Huhne - the poseur multilateralist

A survey in this morning's Guardian suggests a win for Chris Huhne in the LibDem leadership race... although many party members are undecided and may yet swing it for Sir Ming.  A much smaller Independent straw poll (of the same meeting of LibDem activists) gives the contest to Menzies Campbell.

Mr Huhne has (almost) won over The Independent's leader-writers:

"Chris Huhne, relatively unknown outside Parliament and his constituency before, has undoubtedly been the greatest beneficiary of the contest. He has thrived under the spotlight, making up for a shortage of charisma with an air of calm competence... Rallying the party, propagating its ideas, and steering it through the parliamentary rough and tumble are jobs for a younger man with fresh ideas. Because of his showing through the campaign, we now lean towards Chris Huhne."

I listened to Chris Huhne on last night's Any Questions? programme.  At one point I wanted to shout at the radio.  He was on his high horse about the Iraq war.  The war had been illegal, he insisted, because the UN hadn't approved it.

The United Nations is the ultimate institution-of-convenience for poseur multilateralists.  It is perfectly reasonable for people to disagree with the Iraq war but the Iraq war didn't become unacceptable because China, Russia and France wouldn't declare it a just war.      

The oil-for-food scandal and the Volcker report exposed the compromised nature of the French government and its dealings with Iraq.  Russia didn't emerge much better from Volcker and the increasingly rapid retreat from democracy by the blanket-bombers of Grozny doesn't really make Moscow a great moral authority.  The third UN Security Council member with a veto is, of course, China.  What moral authority does that country have from what it did in Tiananmen Square?  In Tibet?  With internet censorship?

The UN didn't act in Rwanda.  It didn't act in Kosovo.  It isn't acting in Darfur - partly because of Russian and Chinese economic interests in Khartoum.  It would not have acted in Iraq because of France's promise to veto any action.

Some of the world's least savoury regimes sit on the UN's discredited human rights group.  In the UN’s topsy-turvy world democratic America was expelled from the human rights commission chaired by… wait for it… Libya.

Many of the UN’s African “peacekeepers” are being investigated for child molestation and rape – the ‘children-for-sex’ scandal.

For many nations an ineffective UN acts as a blood-stained institution-of-convenience, which they can hide behind. ‘Yes, of course, we must act but we must act with UN approval,’ democratic leaders can tell their people. They tell their people in the full knowledge that the UN will probably never act. A common EU foreign policy would give EU member states the same excuse for inaction. Giving the UN responsibility for world peace is a bit like surrendering our compassionate responsibilities to the poor to the feed-and-forget welfare state. In both cases, our consciences are partially salved but do we really think that world peace or the end of poverty are any nearer?

We do need an international body like the UN to bring nations together but without fundamental reform the UN itself does not deserve the admiration that it receives from the likes of Mr Huhne and the clapping Any Questions? audience.

Postscript: Mr Huhne's support for the UN is, of course, all part of his deep-seated multilateralism.  This former MEP is the most Europhile of the three leadership contenders.

Comments

[Matthew Oxley]

On the Evidence of that Poll Hunhe has it, too big a lead on 1st choices.

Ming needs to finish his campaign strong and hope for a combination of 3 things :

- He pulls back 2-3% of votes directly from Hunhe to him. Pretty tough Job this late though.
- Most Simon Hughes supporters use thier 2nd choice option
- More Simon Hughes supporters than expected choose Ming as 2nd choice, something close to a 2:1 ratio over Hunhe.

I don't see all those 3 circumstances working for him and thus predict the following.

Hunhe will get 41% in R1, Ming 35%, and Hughes 24%, of the 24% that voted for Hughes 18% of these will have specified a 2nd choice, 10 goes to Ming, 8 to Hunhe.

Of those who voted Hunhe Takes 49% , Ming 45%, and 6% are lost in unused 2nd choices.

Maybe we should have a predictions competition, all the more interesting with STV.

