|
|
Direct Action |
 |
|
|
In time for July 4th, a motley crowd of Greenpeace protesters took over several parts of a Yorkshire radar base which has for a good many years has been an important link in the chain of American spy bases spanning the world. Menwith Hill has been the target of serious EU complaints, since Europeans suspect that it spies for the benefit of American corporations. As the business of America is business, such a complaint is difficult to disregard: who can doubt that Dubya Bush is eager to do business for his friends in business? The protesters, some decked out in ludicrous costumes resembling missiles, succeeded in their aim of bringing to public attention an issue that the British government, above all, wishes to ignore. The cosy relationship whereby Britain supplies support, military, logistical and political, to whatever American administrations determine, has been a given since 1945, only temporarily wavering on a few exceptional occasions. But we may be reaching some sort of turning-point: the British public are not impressed with the Bush disregard of the Kyoto treaty and even less by Star Wars. They may even demand an independence of action in foreign policy. As the Pentagon desire to transform the American empire from a mix of money and influence into a straightforward military dominance of space becomes manifest, British reluctance to assist that may become more marked. We can probably rely on Greenpeace and other putative world citizen movements to continue to make life difficult for new Labour, already struggling with its legacy of abandoned ideals and dubious associations. The days of CND marches against nuclear weapons could return, but in a country that since those years has continued to lose the habits of deference that have formerly impeded protests against government arrogance. Which raises the whole question of direct action. When is it justified? If people believe policies are wrong and those policies are never brought to public debate, how far are individuals entitled to act in ways that are either illegal or at least obstructionist? Perhaps it is partly whether or not protesters are willing to be non-violent; but it may also depend on what is their rationale, i.e. what exactly are they taking action against and on what grounds? The protesters against the deployment of Trident missiles are on strong moral and legal grounds. The ruling of the International Court of Justice can be appealed for for justification of action to prevent the use of Trident and ts bases. There is a strong case that they are illegal and that the British government, by continuing to deploy them and send the submarines out on patrol, is in breach of its international obligations. That it is in fact committing a crime against humanity, merely by maintaining and possessing those weapons. Thus the protesters by objecting and impeding their use are preventing the perpetration of war crimes. So far those objectors have been winning court cases. However. the Greenpeace and CND protesters at Menwith are unlikely to succeed if accused of criminal damage, but the government will not be happy to bring them into court. The publicity and odium of supporting American military policies will not go down well with traditional government supporters who are already highly critical of the continued copying of policies of their discredited predecessors. And if George Bush jun. is winning discredit for dumping the Kyoto international agreement, it does the British government no good to be seen to ignore other international treaties. One of the most successful ploys in argument is to find the contradictions that exist in the mind of the opponents. Having found two particular beliefs that conflict, bringing them together so that the upholders have to confront their own opposition is the most effective ways of bringing them to think about their meaning and implications. In this country in the time of Margaret Thatcher several informations were laid in magistrates' courts against members of the government, on the grounds that they were in breach of international law. Those informations were almost invariably dismissed out of hand by the justices, who refused to consider them. But the legal basis of the informations deserved to be taken seriously - being the International Court ruling on nuclear weapons - and for that reason they are equally valid today. In these days when an ex-head of state is put on trial in an international court it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the allegations that British ministers are similarly liable to be put in judicial jeopardy for their actions.
Source of Article |
 |
|
|