In a follow up to yesterday’s piece about John Reid’s comments concerning whether the Geneva conventions are still adequate to cover all eventualities in today’s world he offers this rebuttal.
I am relieved by this clarification of his motivation. Or at least I would be more relieved if his words in today’s rebuttal more fully covered what he actually said in his speech and if I believed that the threats posed by terrorism or rogue states as outlined in his speech were as significant as he would have us believe.
He expresses the need for intervention to prevent mass killings or genocide – illustrated by Rwanda and Sudan among others. But then appears to go to say that such things are already covered under the conventions. The only problem then surely is the political will then to actually intervene in such situations.
John Reid’s original speech, which was given to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies is available here at the MOD’s website.
I am still concerned by the issue of ‘imminence’ and under what conditions does he believe the British military should be allowed to pre-emptively strike against another nation.