[Graeme Archer]

Huhne frightens me. He's an idiot windbag but he looks nice.

[Steven James]

Why has noone punctured Chris Huhne's pose as millionaire with a social conscience?

His flagship policy of raising environmental taxes to help take poor people out of income tax is not only very expensive (21 billion say the IFS) but it mainly benefits the wealthy.

Most of the tax minimum wage earners pay is VAT, not income tax. David WIlletts wrote this excellent piece in the Times age ago pointing out how ludicrous the policy is when it was proposed by Maurice Saatchi for the Conservatives.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1665233,00.html

[Elena]

Hughne doesn't scare me. He is possibly one of the dullest politicians I've heard on TV for a very long time. No-one will want to stick around and listen to him.

[Matthew Oxley]

Sure, but he's probably the best of a bad bunch from their point of view.

Ming looks very old and Hughes is a nutcase.

[Derek]

Huhne sounds like Kennedy without the Scottish accent.

[William Norton]

I've always felt that there was something 'not quite right' about Chris Huhne and I think I've cracked it.

Anyone remember the Autons from Doctor Who, the shop dummies that come to life and run around killing people? That's what Huhne is: a life-like plastic replica that's being passed off as a human being.

(We could carry the analogy further. The Doctor has, once again, regenerated into a new, younger character; he travels around in a blue machine which is - trust me - bigger than it looks from outside; the Emperor Dalek is about to take over the universe etc etc....)

[James Hellyer]

Most of the tax minimum wage earners pay is VAT, not income tax. David WIlletts wrote this excellent piece in the Times age ago pointing out how ludicrous the policy is when it was proposed by Maurice Saatchi for the Conservatives.

It doesn't demonstrate that it's ludicrous though. Someone paying more in one type of tax than another doesn't remove the positive effects of cutting one of those taxes.

The other point worth making about this article is that it's a call for inaction, as Willets basically writes off income tax cuts aimed at helping the poor, but doesn't want to mess around with the indirect taxes either.

As for Huhne, hwo can anyone take a man seriously who when asked if he's a multi-millionaire replies "I don't know". It hardly fills me with confidence in the Lib Dem Treasury team.

[James Hellyer]

And William's theory falls down on the "lifelike" part...

[Richard]

"Anyone remember the Autons from Doctor Who, the shop dummies that come to life and run around killing people? That's what Huhne is: a life-like plastic replica that's being passed off as a human being."

I loved those, especially from the original 1970s episodes.

[Editor]

Why do I bother?

I write about the impossibility of the UN and all you guys talk about is Doctor Who.

I'm going out for dinner to drown my sorrows...!!!

[James Hellyer]

Well, the Doctor was aided by the paramilitary arm of the United Nations...

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I am broadly in agreement with the Editor on this article, but anybody using phrases like "poseur multilateralist" is themselves asking to be viewed as a poseur by everyone outside the political chattering classes!

[Richard]

"I write about the impossibility of the UN and all you guys talk about is Doctor Who."

Perhaps everyone agrees with you and therefore have nothing to say!

[malcolm]

Are you sure James Hellyer?I have no recollection at all of the good Doctor being aided by the 'paramilitary arm of the UN'.As far as I remember the Doctor achieved all his victories through his own brilliance,I have to admit though when Mcoy became the Doctor I stopped watching,couldn't stand the bloke.
Enjoy your dinner Editor,apologies for my post but the more I see of Huhne the duller I think he is and the more of an asset he will be to our party.
I off to see Good Night and Good Luck in the next few minutes.There are a few on this blog who I imagine will have more sympathy with Mcarthy than Ed Murrow!

[Matthew Oxley]

We're getting better Ed, remember that the last thread on Hunhe was spent talking about his cat ;)

[William Norton]

I had no idea that this blog had its own version of the Standards Board. Clearly the public have the right to know whether Huhne is a robot or not. (And what sort of a name is "Huhne"? Obviously an acronym - probably for Hoover Upright Humanised by Nintendo Electronics - I see him as an upgrade of Super Mario.)

