The case for intervention

Often opinions we agree with come from the most unexpected politicians. Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democrats, puts forward an interesting case for developing and implementing the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, citing Burma and Zimbabwe as examples. His credo is as follows:

He said there should be strict rules governing military interventions - that it be based on a just cause, have the right intention, always be a last resort, sanctioned by a legitimate authority, be "proportional" and "must have a reasonable chance of success".

The concept of fixing a situation that has been deliberately left to degenerate, or has been wilfully created by a psychotic government is surely appealing to all those apalled by the plight of the Burmese, the Zimbabweans and other nations struggling with heartless rulers. However, one must tread carefully or we'll end up with the usual Lib-Dem inapplicable mishmash.

R2P, as it is conventionally referred to, has rarely been applied in practice because it is quite vague in its definition. Furthermore, the case for intervention rests on several assumptions:

1. We can discern just causes
2. Intentions actually count
3. We kno when we've reached the last limit
4. The UN is qualified (or able to) decide on the matter
5. Interventions won't be botched up.

Abstract notions of limit, intention and just cause aside, the United Nations is in no position to deliver any judgement on any matter requiring what one could colloquially define virile attributes; the cross-vetoes and internal lobbying by countries of dubious reputation are a recipe for inaction.

In my opinion, the case for intervention in another country's affairs is an extreme action and is to be carried out with preision and minimal invasion. The situation must be the consequence of direct actions of a governing group first. If we can identify who's giving the orders, we know which tumor to cut out. Secondly, there must be a solid societal basis (i.e. a working democratic/ruling process) that would re-build a governing structure should the current one be decapitated. Thirdly, no destruction should be involved save for the essential.

Therefore, unlike Mr Clegg, I believe there is a strong case to intervene in Zimbabwe by decapitating the very senior tiers of government, Zanu PF party, army, secret services and the police. Lack of regional support is a handicap but not an obstacle, as a stucture for replacing the brutes is in place and the gears are somewhat oiled. It needs be a surgical come-and-go, not a full-scale invasion with live footage, marches and fanfares.

If we want to develop R2P, we should shift its focus to the following questions:

1. Can we pinpoint the cause of the negligence/brutality? Is it brutality or lingering tribal conflict?
   
2. Is there a social and political infrastructure to avoid a power vacuum?
3. Is there a credible alternative leadership supported by the majority of the population?
4. Is there a genuine desire among the country's nationals to be free from brutality (not necessarily the ruling party?)
5. Can the intervention avoid civilian suffering and general destruction?

These questions answered, the case for Zimbabwe and Burma is clear.

Mr Mbeki, pate' this butcher!

Morgan Tsvangirai, so far Zimbabwe's only hope of ousting the bloodthirsty Mugabe, decides not to risk his supporters' lives and his own with another ballot, which would have been rigged anyway. We cannot lay any blame on his doorstep; Tsvangirai went to great lengths to lead his own people to freedom from brutality. Whatever policy plans he could have, the promise of a halt to violence and bloodshed was a good enough promise to attract our full well-deserved support.

However there's a limit, and Mr Tsvangirai reached it. At some point we all have to think about stuffing what others want from us and considering our own interests, and the ones of those we hold dear. I wouldn't be surprised (though I would be greatly aggrieved) if Mugabe, in his folly, decided to use his opponent as an example for others and murder him, or bully him into submission by threatening or killing members of his immediate family.

Fleeing Zimbabwe now wouldn't be a retreat from the battlefield for Morgan Tsvangirai, but an essential and justified survival instinct. The country is a slaughterhouse, governed by what will go down in history books as possibly the most heartless regime of post-war human history. Who are we to demand that one man stand in its way with unarmed manpower voted to martyrdom?

We are partly to blame for allowing this to happen, by looking on while Mugabe brutalized the country. His grip on power is as solid as ever, his loyals rule Zimbabwe with an iron fist and the opposition is starved in all senses of this word. I have rarely advocated foreign intervention on humanitarian grounds, but we have to concur this case trascends all rational thought.

Will someone, please, get this over with? South Africa's inaction is pathetic. Drop a conventional weapon on Zanu PF HQ, Army HQ and the presidential residence, then let Zimbabweans decide how to replace them.

