Young UK and Ireland Programme 2009

A duty of care
The winning paper
by Anthony Silkoff

You may have heard of the Kingdom of Lovely. It was the creation of Danny Wallace, now known as King Danny, for the BBC TV show 'How to start your own country'. Lovely, which claims its official territory as Danny's flat in London, was obviously a joke.
     However, suppose an area of London was actually declared independent. Ponder, for a moment, the citizens of the Republic of Soho, going about their daily lives under a new government. Now imagine that they are subject to genocide. Should we intervene, or are the people of Soho no longer our problem?
     The Republic of Soho doesn't exist, but it raises a salient issue. Is sovereignty always supreme, or do we have a duty of care to others that crosses political boundaries? I believe the latter, and I'm unapologetic about defending liberal interventionism and its place at the heart of British foreign policy.

In 1938, Neville Chamberlain stated that he could not see the sense, nor feel the motivation, for military action, 'because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing'. Chamberlain allowed Hitler to occupy part of Czechoslovakia. His plan was conceived in the vain hope that Hitler would steer the wheels of his war-machine eastwards towards the USSR rather than the UK. Churchill had it right, albeit with hindsight, when he said: 'The belief that security can be obtained by throwing a small state to the wolves is a fatal delusion.'
     It didn't prevent war for Chamberlain and, in today's world, an isolationist foreign policy is even more obsolete. The 'global village' caricature has to be borne in mind. The impacts of events that take place thousands of miles away are felt ever more rapidly at home. Furthermore, Chamberlain's assertion that some human beings matter less because they are distant and unfamiliar, is an abhorrence. Just how abhorrent is perhaps easier to comprehend in terms of present day injustice and suffering.
     We can look towards Africa for disturbingly 'textbook' examples. In Darfur, over 500,000 people have been murdered and unknown numbers tortured or raped in recent years. In The Congo, 45,000 people per month are being killed, around five million since 1998. That's the equivalent of the entire population of Scotland. The argument that these people just aren't our problem lacks both credibility and humanity. A belief in the equal worth of every human being is not loony liberal propaganda, it's international law, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
     It is also difficult to accept the argument that cultural differences somehow excuse such abuses. Murder and rape are not part of any culture, they stem from the power-mad quests of tyrants. The existence of universal morality is not just my opinion, it is fact. The Program on International Policy Attitudes surveyed nearly 50,000 people in 25 countries last year on the 60th anniversary of the UDHR. They found widespread support for human rights such as gender equality, freedom of speech and democracy, even in countries with poor records such as Iran and China.
     Moral relativists often assert that to champion human rights in such countries is an imposition of western values. To suggest that faraway cultures are naturally barbaric and that human rights are a preserve of western thinking is patronising, to say the least.
     Interventionism is evidently attacked from different angles. Pacifists state that the use of force is always wrong; I disagree. Not because war is ever a good thing; violence and destruction should never be relished. My proposal is simply this: that military intervention might sometimes be the lesser of two evils. In a recent interview, Amos Oz recalls the words of a holocaust survivor. Although she was a peace activist, she said: 'You know, we were liberated from the concentration camp, not by peace demonstrators carrying placards, but by American soldiers carrying sub-machine guns'.

So where does this leave British foreign policy? It's worth stating that intervention does not have to mean war. Peacekeeping troops have been deployed in The Congo. Regarding Darfur, the UN Security Council has passed many resolutions. But none of these resolutions has been implemented. According to Amnesty International, the troops in the Congo are under-equipped and powerless. Jody Williams, Nobel Peace laureate, has described the response to Darfur as 'pathetic', and I concur. The international community is failing in its most fundamental duty: to protect human life.
     And still, there are those who would encourage this failure. Alongside the moral relativists, and the pacifists, stand those who use Iraq as an excuse for inaction. The calamity of that war must not be used to undermine the case for intervention. Yes, there should be protests on the streets of the UK. But in 2009 we should demand that our government take action for people like the Congolese, instead of shouting 'troops out of Iraq!'. No matter how fashionable, the latter serves no one, least of all Iraqi civilians who cannot be left defenceless in the wake of a mess we created.
     The foreign policy of the UK must not be weak, or pathetic. We should be confident in principle and courageous in action. As starting points, our government should listen to the campaigners who ask that we match President Obama's pledge to appoint a special envoy to Darfur. Our peacekeeping troops must be well-equipped, as Amnesty recommends, not impotent. And UN resolutions should mean something; they must be implemented, whether by military action or economic sanction. Beyond that, our decisions should always be guided by the principle of universal values and a duty of care to all.
     Whenever military action can be avoided, I'll always applaud the peaceful alternative. But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must not just be a document of principle, a museum piece; it must be bravely defended worldwide. Not just in words, but in deed.

Forthcoming events
2010

UK Universities Young Thinker
of the Year
June 2010
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online

Young Public Sector Programme
May 2010
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online

Young Local Authority
of the Year
March 2010
[click here] for information

Winning papers

2010:
Kris
Anderson
[click here]

2009:
Anthony
Silkoff
[click here]

2008:
Mairi Clare Rodgers
[click here]