There is very little to add to the Editor's penetrating account of the frailties of the UN system - and what, after all, is there to discuss? The structural flaws make it unsuitable as a vehicle for imposing world order:
* it isn't a parliament
* it isn't a government
* it isn't a court
It is simply a global association of governments to enable them to co-operate on certain matters, principally mutual security (although you can argue that mutually assured destruction did more for peace than any number of resolutions), to the extent to which they are prepared to co-operate. That makes it a useful forum through which an existing world order can operate. It therefore works best on non-contentious technical issues. It is hopeless at dealing with terrorism.

The UN represents the aspiration that the world would be a nicer place if everyone tried to get along with each other without creating too much fuss - and since Liberals seem to regard that as the cardinal virtue in life, they naturally ascribe greater significance to the UN than it has, or can bear. The only real difference between it and the League of Nations is that, for a variety of political and historical accidents, people tend to take it more seriously - and the Americans are involved.

As terrorism (perpetrated by non-state entities who are not therefore members of the UN) becomes a greater issue, the UN will take less and less of an active role. We are reverting to the pre-UN "common law" of international relations.

[James Hellyer]

Are you sure James Hellyer?

Yes, I am.

I have to admit though when Mcoy became the Doctor I stopped watching,couldn't stand the bloke.

You've just gone up in my estimation.

[James Hellyer]

There are a few on this blog who I imagine will have more sympathy with Mcarthy than Ed Murrow!

McCarthyism: the American Way with its sleeves rolled up :-)

[malcolm]

James,unbelievable!Once again I stand corrected!The film Good Night and Good Luck if anyone is interested is excellent.

[Annabel Herriott]

OK, I admit I have a strange hobby. Having said that, I do have a recognised qualification in the ancient art of chart reading,, and if someone out there will email me with the Huhney bear's date of birth, that will have to do. Place of birth would be a bonus, time even more so,then, I can analyse his character. Meanwhile, Simon Hughes is quite controlled (moon conjunct saturn.) Bit of a temper, (sun conjunct mars in taurus) Wants to be liked,(moon in libra) fights for his faith(Jupiter in Aries) Dear old Ming has all his eggs in one basket. A run of 3planets in taurus, and 3 planets in gemini. Moon in aries, fiery feelings, mars in pisces, sulks. All one needs is the data. I dont like mystery folk, I like to know where they are coming from. Could be that this post is not on, and I accept that. But I'd still like the data please if anyone knows.

[William Norton]

1) International law matters because it brings an ordered approach to issues that impact across borders.
Being technical for a moment, international law matters because it's international law. (Try telling a policeman that the speed limit matters because traffic law brings an ordered approach to issues that impact different drivers.) Taking a dim view of the UN and its usefulness says nothing about your stance on international law (which, of course, doesn't have an equivalent to a policeman).

2) The UN is the acclaimed international forum for arbitrating disputes. It has a high view of international law and its procedures and practices should be respected by all.
You're rather begging the question, aren't you? In terms of dispute arbitration, the UN has had limited impact on major issues (e.g. legally, the Korean War is still taking place: no peace treaty, only an indefinite armistice). For the reason given previously by the Editor it's doubtful quite how respectful the UN and its members really are over international law.

3) However, in situations where the UN fails to act to uphold the very international law that it claims to respect. It is imperative that nations of goodwill undertake this task without formal UN endorsement.
I'd agree with that, although I wouldn't quite have put it that way.

[malcolm]

The UN like every other multinational organisation is only as good (or bad) as its constituent members.If they disagree or wish to frustrate the will of other their is precious little the UN can do.Whilst it often deserves criticism it still is in my opinion sometimes a force for good.The work of UNICEF for example is very worthwhile.
NATO is usually praised on this blog but we have seen with the absolutely pathetic response to the call for troops in Afghanistan from several member countries how ineffectual it too can be.

