined groups, but at least three – the government, a group which wants a democratic future for the country and another which wants a future dominated by the ideas of Al Qaeda. And each group has its sub-divisions. Even if we were to accept that this time there would be no innocent victims of the American missiles, could we be even reasonably sure that our intervention would not cause a worse outcome? In view of the existing chaos in the are I'm not convinced. To intervene would be to change the result of the war in an unpredictable way. It's not the first time that it seems that Assad has used chemical weapons. The American and British governments seem convinced that it has happened at least 15 times before. Perhaps it's because we haven't reacted before that his alleged use has continued and increased. And perhaps we wouldn't need to intervene militarily if there were a method of punishing Assad without such an intervention, but a real punishment, something with consequences. There is a possibility. It would not be immediate, but it would be a continuation of what we have seen after other conflicts recently in ex-Yugoslavia and in Africa. What we need is an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague against Assad and his henchmen based on the existing allegation of a crime against humanity – the use of chemical weapons.. It would need a Security Council resolution as Syria is not a signatory to the treaty (just like the USA!) which means that the tribunal does not have automatic competence. But such a resolution ought to be less controversial than a resolution authorising armed intervention. No, it won't happen and it wouldn't be as spectacular as a hail of Tomahawk missiles, but for someone who prefers the rule of law, it is a solution which has a lot to commend it.
	Home A Point of View Philosophy Who am I? Links Photos of Annecy