Though once in a while I agree with him about this or that, mostly I just don't get Simon Jenkins. I don't get him today when he is excoriating David Miliband, Gordon Brown and Bernard Kouchner for using, about the crisis in Congo, a language of what must happen and of holding others to account. I mean, I do get that it's not an admirable course to talk as if you mean business when you don't really; and I also get that when nothing effective can be done, nothing effective can be done - two points which Jenkins is keen to impress on us.
But here are some other things I don't get. (1) That it 'would not occur to a Russian leader or a Chinese' to use language like this. Well, not towards Africa maybe, but still, they seem to me to be problematic exemplars for Jenkins's purpose if you consider other places geographically close to them. (2) That the language of Miliband, Brown and Kouchner is to be explained by what Jenkins calls the 'imperialism gene'. Really? He can think of no other reason why these political figures might believe a language of holding to account is appropriate? (3) And that Jenkins has not yet condemned the UN for its imperialist ambitions, on account of the commitment to a responsibility to protect. This either means something or it means nothing; but Jenkins might like to try getting his head round the idea that one standard response to terrible blood-letting and human misery is that of wanting to do something about it if possible. That is not entirely the same thing as imperialism. The concept of crimes against humanity is now familiar amongst educated people.