The New Observer Uncategorized Starmer at the UN. Not an edifying spectacle

Starmer at the UN. Not an edifying spectacle

I generally try to focus on narrative analysis rather than make straight political comment. But I had to comment on this one; the British Prime Minister acting tough at the UN. (That said; I could argue that this post is still about the media, because of the way that this nonsense is reported by the Guardian – with a flat delivery. It is like a journalist reporting on someone saying “And, of course I am Napolean and everyone should bow down to me”, without adding in a phrase like “the obviously mad”, or “clearly disturbed”).

Starmer wants to say that Russia has violated the UN Charter and “caused immense human suffering”. It is of course, not enough, in this age of the emotional punchline, to focus on the legal matter. The plea must be to our emotions. This is the UN equivalent of the “victim impact statement” in the British Criminal Justice system; a pointless exercise because it doesn’t affect the judgement; it simply makes people feel good because the victims have been elevated centre stage. Let’s focus on the legal point; Russia has violated the UN Charter. Yes; they probably have. The UN Charter only allows one country to attack another for reasons of self-defence. In theory that should have stopped all wars. In practice, it hasn’t of course, partly because of what is called the ‘security dilemma’ in international relations scholarship. One side’s defences seem threatening to the another side, who then feels they have to take pre-emptive measures. This is one way that wars start. Other conflicts are more complex and involve disputes across state boundaries and so on. This is the real world of international relations, and responsible actors acknowledge this and pursue diplomacy in this context. When Western leaders bang on about the UN Charter they are trying to use that as a stick to beat their geopolitical opponents with. They are doing this specifically to avoid talking about the “realpolitik” of any one case. In this case, that would mean discussing Russian concerns about, for example NATO in Ukraine and the unfulfilled Minsk agreements… something which, we know, they have resolutely decided not to do.

The simpler answer to Keir Starmer’s point about violating the UN Charter is to point out that the UK did this when they participated in the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Interestingly, the ‘justifications’ were the same. Both the West in 2003 and Russia in 2022 claimed that they were acting in line with the UN Charter, which gives the right to self-defence, but were doing so pre-emptively. It is a bit off for Starmer to lambast Russia for doing precisely what Britain did in 2003. There was “immense suffering” in Iraq and I think there is a strong case that, if we include the period of sanctions which preceded the war of 2003, far more civilians died in Iraq than have died in Ukraine and Russia.

Starmer does not make his absurdities any more edifying by trying to drive the Russian delegation from the building. No doubt he thinks this will make him look “tough” in the British media. But there is a price to pay for these undiplomatic manoeuvres…

The irony of this performance is completed when Starmer uses his speech to reiterate the empty rhetoric calling for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas. This after a week when Israel has, by all accounts, used booby-trapped IEDs to attack Hezbollah and sow terror in Lebanon, killed dozens or hundreds of civilians in Lebanon in bombing campaigns and continued with their planned industrial scale war crimes (disproportionate attacks, starvation as a weapon of war, attacking civilian populations) in Gaza. [1] The UK trades with Israel, including accepting goods from the illegally occupied territories, sells them weapons, and provides them with diplomatic cover. Israel is without doubt committing massive war crimes. Multiple NGOs and UN spokespeople confirm this. But Starmer does not ask the Israeli delegation to leave the building. He just “calls for a ceasefire”; an entirely meaningless piece of rhetoric since it is obvious to everyone that Israel is ignoring any calls for restraint from the West.

It is embarrassing to have such people as leaders.

Notes

  1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/19/israels-actions-in-gaza-intentional-attack-on-civilians-un-inquiry https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/19/israel-perpetrating-war-crimes-in-plain-sight-in-gaza-says-ex-uk-diplomat https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza