Richard Ingrams is an old fart, a homophobe1 and an anti-Semite2 and I have suggested on a number of occasions to the Observer’s letters editor that amost anyone else would make better use of the space that newspaper provides him every week. But this week, he has a quite interesting point that I think bears discussion.
His subject is Mark Thatcher, who has managed to get himself arrested on suspicion of financing a coup in Equatorial Guinea. Ingrams notes that it would be rather unfair in the current political climate if Thatcher does get found guilty and thrown into jail, because after all, everyone would agree that Equatorial Guinea’s current President is a thoroughly bad man and the Guineans would be better off without him in power. True, Thatcher and his alleged co-conspirators had no real plan to deal with the aftermath of their coup (other than securing the oil wells) and actually make the Guineans better off, and true, many people suspect that their motives were not entirely purely humanitarian, but the Butler and Hutton reports have established that this isn’t even a reason for anyone at all to lose their government job.
The serious issue raised by this joke is, if we accept the logic of the “strong version”3 of humanitarian intervention, then why should we also say that it is only the job of states to carry out such interventions? Since, ex hypothesi, any special position for states is ruled out by the strong pro-war internationalist liberal stance, why shouldn’t groups of private individuals take action? For example, Harry’s Place has five main contributors, each of whom could probably raise about $200,000 if they took out a second mortgage; maybe they should be ringing up Executive Outcomes and getting a few estimates in on smallish African states. Why leave this to the government?
Footnotes:
1In my opinion, although given his history at Private Eye I think it would be pretty hypocritical of him to sue me
2Specifically, he has in the past suggested that Jewish journalists should identify themselves as Jews when writing about Israel; some people might consider this to be anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic but to be honest I’m not interested in arguing such a ludicrous point.
3By this I mean the version pushed in the pro-war blogosphere, under which any intervention that removes a bad regime is by that token good. Not the rather stronger criterion used by Human Rights Watch.
Great idea! Will you join the consortium?
It is a serious crime in Australia to recruit or promote mercenary services to act against the governments of other countries. Since the excesses of Colonel Callan in Angola I was under the impression this was true in the UK as well.
Of course, the point you are making against the Bush-Blair Regime Changers seems to be that there is not justification for them, partly on the grounds that if they are justified, that licenses any tomasina, dick or harry to go freelance regime-changing.
Which also seems to imply that, if the police raid a Brixton drug-lord, that licences any gang of vigilantes to raid similar drug gangs?
These slippery-slope rhetorical arguments are really fun aren’t they!
Oh christ, in that case I would like to make it clear that CT is not advocating the hiring of mercenaries in any jurisdiction in which it is illegal to do so, whether or not the government of that jurisdiction has been responsible for acts which may or may not be morally equivalent.
The question of local residents taking action against crackhouses is one which I will not comment on, other than to suggest that it happens all the time, it is probably a good thing that it is illegal, but that it is also probably a good thing that it happens all the time.
More seriously, I would point out that the slippery slope argument is not valid here because the “strong” humanitarian intervention case is explicitly based on a denial of any special status for nation states.
Suppose you engage in private regime change on a volunteer basis. Would that make it all right, given that you wouldn’t be a mercenary, stricly speaking?
dsquared,
I wasn’t for a second thinking you needed any disclaimer on mercenary recruiting. It just seemed that the post is a cheap shot at the Regime Changers, but otherwise pretty weak.
However you said:
“The serious issue raised by this joke is, if we accept the logic of the “strong version”3 of humanitarian intervention, then why should we also say that it is only the job of states to carry out such interventions? Since, ex hypothesi, any special position for states is ruled out by the strong pro-war internationalist liberal stance, why shouldn’t groups of private individuals take action?”
A special position for states is not ruled out by the pro-war stance. The special position of the Iraqi state was that it had
1) failed to comply with a a number of UN resolutions regarding alleged weapons of mass destruction;
2)it was a sponsor of terrorism, though not necessarily a participant in planning 9/11 specifically;
3) its regime had a track record of invading two other STATES resulting in the loss of several million lives, thus de-privileging the special status of the Iraqi state itself.
