David Maddox: Alex Salmond's international portfolio
1. Scottish Saltires fly in Tripoli as Al-Megrahi, a convicted mass murderer held responsible for the lives of 270 innocents killed when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, is welcomed back to Libya as a hero after Mr Salmond's justice secretary releases him.
2. A Nato soldier finds the remain of victims of the Serbs attempts to ethnically cleanse Kosovo. Nato's intervention to stop the murder and forced removal of Kosovans was infamously described as "an unpardonable folly" by Mr Salmond.
3. Robert Mugabe, an international pariah and responsible for the brutal repression of Zimbabweans and the destruction of the country's economy. Mr Salmond was accused of giving Mugabe international credibility by writing to him asking for support on nuclear disarmament.
4. The high point of his attempts to woo America - an audience and photocall with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The politician his minister has just publicly ignored and slighted over the fate of the Lockerbie bomber and the US administration that has been insulted by the hero's reception for Megrahi in Libya.
The question is: If Scotland does become independent do Scots want Alex Salmond and the SNP to be responsible for its foreign policy? Feel free to discuss in the comments section.
2. A Nato soldier finds the remain of victims of the Serbs attempts to ethnically cleanse Kosovo. Nato's intervention to stop the murder and forced removal of Kosovans was infamously described as "an unpardonable folly" by Mr Salmond.3. Robert Mugabe, an international pariah and responsible for the brutal repression of Zimbabweans and the destruction of the country's economy. Mr Salmond was accused of giving Mugabe international credibility by writing to him asking for support on nuclear disarmament.4. The high point of his attempts to woo America - an audience and photocall with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The politician his minister has just publicly ignored and slighted over the fate of the Lockerbie bomber and the US administration that has been insulted by the hero's reception for Megrahi in Libya.
The question is: If Scotland does become independent do Scots want Alex Salmond and the SNP to be responsible for its foreign policy? Feel free to discuss in the comments section.
Labels: David Maddox, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Kosovo, Libya, Lockerbie bomber, Megrahi, Mugabe, SNP
posted by Administrator at
11:38
22 Comments:
Why don't you announce your political bias openly David, your journalism, if it can be called that, is becoming the 'beano' of Scottish Political discourse.
Here we find you railing against":
1. Compassion
2. Illegal Bombing of civilians
3. Nuclear Weapon Disarmament
4. Scotland on the International Stage
Your cringe is terminal.
But don't worry I'm sure the editor will show compassion for you.
This post has been removed by the author.
PS, If you going to post, atleast try posting the truth.
After the US acting on behalf of NATO bombed serb civilians in the centre of Zagreb, Salmond said: "It is an act of dubious legality, but above all one of unpardonable folly."
He also said that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic bore "prime responsibility" for human rights violations carried out on ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo.
Salmond proposed an alternative
"However, if we are to sanction intervention in Serbia then the policy must be capable of achieving two things, it must be capable of weakening Milosevic and helping Kosovo. A bombing campaign will do neither, indeed the chances are it will make both worse."
Serbia set the precedent for Iraq......
Your spinning is a joke, have Labour given you a safe seat to run in yet?
Dear David
Well I guess we can take these misrepresentations as conclusive conformation of your partisan dislike of the SNP.
1. The Scottish Government showed compassion for a man who deserved none. If every government behaved that way to their enemies the world would be a better place. The Scottish government did the right thing and can't be held responsible for the actions of Libya - already condemned by the First Minister.
2. The policy of air strikes against Belgrade was far from the optimal method to cease the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Bombing innocents in Belgrade and not sending in people to protect Kosovans on the ground was "unpardonable folly".
3. The Scottish Government asked every country on Earth for support on nuclear disarmament. A very morally just agenda in my opinion.
4. With respect, this is just emotive nonsense. The Scottish government didn't "ignore" or "slight" Hillary Clinton. Scotland is not bound to follow the wishes of the US administration.
The answer to your question: I would rather have a compassionate and peaceable SNP government responsible for foreign policy than a Labour government that took us into a bloody and illegal war in Iraq or a Tory government that supported that decision and would have done the same.
Best regards
SD
Good grief! After Paul Hutcheon's incredibly personal rant in the Sunday Herald, we now have this. Deary me.
Would I like to have the SNP in charge of foreign policy? You bet I would. The UK Govt helped make the world seven times more dangerous through theirs. Salmond would have to go some to do the same.
I accept this blog is deliberately provocative. But, no, this is not political bias, I am simply performing the duty of the fourth estate (the press) to question the party of government and the policies of the First Minister.
True, there have been many "unpardonable" mistakes made by the UK Government (Iraq springs to mind), but my job is to primarily report on politics in Holyrood.