[a-tracy]

Annabel - I don't think it's strange, I hope you find the info I'd like to see an interpretation of his chart too.

[William Norton]

Malcolm: NATO is usually praised on this blog but we have seen with the absolutely pathetic response to the call for troops in Afghanistan from several member countries how ineffectual it too can be.

Ineffectual? How about incompetent? In Kosovo they had trouble spotting the difference between a Serbian military formation and a Chinese embassy and HQ went down with a nasty dose of Campbell's virus (spinmeisterius non veritas). Now the Reds are no longer threatening to come over Luneberg Heath in tanks it's rather mutated into a self-help discussion group for former Communist states. The future of NATO (or Son of NATO), with a more focussed remit, might make an interesting subject for another thread.

PS - Editor: you notice I'm steering well clear of the astrology sub-thread. (More focussed remit.)

[Mark Fulford]

Annabel - I don't think it's strange, I hope you find the info I'd like to see an interpretation of his chart too.

And there was me trying to work out if there was some deep joke in Annabel's post...

[Editor]

Annabel receives the Nancy Reagan Award Of The Day.

[Annabel Herriott]

Editor/So why cant you reach for the parliament listing you surely must have lying somewhere around the office, and stick on a blog for me! Ive got the times book for 2001, but nothing later.Go on, it will be revealing, I promise!

[Jon White]

"In Kosovo they had trouble spotting the difference between a Serbian military formation and a Chinese embassy"

William, they had no trouble at all! The hit on the Chinese Embassy was spun as an error. It wasn't, it was the target. Having spent much time in Belgrade, I can assure you that is the informed opinion there. Allegedly, the basement of the embassy was being used for radar monitoring, and the results being passed to the rulers in Belgrade.

The precision bombing on Belgrade was extra-ordinarilly accurate. There were very few civilian casulaties, and for this reason there is remarkably little ill-feeling in that town towards NATO.

Other comments about NATO here I agree with, but your criticism was unfounded in this respect.

[William Norton]

Jon White: as a non-participant who fought the Kosovan War through the pages of the Daily Telegraph the impression on the "home front" was that NATO completely loused-up the air war. I'd not heard the story about the Chinese Embassy before - I would have thought something like that would have been given a wider airing?

I'm quite happy to defer to any one with genuine on-the-ground evidence that the air campaign was more accurate than it seemed. Without belittling what you say, is this something more substantial than 'what some Old Serb told me in a pub'?

[Jon White]

William; no I didn't hear it from some old Serb in pub! I am an Export Manager, who previously had responsibility for the Balkans. I was unable to travel to Serbia during the war, as our company's travel insurance would not cover me. (I did travel there before the war).

After the end of hostilities, I went back. I had much trepidation - only months before planes from my country's airforce had been knocking the proverbial out of Belgrade, and I was unsure of the reaction a Brit may get.

My experience was that the precision bombing was just that - PRECISION. Done with the highest standards of professionalism. Indeed, NATO announced before raids which buildings they planned to hit that night to allow Serb civilians to evacuate. The Chinese Embassy story was told to me by three different people -middle aged and young Serbs. (and NONE in pubs!!!)

Of course, I must concede that I have no proof of it. It is on the basis of what people told me, and I have no reason to assume they were right or wrong. I give the story credence because of the physical evidence that I saw of precision bombing done right. (If that isn't an oxymoron). I can't believe that they could have been that accurate, and then messed up like this. The location of the embassy was well known, and I could have shown them where it was on the street map of Belgrade that I had!

The actual damage to Belgrade was slight - but the key buildings had been taken out. Consequently, the average 'Man on the Belgrade Omnibus' feels very little ill-will towards NATO.

Serbia is a friendly and beautiful country to visit. I would recommend it to anyone.