4) I make no claim that the Iraqi state’s repression, mass murder or torture legitimised invasion, but surely they are the evidence that it was a criminal state.
I think that private groups are already suitable agents of regime change. That after all is what the American revolutionaries started as. Counterfascist revolutionary movements seem to have no trouble with the question of legitimacy, from their own viewpoint. For the oppressed of Poland, East Germany or Romania, what else was there?
The state is not privileged above the People.
dsquared,
I wasn’t for a second thinking you needed any disclaimer on mercenary recruiting. It just seemed that the post is a cheap shot at the Regime Changers, but otherwise pretty weak.
However you said:
“The serious issue raised by this joke is, if we accept the logic of the “strong version”3 of humanitarian intervention, then why should we also say that it is only the job of states to carry out such interventions? Since, ex hypothesi, any special position for states is ruled out by the strong pro-war internationalist liberal stance, why shouldn’t groups of private individuals take action?”
A special position for states is not ruled out by the pro-war stance. The special position of the Iraqi state was that it had
1) failed to comply with a a number of UN resolutions regarding alleged weapons of mass destruction;
2)it was a sponsor of terrorism, though not necessarily a participant in planning 9/11 specifically;
3) its regime had a track record of invading two other STATES resulting in the loss of several million lives, thus de-privileging the special status of the Iraqi state itself.
4) I make no claim that the Iraqi state’s repression, mass murder or torture legitimised invasion, but surely they are the evidence that it was a criminal state.
I think that private groups are already suitable agents of regime change. That after all is what the American revolutionaries started as. Counterfascist revolutionary movements seem to have no trouble with the question of legitimacy, from their own viewpoint. For the oppressed of Poland, East Germany or Romania, what else was there?
The state is not privileged above the People.
1) failed to comply with a a number of UN resolutions regarding alleged weapons of mass destruction;
Israel. Check. Not quite exactly but has failed to comply with UN resolutions and actually DOES possess honest-to-god WMDs.
2)it was a sponsor of terrorism, though not necessarily a participant in planning 9/11 specifically;
Well plenty of people would call what Israel does state-sponsored terrorism. What else would you call the sort of “burn down the olive groves, torch the houses and kill any innocent who gets in the way” operations that they occasionally launch.
3) its regime had a track record of invading two other STATES resulting in the loss of several million lives, thus de-privileging the special status of the Iraqi state itself.
Israel has certainly done its fair share of invading other states.
4) I make no claim that the Iraqi state’s repression, mass murder or torture legitimised invasion, but surely they are the evidence that it was a criminal state.
Israel has certainly gone in for the repression and (I strongly suspect) the torture. Have they gone in for mass murder? Well the genuine Iraqi mass murder numbers keep shrinking, so where do you draw the line?
jp wrote:
Suppose you engage in private regime change on a volunteer basis. Would that make it all right, given that you wouldn’t be a mercenary, stricly speaking?
As I understand the Australian law, yes. (IANAL) So to recruit mercenaries or to be a mercenary is illegal. Being a volunteer is not illegal.
Thus the two Australian volunteers at Gitmo. The present Australian govt does not want them returned as the book would be unable to be thrown at them.
There were some Britishers in a similar position who were returned to the Mother Country and almost immediately freed. Simply because they weren’t guilty of a crime!
You are overestimating the “hypothetical” nature of your question.
The Iraq adventure was a public/private partnership. There are many sources on private corporate involvement in the effort. The NY Review of Books had a great essay, but it is only available to subscribers.
D2 doesn’t mention Ingrams’ most outrageously antisemitic utterance: that whenever he sees a letter or article on Israel written by someone with Jewish name, he refuses to read it on principle. Nice!
