Both the Guardian and the Telegraph this morning report the content of a speech that David Cameron is due to deliver to the UN General Assembly. He is apparently going to say:
You can sign every human rights declaration in the world, but if you stand by and watch people being slaughtered in their own country when you could act, then what are those signatures really worth?
For those not in the grip of the 'all about oil' or 'imperialist arrogance' impulses, the logic of the prime minister's question is transparent. However, it should be noted that something else he is going to say suggests that he and his speechwriters lose sight of that logic themselves. For he will include among the conditions for external intervention to stop people being slaughtered in their own country the stipulations that there must be both UN agreement and regional support for the intervention. Naturally, it is better, other things equal, if these desiderata are met than if they aren't. But if they aren't - because, say, of a veto in the Security Council - and it is indeed slaughter that is either in progress or imminent, then not to intervene will make the very same human rights declarations as Cameron invokes worthless to the victims. The world (and international politics in particular) is more complicated than can be captured in a neat formula. If those human rights declarations have compelling moral force, as they do, they will sometimes be more compelling than the considerations prompting one country's vote.