This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/iraq-public-conscience-mps-impotent-parliament

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
On Iraq, the public’s conscience stirs but MPs are impotent On Iraq, the public’s conscience stirs but MPs are impotent
(7 days later)
Bombs and missiles, David Cameron once said, make bad ambassadors. It was September 2006, when the new Conservative leader’s strategy was to be like Tony Blair in everything but foreign policy. His early speeches on international affairs were a repudiation of New Labour’s global vigilantism. “We cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” Cameron said in 2008. “We cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet.” Bombs and missiles, David Cameron once said, make bad ambassadors. It was September 2006, when the new Conservative leader’s strategy was to be like Tony Blair in everything but foreign policy. His early speeches on international affairs were a repudiation of New Labour’s global vigilantism. “We cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” Cameron said in 2008. “We cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet.”
As prime minister, Cameron has faced the truth of that assertion and its vacuity when confronted with an overseas emergency. He intervened in Libya not because he expected the Tomahawks to deliver good governance but because not intervening would guarantee a civilian slaughter. The same reason made him want to strike in Syria but parliament was not persuaded. Now Cameron contemplates what action to take against the Islamic State (Isis) threatening Iraq with bloodthirsty religious totalitarianism.As prime minister, Cameron has faced the truth of that assertion and its vacuity when confronted with an overseas emergency. He intervened in Libya not because he expected the Tomahawks to deliver good governance but because not intervening would guarantee a civilian slaughter. The same reason made him want to strike in Syria but parliament was not persuaded. Now Cameron contemplates what action to take against the Islamic State (Isis) threatening Iraq with bloodthirsty religious totalitarianism.
It turns out that humanitarian goodwill also cannot be dropped from 10,000 feet. Aid thrown from the back of a Hercules barely eases the suffering of refugees on Mount Sinjar. It doesn’t thwart the genocidal intent of Isis brigades.It turns out that humanitarian goodwill also cannot be dropped from 10,000 feet. Aid thrown from the back of a Hercules barely eases the suffering of refugees on Mount Sinjar. It doesn’t thwart the genocidal intent of Isis brigades.
Arms can be supplied to Kurdish fighters without necessarily shifting the balance of power on the ground. Tornado jets can help with reconnaissance, but the US air force is already shooting at Isis, causing it only temporary inconvenience. The Iraqi state is falling apart; atrocity fills the gaps. Britain knows it has responsibilities but cannot express what they are.Arms can be supplied to Kurdish fighters without necessarily shifting the balance of power on the ground. Tornado jets can help with reconnaissance, but the US air force is already shooting at Isis, causing it only temporary inconvenience. The Iraqi state is falling apart; atrocity fills the gaps. Britain knows it has responsibilities but cannot express what they are.
That is why there have been calls for parliament to reconvene. MPs would definitely have a vote if there were any question of British troops going in – such is the unwritten convention to arise from the Blair era. But British troops will not be sent in because fear of a Middle Eastern quagmire is another of Blair’s legacies.That is why there have been calls for parliament to reconvene. MPs would definitely have a vote if there were any question of British troops going in – such is the unwritten convention to arise from the Blair era. But British troops will not be sent in because fear of a Middle Eastern quagmire is another of Blair’s legacies.
So why bring MPs back? The argument appears to be that when events stir the public conscience and the men in khaki are on high alert, Westminster simply must express itself. Even if no one offers anything workable to be done, there are plenty of things to be said.So why bring MPs back? The argument appears to be that when events stir the public conscience and the men in khaki are on high alert, Westminster simply must express itself. Even if no one offers anything workable to be done, there are plenty of things to be said.
It is a cry of frustration. Everyone else is having their say, on television, on Facebook, on Twitter. The pace and tone of national debate is set by the most urgent polemicists, not the most informed commentators. The day has gone when the House of Commons was an apex of authority whose wisdom cascaded through a few channels into the public realm. Opinion-formation has been liberalised at an explosive rate, and MPs are disoriented by the competition. Iraq’s trauma is not reduced if the prime minister truncates his holiday, but the febrile ethos of an always-on news culture judges him negligent for staying away.It is a cry of frustration. Everyone else is having their say, on television, on Facebook, on Twitter. The pace and tone of national debate is set by the most urgent polemicists, not the most informed commentators. The day has gone when the House of Commons was an apex of authority whose wisdom cascaded through a few channels into the public realm. Opinion-formation has been liberalised at an explosive rate, and MPs are disoriented by the competition. Iraq’s trauma is not reduced if the prime minister truncates his holiday, but the febrile ethos of an always-on news culture judges him negligent for staying away.
Parliament’s primacy is obviously worth defending on constitutional grounds. It is right that Britain’s attitude to calamity in the Middle East is articulated in the legislature. Debate in the Commons (when the chamber lifts itself out of pantomime mode) is a valuable beacon of civilised argument. “Parliamentary language”, right down to the obligation to call opponents honourable, sounds archaic but underlines the fact that care with language is intrinsic to democratic discourse. Violent words engender violence. There are no such safeguards in the polarising riot of social media, where prejudice finds endless corroboration and fury is contagious.Parliament’s primacy is obviously worth defending on constitutional grounds. It is right that Britain’s attitude to calamity in the Middle East is articulated in the legislature. Debate in the Commons (when the chamber lifts itself out of pantomime mode) is a valuable beacon of civilised argument. “Parliamentary language”, right down to the obligation to call opponents honourable, sounds archaic but underlines the fact that care with language is intrinsic to democratic discourse. Violent words engender violence. There are no such safeguards in the polarising riot of social media, where prejudice finds endless corroboration and fury is contagious.
