"OK, Kemi said. Yes, she too drew the line at Greenland. That would be a step too far. There was no need for Donald Trump to claim the country for America. That was an action that could threaten Nato. And besides, as far as she knew, Greenland wasn't a rogue narco state. She, too believed in a world of moral relativism. One where it was fine to invade countries whose regimes we disliked. There was one rule for the west and another for the rest."
"But as for Venezuela, she was all for the kidnap and imprisonment of Nicolas Maduro. Her only regret was that the UK hadn't thought of doing it long ago. No one was mourning the demise of the dictator. Here was the thing. International law and the old rules-based order were just so last century. Margaret Thatcher might have voiced her disapproval of the American invasion of Grenada in 1983, but were she alive today she would be all for the latest action in Venezuela."
"And just think of all the trouble Tony Blair had got himself in by inventing weapons of mass destruction. Just so that he could have a legal pretext for invading Iraq. These days, he would just have said: C'mon guys. Let's just get rid of Saddam Hussein and get our mitts on the oil. And the rest of the world would have been grateful. Because that war worked out so well."
Kemi Badenoch's position on the US coup in Venezuela was similar to Keir Starmer's. She drew a firm line at Greenland, arguing against any US claim and asserting Greenland was not a rogue narco state. She framed foreign interventions through moral relativism, endorsing invasions of regimes the West disliked and suggesting different rules apply to Western countries and the rest. She supported the kidnap and imprisonment of Nicolas Maduro and regretted the UK had not pursued that option earlier. She characterized international law and the rules-based order as outdated and appeared unconcerned about a legal pretext for intervention.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]