UN authorization can't make rank imperialism just

Paddy Apling e.c.apling at btinternet.com
Thu Mar 13 09:58:03 MST 2003


Richard Fidler 13 March 2003 15:58 commented on my non sequitor argument:
>
> The final proposition is a non sequitor.  The proposition (1) "A war
> without UN authorisation would be wrong" does support proposition (2) "A
> war with UN authorisation would be right".
>
> In the present situation it is ABSOLUTELY correct for the anti-war
> movement to use proposition (1) as its main plank while taking every
> possible step to ensure that UN authorisation is never given.  This
> proposition is the best unifier for the anti-war movement in the current
> situation.

with the comment:
>
> Excuse me? You just added a third proposition: "to ensure that UN
> authorisation is never given", in order to strike down the second.
>
> The problem with the first proposition ("a war without UN
> authorisation") is precisely that it does leave the second one as a
> possible alternative. Now, it is true that many, probably most, of the
> people who advance this slogan are in fact opposed to _any_ war on Iraq.
> They are advancing what they see as a defensive formulation, one that
> points to a "peace process" that proceeds through negotiations in the
> United Nations framework. The problem is that, the UN being what it is,
> there is no assurance even now that the UN will not, in some form,
> ratify the Bush-Blair war.
>
> I think the situation is somewhat analogous to the one we faced in the
> Vietnam war, when we had to fight to focus the movement on the demand
> for immediate and unconditional U.S. withdrawal as opposed to pressure
> from many antiwar activists who advanced the demand for a "negotiated"
> solution.

etc etc.

To which my reply can only be - 1) WE know all that - but the essential
thing at the moment is to stop the war - further arguments SHOULD be used
when possible and where appropriate, but it is opportune to seek the "lowest
common denominator" of anti-war consensus.

and 2) It is not sensible to criticise people like Tam Dalyell for using in
Parliament the argument most likely to find some sympathy from his fellow
MPs.  Anything else would be just futile ultra-leftism at the juncture - his
message would be recorded in Hansard (the Parliamentary record) but not take
many (or any?) MPs along with him.

Regards,
Paddy
NFHS Member #5594
Mailto:E.C.Apling at btinternet.com
http://apling.freeservers.com/index.htm
or http://www.e.c.apling.btinternet.co.uk








~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list