Just. Drop. It.

Taylor's wrong, but still gets gong

The award of the so-called "Japanese Nobel" to Charles Taylor, as well as his other countless Canadian and Quebecois gongs, leaves a bittersweet aftertaste. His work is of exceptional quality both in terms of eloquence and scholarity, and he surely is a principal source of inspiration for many policymakers. He is also owed great credit for putting up with months of drivel from his fellow Quebecois jabbering nonsense on immigration and religion and actually milking something sensical out of it. Furthermore, being closely associated with McGill, Mr Taylor brings this award very close to home.

However we should take a look beyond the scholarity and dive into the case studies we can find. Without going too far, the very same multiculturalism we see in Canada and its dreadful British inspiration are heading straight to the dustbin of history or, failing that, to ignominy. Although an excellent philosophical approach in theory, in practice multiculturalism becomes synonymous with chaos, anarchy and discord. Its very approach to human relations is flawed because it defines an individual based on the culture and heritage.

Without being wrong, it isn't right either. We are what we grow up to be, defined in indeed great part by what made us the people we are today. The State and public policy, however, do not EVER enter the picture: their concern is solely the orderly administration of affairs delegated to them by a free and independent society. Multiculturalism strives to give the State an unfairly large role in determining community relations. As a libertarian in many areas, I believe that when the State intervenes it does so badly, at the wrong time and with the wrong tools.

Taylor's philosophy is impractical from a policy perspective and morally wrong. The state is a trustee of the country, not its mother. Leave our heritages alone, let us sort out our own relations with one another and don't try finding a universal formula for running a country with different cultures in it. Somehow academics just can't trust people to get along with each other without being told to do so.

"By advocating 'communitarianism' and 'multiculturalism' from the perspective of 'holistic individualism,' Dr. Taylor has developed an enlightened philosophy that allows people of different historical, traditional and cultural backgrounds to retain their multiple identities while living together peacefully," the foundation said.

There isn't an -ism they haven't tried yet.

Mugabe stripped of honorary degree

The University of Massachussets rescinded the 1988 award, on the grounds that

“In the two decades that have passed since the honorary degree was awarded, Robert Mugabe has pursued policies and taken actions that are antithetical to the values and beliefs of the University of Massachusetts,” President Wilson said. “I must recommend that we sever the connection that was formed when Robert Mugabe appeared to be a force for positive change in Africa. Today, that promise no longer exists.”

Earlier this year I remarked that Mugabe will not go peacefully as the outcome of the election got clearer. My fears have sadly materialized, with brutality escalating and the bloodthirsty monster still in the top seat. And we are just as powerless. Where's the United Nations and its eagerness to defend human rights now?

Ireland saves Europe, votes "NO"

Ireland's popular NO to the backdoor EU constitution plunges the European Union back into a crisis, the same constitutional gridlock it experienced after the French and Dutch rejected the original 500+ page legalese leviathan. What are the implications?

Having realized citizens' inherent opposition to the direction the EU is going (more regulation, more bureaucracy, less accountability, less common sense) twenty-six governments decided to bypass their people and ratify the Lisbon Treaty through parliaments. Nothing wrong there, except that the EU is made BY governments FOR governments, and on issues of continental integration the 300 million Europeans deserve to vote independently of whoever runs their countries at this time.

I'm a fervent advocate of European integration and continentalism, but the EU went from a maker of freedom to a ball-and-chain at the foot of progress. Compulsory agricultural quotas, compulsory levels of consumer taxation and spurious regulations have alienated the very founders of the Union. That the original NO came from two of the Union's founding fathers should have rung a loud alarm bell.

The original constitution and the now-defunct treaty were the product of statism, the desire to create a super-state that would choke national sovereignty. The abject failure to obtain popular approval for the new order is before our very eyes. Brussels overpaid lazy meddling elites have been dealt another severe blow, and now there's no plan B.

