William Hague – Feeding the Cuckoo of Internationalism

Foreign Secretary William Hague
Image by Foreign and Commonwealth Office via Flickr

 

William Hague has found another country to intervene in. I guess it makes our leaders feel important, to get involved in other countries’ internal affairs.

This time it is Syria. Mr Hague is going to meet Opposition leaders there. But don’t worry – he is not (yet) talking about recognising the Opposition as the government of Syria.

We are not at the point of a formal recognition, partly because there are differing groups not a single council as there was in Libya. They are not in control of territory in Syria as the council were in Libya and the international community has not reached that point.

“The international community”. That shadowy elite who meet in plush international conferences and never, ever subject themselves to the rigours of democracy. Mr Hague seems to think he can use them to further British interests against Syria. If he were openly to say that he is talking to the Syrian Opposition because President Assad is seen as an enemy of Britain, then he would be vilifed across the world, and at home too. But by appealing to “the International Community”, he puts on their cloak of legitimacy, and makes himself seem like a man of peace.

The legitimacy of that “international community” is a sham, however. They represent nobody but themselves, and since their aim is to supplant both nation states and national leaders like Mr Hague, it is they who are using him, not the other way around.

By talking about “the International Community”, he gives that shadowy group another bit of credibility. He makes them stronger. He is feeding a cuckoo in the nest of British politics.

Mr Hague also weighed in once again on Libya. He wants to see Saif-al-Islam, Colonel Gaddafi’s son, tried “to international standards”. He very graciously agreed however that he might be willing to let a Libyan court try him, as opposed to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Of course it is within the rules of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that people can be tried within the country concerned by agreement with the ICC, meeting international standards.

I would like to see him tried to international standards whether that be in Libya or The Hague. That is the important thing.

No, Mr Hague, it is not the important thing – or not the only important thing. The other important thing is the democratic sovereignty of the new Libyan government. After all, Mr Hague, you believe that new government represents the Libyan people, don’t you?

“Within the rules of the International Criminal Court”. Since when did the rules of that court supercede the laws of a sovereign nation like Libya? Especially when Libya is not even a signatory to the court. Libya does not need the “agreement of the ICC” to try Mr al-Islam itself. It has not acceded to the court, and the “international community” has no authority to demand that it does.

Mr Hague, presumably, as a democratic politician, believes the elected British parliament has sovereign authority over the United Kingdom.

But Mr Hague’s comments imply that the rules of the International Criminal Court apply even to states that have not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, let alone states that have accepted it, like Britain. In other words, he is accepting the (unelected) Court’s authority over the elected parliaments of countries in general, and not just Libya.

Where does that authority of the court come from? Mr Hague might argue it comes from sovereign countries voluntarily accepting its authority. That certainly doesn’t apply in Libya, though. Its only claim to authority in Libya comes from the barrel of a gun.

In any case. I suspect that Mr Hague’s phrase, “international standards”, does not mean what ordinary people might think it means. In this case, I suspect it does not mean anything to do with a right to a fair trial. I doubt it means the right to legal representation, or the right to state your case, still less the right to be tried by a jury of your peers.

In this case, I suspect it means a trial whose verdict and sentence meet the approval of Mr Hague and those he thinks of as his friends in the “international community”.

William Hague used to be thought of as a Tory. It seems he has now become merely a “useful idiot” who can be used by the “international community”.

Strong words, I know. But this “international community” has no democratic or other legitimacy. Its leaders are hidden from view, let alone from selection by the people of any country. It believes it has authority over national governments, and it seems that Mr Hague agrees.

How would Mr Hague react if China asked the “international community” to impose sanctions on Britain because of its response to the riots this summer? How would he respond if British politicians, perhaps Mr Hague himself, were arraigned before the International Criminal Court in the Hague accused of War Crimes for their actions in bombing Sirte in Libya without thought for civilian casualties?

Think it couldn’t happen? Do you really think it couldn’t happen?

Our own politicians are playing with fire in co-operating with people who believe that nation states are obsolete, and some non-democratic international group of “wise men” should run the world. Ultimately, those people only have temporary use for politicians like Mr Hague. Mr Hague thinks he can use them to further his own and Britain’s interests. He could not be more wrong.

Those people have no care for Britain’s interest, or for Britain itself. They cannot be used to further Britain’s interests, because they have no interest in national politics. Furthermore, they want Britain, and all other nation states, weakened and undermined as much as possible. To them, Britain is itself an anachronism, a relic of the 19th Century when the nation state was in its heyday. To them, British politicians like Mr Hague have little more importance than local commissars.

Mr Hague is feeding a cuckoo whose ultimate aim is to detroy him and all our democratic national politicians.

3 thoughts on “William Hague – Feeding the Cuckoo of Internationalism

  1. Do you not believe then in any international action? 60 countries are signitaries to the ICC, and signing is surely done by democratically elelcted representatives of said countries. Its brief covers only 4 things: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. It feels similar in fact in its scope to the Geneva Convention, and you would not argue against that? These bodies are attempts to react to world violence, and need supporting, not smashing.

    • International action is not the same thing as supra-national action.

      We really do need to emphasise that Libya is NOT a signatory to the ICC.

      Who defines what is a “crime against humanity”? Who decides what is “aggression”? Answer: the Court itself. The International Criminal Court is a body that has been set up to have authority over nation states, rather than an agreement between nation states. And its supporters really see its jurisdiction as worldwide. You can see that with the attempt to give it authority over Libya – and this is not just Mr Hague, remember. The Court itself has issued a warrant for Saif Al-Islam, despite the fact that his alleged crimes happened in a non-signatory state.

      Even of its signatories, many are not democratic, and even if they were, by whose authority do they impose their jurisdiction over states who have not joined?

      The ICC is one of a whole set of supra-national bodies that have been set up. Their aim is to subvert democracy (which they call “populism” or “demagoguery”). The nation state is the only guarantor of democracy. It is true that some states are not democratic, but also true that absolutely no supra-national body is. The new supra-national bodies have no democratic legitimacy at all, but represent rather a nascent international tyranny, regardless of whether you agree with certain individual actions they may take.

      The Geneva Convention is not a court, but an internationally accepted set of behaviours. (And even then, there is room for disagreement without sanction, e.g. with the United States and Guantanamo Bay.)

Comments are closed.