The point of this blog is while the SNP are desperate for Scotland to have control over its own foreign policy, its own forays into foreign policy, especially Mr Salmond's, have been questionable and, at times, unedifying.
Like it or not, the unpardonable folly quote has stuck in the memory as will the images of Saltires welcoming a mass murderer home at the airport in Tripoli last night.
There are questions over whether SNP policy is naive and shows any understanding of the realities of global politics.
There have been two successes I am happy to point out. First was opposing the Iraq war, certainly in terms of domestic political capital. Second, was the fishing concessions won for Scotland at the EU negotiating table, with the help of the UK government. Although on the second point fishermen are actually quite unhappy, so the success was qualifie.
- David M
David, you seem to fall into the category of Scottish pundits and opposition politicians who are consumed by what we all know is the the Scottish cringe – the idea that some decisions are just too big for 'the best wee country in the world' and that Scots, indeed specifically those that support the SNP or indepdennce inevitably make a mess of them.
You've presented the hypothetical and actual handling of this and other affairs as being a 'shambles', a mess and an embarrassment.
In fact, watching the justice secretary's measured performance it seemed that he had coped rather well., speaking of ethics in a global and Scottish context.
He has made his decision not on political or diplomatic grounds, but in the interests of justice, in line with what he believed to be universal humanitarian and Scots law principals.
Far from being an embarrassment, perhaps the real shock is that it has been demonstrated to the UK that the relationship with America does not have to be based on utter subservience or strategic interests.
It is unlikely that the SNP's principled opposition to nuclear weapons and its consistent stance on the illegality of military intervention (Serbia AND Iraq) will be seen positively by those in Scotland who happily sit idly by without criticism or questioning UK Foreign policy., you included as can be seen by your grudging acceptance of two SNP successes.
In the Lockerbie case there's good evidence that for various economic reasons the British government is not unhappy both that Megrahi has been released and that it can't be held responsible for the decision.
Only today, the guardian, a paper that values real journalism, has been quizzing Millibandd on the issue, something your paper's article fails to do.
If the SNP had been thinking purely politically it would probably have come to a different conclusion: keeping the Libyan in prison would have annoyed the British and pleased the Americans – not an unhappy combination for Scottish nationalists.
But MacAskill took the decision because he believed it was the right one, and for that he should be applauded.
Salmond should be applauded for rightly standing up against the itnerventionist policies of the united states which has led directly to the mess the world is in right now and the seeds that have been planted for decades to come.
The SNP should be applauded for their anti-nuclear weapon stance and for initiating a global petition on the issue.
Your 'provocative' does all of these aims an injustice and far from being 'provocative' is merely sensationalist in it's gaping bias and lack of balanced investigation.
You may like to read this article in the Guardian about the Scottish cringe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/aug/20/megrahi-release-lockerbie-snp
Remind you of anyone?
Hi David
I would respectfully contend that there have been more than the two successes you point out (which you feel the need to qualify and thus diminish).
I totally support and celebrate your duty to question the party of government and the policies of the First Minister.
However, where is the balance of an impartial journalist in this blog entry? Where is the counter opinion in the piece that gives the positive interpretation of these decisions rather than just the most extremely negative interpretation possible?
It's this apparent imbalance coupled with inferences and language which in my honest opinion verge on the pejorative that lead me to question whether you have an opposition to the SNP beyond the honourable journalistic duty of holding government to account.
Cheers
SD
Not sure what is being suggested here.
1. So what? If it wasn't a Saltire it would have been a UJ. Al Megrahi would have been released whether or not the SNP was in power. In fact if the SNP had really wanted to annoy Westminster they would have left Megrahi in jail because Westminster wanted him released.
2. You need to do a bit more research on this - Alex Salmond did not argue against military intervention on the ground but against a blanket bombing campaign which targeted infrastructure like water and sewage as well as civilians.
3. The SNP Government wrote to every State Party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to inform them that they had applied for observer status at future NPT meetings. Zimbabwe is a signatory so it got a letter. Nuclear disarmamnet is what the NPT is all about. So that's a total non-story.
4. This the silliest point of all. Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State for the USA not Scotland. Are you suggesting that US politicians should decide on matters which are sovereign to Scotland? That's crazy.
All you need to do to answer David's point is compare and contrast the SNP's view with the current orthodoxy. I won't bore you by spelling it out, it's obvious.
What's bizarre is DM using this as an apparent tool to bash the SNP. Actually, it's done the reverse.
David, you forgot him trumpeting the fact that he was the first First Minister to meet a US Secretary of State, neglecting to mention that he was also the first First Minister to journey to the USA and not be invited to meet the US president! SNP spin at its worst.
