MAIN EVENT. A Good Place to Get Started --- a.k.a "Table of Contents"

THE CHINA CARD

by Kevin Carey

To read this article in Deutsch, Francaise, Italiano, Portuguese, Espanol, copy and paste the complete URL("http://www.g21.net/do78.htm") and enter it in the box after you click through.

As the Dalai Lama arrived in London his Chinese oppressors were orchestrating attacks on the United Kingdom and American Embassies in Beijing. Kevin Carey reflects on the relationship between international law and oppression.

The Chinese Embassy after the NATO bombing.

With a sense of coincidentally exquisite timing, the Dalai Lama, exiled leader of the Tibetan people methodically oppressed by China, flew into London as the United Kingdom and American embassies in Beijing were subjected to attacks orchestrated by the Chinese Government.

For the sake of argument, let us concede the case of Milosevic's lawyers at the International Court that no force can ever be used in an international dispute without the support of the Security Council. On that basis, NATO's proposals for aggression in Kosovo would have been vetoed by Russia and China. We would have then had in Kosovo a re-run of the UN's previous ritual humiliation in Bosnia and Croatia when --- let us remind ourselves --- its troops, hobbled by Security Council niceties, were forced to stand aside while hundreds of innocent civilians were slaughtered.

The logical conclusion, and the one which the Chinese have no doubt drawn, is that the UN should only be agitated if one of its own Members is subject to an invasion of territory from another; this leaves all nations to do what they like inside their borders. If that doctrine were really taken to its conclusion, every ethnic minority in every unstable or undemocratic state would be in trouble.

From the Chinese in Tibet (a domestic matter, you understand) to Turkish policy towards the Kurds, there would be no holes barred.

If the democratic West is not allowed to act in a clear case of ethnic cleansing on its own borders then it is unlikely to be allowed to act anywhere else. Thus, the isolationist 'right' in Europe and America gets its way, improbably supported in Europe by the 'far left' and the Greens.

Interference in the affairs of another country can be justified on ideological grounds (witness Republican support for countless Latin American dictatorships which were standing up to supposed Communism) but not on humanitarian grounds. One wonders what might happen if a 'far right' Catholic Government somewhere in Latin America were to take it into its head to cleanse itself of a myriad of troublesome Protestant sects.

Of course the Republicans could justify interference on the ground of preserving religious tolerance; ironic, then, that this non-interference doctrine upheld by the UN purists was actually formulated after the European 30 Year War of religion (1618-48).

Worker rescued from the Chinese Embassy.

Of course, the Republicans would do nothing; the only kind of ideology they recognise is economic. It follows from this that United Nations' helplessness, except in extreme cases of invasion like that of Kuwait, has nothing to do with Republican isolationism. The Republican Party in office will bomb, and bomb as it pleases, regardless of international opinion --- so the dispute between Clinton and his Congress is not about jurisdiction it is about what particular cases merit what risk to American life, to which the not unpredictable answer is that American soldiers must only die to protect the economic interests of the richest in their country.

This is what has put the European 'Left' into such an odd position; it is so used to American economic self-interest smothered in moral clothing that it can't see that this time matters are different; that Clinton's approach, no matter how hesitant and weak, has nothing to do with the vested interests of big business.

The final irony of all is that just before the fatal bomb dropped on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Clinton in Europe was adjusting his policy to the realities of a Congressional veto on ground troops and now he, not Congress, is taking the flak for the inevitable consequence of that military limitation, the erroneous bombing from a great height of the Embassy of a major power. Had there been ground troops there would have been no such air raid; but Clinton will take the flak for his moral - perhaps short-sighted, inept, weakly prosecuted but still moral - crusade whilst Congress hoards American blood for warfare that protects the profits of its bank-rolling friends.


Kevin Carey is a writer, broadcaster and social entrepreneur. His interests range from the relationship between information technology and social exclusion and the symphonies of Gustav Mahler. He is the director of a UK charity, HumanITy, which combines rigorous social analysis with experimental field projects on learning IT skills through content creation. Educated at Cambridge and Harvard before a spell at the BBC, followed by 15 years in Third World Development, Carey offers a unique perspective on world affairs. He is a politcal theorist, moral philosopher, classical music critic and published poet.

This is Mr. Carey's fifth piece for the G21. His third is on the recent violence in the US and UK. His first was on the sacking of UK soccer coach Glen Hoddle. Kevin Carey can be reached via e-mail at "humanity@atlas.co.uk".

| THE PREVIOUS DAY ONE | THE TANDEM DAY ONE(from NOVI SAD) | THE NEXT DAY ONE |