The Union is in stalemate, as the changes supposed to correct for expansion (to make the Union governable) failed to take effect. It is a clear indictment of Government By Fait-Accompli. The roots of this debacle should be sought in the pervasive Brussels attitude of not caring for the citizen the least, promoting instead a culture of assistance and horse-trading (farm subsidies, anyone?). Irish voters saved millions of Europeans from a top-down diktat, and I believe the continent owes the Emerald Isle a big favour.

“Call it hubris,” said one senior figure, “people seem to have forgotten what Ireland was like before we received European funding. They seem to think that we created our success all by ourselves. They are wrong.”

Thinking one could buy loyalty with Brussels money is exactly what made the referendum fail. The EU is out of touch, choked in red tape, anti-citizen, cynical and outright on the wrong track. It deserves every drubbing it has received recently, and deserves more until it is hammered down into a sober realization that it is, indeed, in need of a good trim of power, money and ego.

How to kill our enjoyment

Laughable alcohol policy reported by the CBC. According to Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, taxing alcohol more and toughening drinking-age legislation will somehow reduce alcohol abuse and reduce healthcare costs associated with it.

What the Centre fails to realize is that we're dealing with the cost of abuse, not ordinary use like yours or mine. Therefore hitting normal law-abiding and commonsensical drinkers will not solve the problem and will definitely not help reduce healthcare costs. Why?

A higher tax on alcohol will mean certain risk categories (such as poorer individuals) will not be able to afford quality, controlled alcoholic drinks and will likely resort to homemade moonshine. The health costs associated with treating moonshine intoxication is much higher, especially if it destroys the liver causing a chronic condition. Had the person bought cheaper vodka at the LCBO or the SAQ this could have been averted.

Increasing the drinking age to 21 will affect both business and healthcare. Firstly it will drive away all the under-21 drinkers who cross the border from the US into Canada to have a good pint and party in peace, thus harming business. Secondly, it will spur a growth in alcohol abuse within private confines (eg fraternities and house parties), ergo outside of the reach of police and society. Aside from being a more dangerous and non-monitorable abuse, it could also act as a catalyst for irresponsible sexual behavior, brawls and general misdemanor. Healthcare costs associated with THAT would be sky-high.

Good proposals include policing drunken behavior, getting tough on drunk-driving and especially under-21 DUI, as well as counselling for problem drinkers. All this is compatible with tackling the problem of abuse.

Stalin himself is reputed to have said Russians need good cheap vodka and good cheap wine to eradicate the plague of homemade alcohol poisoning. Advocating against privatization as the Centre's report does is unreasonable. Firstly it keeps prices high, cutting the poorest off a supply of safe alcohol. Secondly, it keeps behemothic and inefficient monopolies alive. Thirdly, it completely denies the virtue of a taste in spirits. When you look at alcohol just in terms of its boozing potential you deny everyone the chance to appreciate the beauties and enjoyment of high-quality liquors enjoyed responsibly.

I would never chug a Matusalem or a Brugal. Polar vodka, instead, is so disgusting I can't wait for the bottle to be done with. Guess which one the SAQ carries and promotes.

Trubunalize this!

Chasing the whims of frustrated losers through hearing basis-less cases and covering Canada with ridicule distracts the do-it-yourself courts we know as HRCs from their real job: ridding the country of unfairness. A striking example of this is the recent difficulties faced by a blind house-hunter in BC, the very same BC hosting the sham trial against Mark Steyn and Macleans.

Although renting is completely at the discretion of the landlord (there's no human right to be a tenant), the case of Kim Hood is possibly an indictment of the current running of the Human Rights tribunals. Surely she is being discriminated against, and I for one would love to see her rights upheld. However, an HRC would find itself in a bind. Either, as these commissions do, they pluck a human right out of their backsides and all but abolish private property (by destroying your right to choose whom to let to) or they rule in favour of the landlord and wipe off any remaining credibility they have as custodians of our rights and freedoms (were they ever?).

There is a third solution: rent by attorney, i.e. using someone else who's legally registered to house-hunt for you. This would eliminate the guide dog as ground for rejection because there's no dog in the first place, and it wouldn't qualify as a pet. If there isn't a law for this the Commission would recommend it to the provincial legislature. As of now, this isn't a possibility as far as I know.

The HRCs should not draw rights and interpretations out of a hat or consider themselves courts. I would suggest their scope be changed to arbitration: less clamor, less legal fees, no precedent, more common sense. A possible solution would include capping maximum sanctions if both parties agree not to appeal the arbiter's decision in the normal courts of law.

Actually, why bother with legal ways at all? Instead of claiming a human right to attend a school grad ball, a Muslim student and observant family will attend because independently of her a group of students began a petition to ban alcohol at the event, and received almost every attendee signature. Persuasion, dialogue and common sense sometimes are the best way to achieve a peaceful society. Crying "Wolf", guilt trips and using backdoors do not do the cause of moderate Islam any good whatsoever.

Snippets from across the pond

Also known as: bites of hurtful British nonsense. If you want, skip directly to Janet Daley's commentary in the Telegraph. A Must Read!

• Bishop of Stafford compares climate change inaction to Josef Fritzl. Aside from being disrespectful to the victims of abuse, it is a monumentally stupid remark. Guilting people into a false gospel preached by Al Gore and the IPCC isn't exactly godly. Can someone send him off to some dark God-forsaken place in the Amazon to guilt-evangelize somebody else?

• Transformers T-shirt deemed offensive and dangerous for depicting a gun. In the meantime someone slipped by with a nail clipper and someone else smuggled through a bottle of water, because they cost more in the duty-free area. I seriously question the criteria when selecting security staff in certain sensitive spots. A friend of mine was all but arrested for carrying on board delicate false flowers with a few metal wires in them. Is this guarding our security or just being a taxpayer-funded pain in the backside?

• Woman leaves child alone so she can go out and party. After the McCanns tragic abandonment and other horrifying stories of child neglect, one wonders which drain British family values are going down, because it must be pretty large. I will omit the details, saying only that this child should be given to a more decent foster family.

• Perpetrators of domestic violence won't get restraining orders due to prison overcrowding. Does this have anything to do with the THREE THOUSAND new criminal offences the Labour government brought in? At the same time the much-flaunted Anti-Social Behaviour Orders are an astounding failure and binge drinking is as rampant as ever.
  

• The Government will tell parents when they can put wine on the dinner table. Also, they will be issuing a parental guideline for alcohol consumption (to prevent teenage drinking) and criminalizing parents who do not stop their children binge drinking. Tell that to the couple who were powerless against their son's binges, and if they tried to do something about it they'd probably be convicted under some wacky interpretation of the Human Rights Act. New offences, new guidelines, new rulebooks, same old statism.

• Local council teaches squatters how to break into properties and not surrender them. Despite my non-opposition to squatting, breaking and entering is still an indictable offence. Or do "human rights" trump the criminal code in this case, as in most instances they do anyway? From the Muslim policeman who refused to guard the Israeli embassy to local police being told to prioritize hate crime calls over others, there seems to be an aversion in New Labour ideology towards property, the person and liberty.

• Seeking to alienate people further from each other, and monopolize the populace's trust solely in the hands of Government and Big Brother, fingerprint analysers are being installed in Kent nurseries. I am all for children's security and I am no opponent of fingerprint technology. However shouldn't security guards and the nursery staff know parents face-to-face? I bet the staff are all busy fillings out human-rights, health-and-safety, government quota and pre-school children's assessment forms, while security guards are busy chasing people wearing Transformers T-shirts. That's why!

• Councils coerce residents into buying council-supplied wheelie bins for 60 quid. Residents can't buy their own bins (God knows why) and can't collect the bins themselves because of "health and safety" concerns. The same health and safety concerns that in my alma mater forbade staff to carry a TV set up a flight of stairs because they didn't have the necessary "health and safety clearance". Remembering that leaving rubbish bins on the street is an offence and council workers won't collect non-council-sanctioned bins because of, you guessed it, "health and safety concerns", I have only one way of defining this: robbery at council-point.

Is there a solution? A change of government for starters. In the meantime, read Janet Daley's commentary in the Telegraph, which I have printed out and posted on my office wall, as an indictment of Labour and its statist ideology.

