World Peace
Some time ago there was a phone in program on the radio on the United Nations. The usual callers made points about world peace and human rights but no one made the point that these objectives are incompatible. If the aim is human rights then what is the UN to do when a country doesn't support such rights in their country? They could attempt diplomatic pressure but failing that the only option would be military. Few people would support arms against a country in this instance, though the US is using this as one of its justifications for force against Iraq. On the other hand, if the aim of the UN were to be world peace then any country abusing its own people, or even abusing others, would have to be tolerated.
Before the last Iraqi war the British politician Tony Benn got a filmed interview with Saddam Hussein and nodded approvingly as Saddam said he supported human rights. Tony Benn's reason for the interview was that he said he never wanted to see another war. He was pushing for world peace at the expense of human rights. Of course the push for a war on the part of the US wasn't guided by human rights, it was more driven by divine belief in the rightness of the American way.
This pacifist push by left wingers was noticed by George Orwell and is tantamount
to complacency. When Tony Benn says that he never wants to see another war,
there is no room for argument. That is his ideology and to defend ideologies
people will go to extreme lengths. I mentioned before about the end justifying
the means (' Language and Thought'). These views, however, argent thought through
in a rational way, they are assumptions that are never questioned. I mentioned
before how people use phrases such as 'The Sanctity of Human Life' (Capital
Punishment and Life After Death) in order to give these assumptions a religious
significance, although often these people are agnostics or atheists. An assumption
doesn't have to be questioned.
People have discussions where the naive suppose that differences in opinion
can be resolved. Sometimes they can but often there can be no agreement because
the assumptions that the parties make are different. Someone who is deeply religious
has different assumptions from an atheist. Street-wise kids have very different
assumptions from their middle-class 'helpers'. A socialist and a business person
may agree on the fundamental facts but their interpretation of the facts and
their priorities are different. For example, should the rich be taxed and the
money given to the less well off? The socialist may argue with facts on poverty
rates, life standard of the less well off etc, and the businessman may argue
that investment brings about economic growth which trickles down to everyone
and so on, but this isn't going to change the fundamental beliefs. Tony Benn
may argue with the hawks in the US government on Iraq war but they will never
come to an agreement.