Flashes of rhetorical grandeur are not enough to redeem Westminster from impotence and parochialism. MPs sense that the dynamic forces of politics swirl elsewhere. This is more than the anxiety of an analogue institution adapting to a digital age. It is a battle for relevance. A referendum in Scotland has the potential to change the geography – the very identity of the country – with parliament a bystander. The UK Independence party has already set much of the national agenda on Europe and immigration from outside the Commons. Nigel Farage will stand in 2015 but on a saboteur’s platform. Apparently the elite is so rotten, even he should be allowed to join it.Flashes of rhetorical grandeur are not enough to redeem Westminster from impotence and parochialism. MPs sense that the dynamic forces of politics swirl elsewhere. This is more than the anxiety of an analogue institution adapting to a digital age. It is a battle for relevance. A referendum in Scotland has the potential to change the geography – the very identity of the country – with parliament a bystander. The UK Independence party has already set much of the national agenda on Europe and immigration from outside the Commons. Nigel Farage will stand in 2015 but on a saboteur’s platform. Apparently the elite is so rotten, even he should be allowed to join it.
At the other extreme is denial. Boris Johnson fishes for a seat in the manner of a 19th-century dilettante because, without one, the fulfilment of his rakish fantasies of high office cannot progress. Perhaps he has thought of a way to persuade voters that his brand of entitlement is more noble than the one that clings to Cameron (fashioned in the same school). If so he is keeping it a secret. There is something in the way some Tories talk about arranging the succession for Boris that makes running the country sound like the prize in an exclusive parlour game.At the other extreme is denial. Boris Johnson fishes for a seat in the manner of a 19th-century dilettante because, without one, the fulfilment of his rakish fantasies of high office cannot progress. Perhaps he has thought of a way to persuade voters that his brand of entitlement is more noble than the one that clings to Cameron (fashioned in the same school). If so he is keeping it a secret. There is something in the way some Tories talk about arranging the succession for Boris that makes running the country sound like the prize in an exclusive parlour game.
Labour has the inverse problem. Far from radiating a complacent right to power, the opposition exudes hesitancy and self-doubt. And nothing provokes the flinch of uncertainty like the prospect of intervention in a foreign war. Ed Miliband claims credit for thwarting Cameron’s “rush to war” in Syria, but with no subsequent peace to celebrate he prefers to talk about other things.Labour has the inverse problem. Far from radiating a complacent right to power, the opposition exudes hesitancy and self-doubt. And nothing provokes the flinch of uncertainty like the prospect of intervention in a foreign war. Ed Miliband claims credit for thwarting Cameron’s “rush to war” in Syria, but with no subsequent peace to celebrate he prefers to talk about other things.
Labour’s default demands in foreign policy are better diplomacy, long-term strategic engagement, multilateralism – all the things no one is against, which is why they are also the things Cameron said he was for in those largely forgotten first speeches as opposition leader. Miliband has yet to say something memorable about Britain’s power in the world, and the nation is not on tenterhooks awaiting his doctrine.Labour’s default demands in foreign policy are better diplomacy, long-term strategic engagement, multilateralism – all the things no one is against, which is why they are also the things Cameron said he was for in those largely forgotten first speeches as opposition leader. Miliband has yet to say something memorable about Britain’s power in the world, and the nation is not on tenterhooks awaiting his doctrine.
Expectations are low, which isn’t to say Britain is in retreat from the world. Globalisation brings the world to us whether we like it or not: in the flow of people; in the radicalisation of second- and third-generation migrants; in the high-frequency propaganda trade that channels gruesome images of destruction to our desktops and smartphones.Expectations are low, which isn’t to say Britain is in retreat from the world. Globalisation brings the world to us whether we like it or not: in the flow of people; in the radicalisation of second- and third-generation migrants; in the high-frequency propaganda trade that channels gruesome images of destruction to our desktops and smartphones.
There is no such thing any more as a far-away quarrel of which we know nothing. The new proximity is alarming. That isn’t because the crises are worse than anything that has come before. We are not living through a pre-apocalyptic summer to rival 1914, although the centenary makes the analogies tempting. The fear flows from the same source as parliament’s craving to be part of the story. It is not a feeling that these dangers around the world are suddenly bigger. It is that politics has become so much smaller.There is no such thing any more as a far-away quarrel of which we know nothing. The new proximity is alarming. That isn’t because the crises are worse than anything that has come before. We are not living through a pre-apocalyptic summer to rival 1914, although the centenary makes the analogies tempting. The fear flows from the same source as parliament’s craving to be part of the story. It is not a feeling that these dangers around the world are suddenly bigger. It is that politics has become so much smaller.
Twitter: @RafaelBehrTwitter: @RafaelBehr