I went to the mass-march yesterday. Like lots of people I’m pretty confused by the Iraq situation, I’m not going to go into the reasons, because it’s ground thats been covered lots of times. Anyway, I decided to go anyway because, if nothing else, I am against the British army going and killing Iraqi soldiers and some innocents and because I was sure I would regret if I didn’t go and not sure I would regret if I did (I don’t). I’d like to say at this point that I am by no means pro-Saddam, of that I am very sure.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the assination route. There’s no need to kill Iraqis, if there are international-scale criminals in Iraq, then they are confined to their Government. War is the traditional, aristocratic way for a group of governments to reprimand another, but there is no need for that here. Assination has been tried by the Americans but it too is morally a deeply questionable tactic. If forced to choose, I think it is better to execute 10 people than a thousand. I think many people might disagree that assination is an option perhaps because it is seen as underhand or cheating. If it saves lives then why not cheat? This is a game between administrations, not peoples.

I think that there is a third way. I think that international law should be modified so that it is possible to interceed in the operations of a government when that government has been proven to be a large threat to life or human rights, be that the life and rights of their own citizens or those of any other country. That way it would be possible to bring a case against the Ba'ath Government of Iraq and have that case backed up by the UN. Many countries are happy to give the death penalty to serious internal criminals and I’m sure this could be used as a political vehicle for those countries to at least threaten a Government with force, sparing the citizens in between. It would also give us ground to bring much more pressure to bear on North Korea, Rwanda, China and a whole host of oppressive regimes whilst hopefully averting all out war.

The problem with this is that, if used unsparingly, it would highlight a deep rift between the major political blocs of the world. Western countries are not going to agree with China or the Middle East about what consitutes a threat to human rights. Possibly they could settle on the lowest common denominator and raise the bar over the next century or so.

It would be a bold move and an extremely difficult one to pull off in the climate of tense co-operation that exists between nations in these times, however, I believe it is a tactic that is in line with the way international politics is headed and could be the hallmark of the 21st century.