I invite Maynard to recruit others and go after the Israeli democracy, which has press freedom and allows others to express their opposition to those acts; and has elections, allowing Israelis to vote for other behavior.
Unlike Arafat’s PA thugs who sponsor terrorism.
The world needs a Human Rights Enforcement Group (policeman); ain’t nobody going after China no matter what their cruel gov’t does to other Chinese. Nor America; though I deny America violates HR as does China — and every Arab dictatorship.
The hypocritical UN hatred for Israel de-legitimizes it as an institution.
States are fictional — only people sign things, fire guns, kill, die, and kill innocents. The justice question is what good folk should do to stop evil from succeeding.
(“Nothing” doesn’t cut it…)
See The Moral Superiority War:
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093544824#329796
How many will be murdered in Sudan before HRW calls it Genocide?
And what IS their criteria for regime change?
Great idea.
So are you suggesting that Mark Thatcher is the new Che?
The US also forbids conducting a private foreign policy, although, back in 1954 in Guatemala, United Fruit tested exactly where the line between private and public foreign policy is. Still, I imagine hiring a mercenary force to overthrow a foreign nation must be a crime in the US, although your odds of prosecution are almost certainly contingent on how many friends you have in DC, whether or not you tried to overthrow a regime with more friends in DC than you have, and whether or not you got away with it.
As for the notion of private humanitarianism, I should note that countries controlled through the use of mercenaries have a long history of being the worst of the worst human rights violators. I should think that the whole history of the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1483 might count as an argument for leaving bad regimes in place rather than replacing them with states that depend on mercenaries. There are things worse than neglect and foreign occupation, and one of them is taking over a country on credit and then squeezing it to pay off your debts.
Executive Outcomes ceased operating a few years ago.
So are you suggesting that Mark Thatcher is the new Che?
If you’re prepared to overlook stupidity, dishonesty and disingenuousness (and I suppose you are), then yes, I suppose he is.
And Che looks better on a T-shirt.
Maynard, the Israelis are too smart to commit mass murder. They get away with a lot, but nowadays exterminating masses of people at a stroke is hard to keep hidden. So they intend to slowly squeeze the palestinians until they succumb or disappear.
And, there are bonuses:
they can shrug their shoulders when asked and say, The Palestinians? Oh, they left of their own free will. Plus, they don’t have to get rid of the bodies.
Time for a world government, and a strong one.
Or else it’s back to various “coalitions of the willing” raiding various “axes of evil”.
There is no such thing as “humanitarian intervention” without the rule of law; it’s vigilantism - in the best case - or, most likely, a clumsy pretext for garden variety armed robbery.
I can’t believe a thread on private citizens overthrowing foreign countries went more than three posts without mentioning William Walker.
There. That’s out of the way.
——-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE——-
Hash: SHA1
“If you’re prepared to overlook stupidity, dishonesty and disingenuousness”
But then even the old Che couldn’t have been the new Che, as all those attributes applied equally well to him.
——-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE——-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt
iD8DBQFBM3gwOgWD1ZKzuwkRAjclAJ0WJOePDkmWXT/66JjGTHoDj3B73wCcDUXa
1PJrKI+kA//QezeHtPn3ED0=
=1AuS
——-END PGP SIGNATURE——-
Mr. Thatcher might have been able to get away with it on the grounds mentioned, if he hadn’t been living in South Africa. Because of the major problems caused all over Africa by South African mercenaries after the end of the Apartheit, the SA goverment made laws that very clearly made it illigal for South Africans or people living in SA to be involved in these kinds of things.
Of course, all the mercenaries have now changed their nationalities.
Another privatised humanitarian intervention.
Hmmmm… nnyhav, do I know you from R’ville? r are there two people with that monicer around?
“And what IS their [Human Rights Watch] criteria for regime change?”
See the following article:
The War in Iraq: Justified as Humanitarian Intervention?
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
http://www.nd.edu/%7Ekrocinst/ocpapers/op_25_1.pdf
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review