‘Iraq 2003 was starting point of erosion of international order as seen in Gaza’
The other day I met someone who voted in favour of Britain’s support for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. They said they had done so out of conviction. They followed that up with the rueful admission that the decision triggered angry voters and they had to pay for their decision, taking its inevitable consequences. My interlocutor had a been a Labour MP during the Iraq invasion and they lost their seat in the 2005 election, the first to be held after that momentous decision. Tony Blair won his third successive victory but his Labour Party now had a majority of just 66 (down from 167 in the previous election). Labour’s popular vote share shrunk to just 35.2 per cent, the smallest of any British majority government.
My interlocutor was part of the political debris.
We still live in the rubble of the international order that started to be smashed by the Iraq invasion. By many accounts, that can really be taken to be the starting point of increasing disaffection with western notions of fair play and good faith. Gaza merely extends that.
So says Carne Ross, British diplomat, who resigned over the Tony Blair-led UK government’s decision to back the Iraq invasion.
Mr Ross, who subsequently worked to provide help to voices less heard, is very clear about both the principles — and the obligations — of the rules-based order.
His recent interview with Arab News discussed Gaza and the erosion of the rules-based international order. Two fragments seemed to me especially important:
“The fact that Israel is able to get away with the use of force while being armed by the world’s most powerful country is significant. The United States vetoing resolutions at the UN Security Council demanding a ceasefire is having a very profound effect. It sends a very clear message that force and power are right, which does enormous damage to the notion of a world of rules, a world of international law. The authority of the organs of international law, such as the UN Security Council, is considerably diminished by this, if it wasn’t already by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That the US and the UK have been prepared to defend a country clearly engaged in illegal conduct in its pursuit of a war that puts it on par with Russia clearly undermines its claims to stand for a world of rules. In terms of the liberal order, one can question what that means and how much it stood for in the past. I personally think grave damage was done to such a notion by the 2003 Iraq War and the global war on terror, and the state conduct that characterized both of those wars, including the use of torture.”
And on western hypocrisy:
“…those rules are the only anchor we have against instability. Those rules are universal, so they apply to China in Xinjiang province, or to Russia in Ukraine, and they should apply to Israel in Gaza. The fact that you’re prepared to let Israel off the hook sends a message to the Chinese and the Russians. It sends a message of inconsistency, of double standards, of course. I’ve been very shocked, I must say, by both the government and Labour. When I was desk officer for Israel-Palestine, international law was the absolute foundation of our policy — it was the thing we came back to over and over again. That’s no longer the case for the government, and it’s clearly not the case for the Labour Party either.”
Originally published at https://www.rashmee.com