Provocative, yes, which is fine, but also - as someone says above - pretty unclear in places, which is not so fine.
I'm with both Ian McWhirter and Magnus Linklater on this - we are being pitched some odd narratives from all sides here, and the one KM was so desperate to get across - the reiteration of Scottish justice, Scottish compassion, etc - rang particularly false I thought. Where is the evidence that Scots have special qualities of compassion and justice that others do not have? I see no evidence for such a belief in our history or indeed our present society.
The bigger picture is that the real Megrahi story will never be told now, and the Lockerbie story remains shrouded in myth and mystery. It's clear that if Megrahi is guilty then Gadaffi is even more guilty, so why did Blair embrace him so gladly?
"Where is the evidence that Scots have special qualities of compassion and justice that others do not have?"
EVIDENCE
1. Our Justice system includes the notion of 'compassionate leave', the united states justice system does not.
2. Our justice system does not have 'capital punishment', the united states by in large does.
3. Our Justice system includes the notion of 'not proven', the united states and the UK does not.
4. Scotland is known to have some of the best rehabilitation facilities and expertise in the world.
5. The current Scottish Government, ELECTED by the people are against the illegal wars in Iraq, against nuclear weapons and against interventionist policies which break the rule of international law and humanitarian decency.
Is that enough 'evidence' for you?
"The bigger picture is that the real Megrahi story will never be told now"
Oh I wouldn't be so sure, the 'evidence' is mounting thick and fast and ina way that an independent enquiry may never have been able to do.
Wardog:
1- the US justice system does have 'compassionate release'; there was a high-profile discussion on this re one of the Manson murderers last year
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/882873/manson_murderess_susan_atkins_denied.html
2 - a ban on capital punishment is not unique to Scotland within the UK, far less the rest of the civilised world
3 - the verdict 'not proven' is evidence of compassion? You're on yer own with that one
4 - do we really have 'some of the best rehabilitation facilities and expertise in the world'? Am glad to hear it, can you share the evidence?
5 - really?; why then did over 60% of Scots polled recently state a preference for Westminster handling defence?
So, am not convinced at all about any innate superiority in 'compassion'; we were, for example , the last UK country to burn a witch (in 1727) and our clerics protested when Westminster too away their right to kill 'witches' in 1736.
As for justice and to be contemporary, here is just one example. I can remember just 30-odd years ago Scottish employers openly advertising that Catholics 'need not apply' - I also remember an English personnel officer asking me what sort of dark-age land he had arrived in.
"So, am not convinced at all about any innate superiority in 'compassion'"
Probably because that's not what I was demonstrating, can yuo quote ANY extract from McCaskill's announcement where he claimed that Scotland was 'superior' to any other nation?
Have you simply made that up?
And as for witches and the like, please.
"an English personnel officer asking me what sort of dark-age land he had arrived in."
Need I say more?
PS
Edwin, if you care to check the differences between 'compassionate leave' in the sates and here you'll note that they are as wide apart as possible.
The Scottish system recommends release if an inmate is so ill, the US system allows prisoners to apply on that basis but the decision is not recommended in guidelines but instead by a parole board......
Hi Wardog. You say
'Probably because that's not what I was demonstrating'
Well, you did present five points in 'EVIDENCE' for Scotland having 'special qualities' of compassion and justice', and these were the points I responded to - and responded to quiet fairly I thought - so am now not sure what you were intending to demonstrate.
McAskill's speech I thought was pretty shabby, 'unfitting', as the Guardian yesterday put it, from his weird invocation of a 'higher power' to this:
'In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic. '
I fail to see how we Scots are distinct from other 'people' to the extent that 'our humanity' is a 'defining characteristic'. This is hubris, not common sense. You might as well say that the people of Greenock who stood outside the prison to shout foul abuse represented the people of Scotland; it would be as valid a statement.
I see we have the place to ourselves, which means we've bored everybody else off the pitch. Have the last word if you like!
Again I ask, where did he say that we were distinct?
Your making it up my friend.
I think it is better for a nation to have a reputation for having compassion and a sense of humanity rather than than vengeful and embittered hate.
It is not Scotland that is in the wrong here but Libya, US Government and the UK government (both Labour and Conservative).
The whole case stinks to high heaven, even the original conviction and the subsequent cover-up.
No, the only party to have shown a moral stand here has been Scotland.
David,
In a moment of sheer madness, I tried to imagine incoherent Iain Gray on the world stage. Sorry, I can't type for laughing. It is to be hoped that individuals such as Hilary Clinton would be infinitely more polite.
John,
Whilst he doesn't have Salmond's charisma (but then again very few do), don't completely under estimate Iain Gray. - David M
Post a Comment
<< Home