Women's right to martyrdom...

sparks a row within Al-Qaeda. Certain female extremists were taken aback by Al Qaeda's #2 words regarding women's role in the Jihad, that being raising warriors' kids and taking care of the household. In particular the online critics highlighted the increasing number of female suicide bombers in Iraq and other areas. A rigid interpretation of the terrorist teachings would result in those "martyrs" being denied the privileges of their male counterparts because they contravened the rules governing female roles.

This might sound disturbing from a practical point of view: people discussing whether they can blast themselves and others to mince is sickening. The intellectual impact of such a contradiction, however, cannot be over-emphasized: the terrorist movement is alienating a large chunk of its recruit pool. Furthermore alienated women are not as likely to look on as their husbands or sons prepare acts of murder.

This may sound too optimistic, but Al-Zawahiri may have shot his own brainchild in the foot. If the opinion doesn't change, it will alienate many women and cause either a split or an awakening to the fact that radical Islam is a pile of dung. If it does, it will enshrine a right of the woman to do more than just manage the household, possibly prompting a few more questions. The U-turn would also undermine the leaders' authorities, always a good antidote to indoctrination from the top.

UN made a tool again

By Mugabe for attending an international food summit.

The irony of the situation is doubled when we consider that not only Mugabe is exploiting a loophole that allows him to travel anywhere in the world, but he is also attending a summit where his contribution is certain to be nil. He is, however, almost certain to contribute to the Rome economy by spending lavishly in the local fashion stores, as the Telegraph reminds us he did at an earlier UN trip.

The butcherous nature of Mugabe's tyranny has been highlighted repeatedly in the past months, particularly after he nearly lost a dramatically rigged ballot (that takes some effort). What stands out, however, is the role of the United Nations as both a laughing stock and a tool. First they allow the election of Zimbabwe to chair the Commission for Sustainable Development, along with Lybia getting a top human rights portfolio. Then, while the world starves, the FAO head office staff in Rome are possibly the highest-paid UN employees and the UN HQ in New York get a billion-dollar makeover. The UNIFIL force in Lebanon comes under fire both physically and politically, meanwhile a scandal erupts around peacekeepers abusing children in areas of deployment.

Combined with the Oil for Food sleaze, the Iraq war fiasco, the stalemate over Darfur and the IAEA's apparent backtracking on Iran's nuclear innocence we have to seriously ask ourselves the question of what exactly is wrong with the UN and whether it's time to pull the plug on geography-based arrangements, such as rotating commission chairs by continent (which allowed African nations to nominate Zimbabwe). Certain aspects of UN running trascend the ridiculous, such as headquartering the FAO in a country best described as flooded with food.

The UN was founded on the noble principle of resolving disputes by diplomacy and on the naive assumption that everyone wanted to do just that. The naivete was compounded by the consensus system among the Security Council's big five, which ensured nothing meaningful could be done quickly. The organization has taken in all sorts of members without holding them accountable for their actions, resulting in democratic and well-intentioned members being on the same standing with (and being abused with impunity by) the most rogue regimes this planet has ever seen. Seen from this angle the disproportionate representation microstates get is definitely the UN's smallest of problems.

As it is now the UN is just a talking shop of cyclopic proportions that can sometimes display a few teeth. No benchmark of good governance or respect for human rights is enforced for admission and continued membership, giving butchers free rein. Money from the greatest donors is wasted while draconian principles govern the day-to-day running of the behemoth.

Seeing that reform is slow and laborious, we should first and foremost show the UN its place, which is NOT the top of the heap, focusing instead on more close-knit and efficient organizations at the regional level such as NATO. Secondly, the organization must be made accountable for its expenditures, because in its present state it certainly doesn't deliver value for money. Thirdly, the UN must focus on maintaining good standards within its ranks, giving miscreant nations a good spanking or ejecting them altogether (the list is long).

Overall, however, the UN is a living testimony of the failure of governments to act for the good of mankind. Rarely can good outcomes originate from a hen-house full of roosters fighting over their small territory and petty interests. Whatever the charter may claim, governments out of touch with their own populace assembled under a large roof form an assembly that's out-of-touch with the entire world.

Perhaps the extra-territoriality of the UN HQ is ironically the best way to describe the organization: they're out of this world and don't know what to do about it.