Monday, January 31, 2011

Fair play to the Egyptian Army! Big Respect Due!!

The Egyptian Army has just declared that it will not use force against its own people.

In doing so, they have demonstrated that Egyptian Soldiers are righteous, professional soldiers. They are not cowardly killers and beaters of unarmed civilians.

The sole valid reason for an army to exist is to protect the nation from invasion*.

Their role, irrational and problematic though it is when viewed objectively, is to try deter, if necessary with lethal force, any armed invaders who try to occupy their country.

That is the central role of an army: protection of their nation, its people, territory and values.

The real, professional soldier is not there to kill unarmed civilians of their own nationality. 

This is why the Green Party has this policy (PD306): All serving personnel will be required to sign a pledge that they will not obey any order which would entail any breach of international law. In particular they will be able to disobey any order that required them to fire on unarmed civilians of their own or any other country.


Maybe this is a good day to raise this question:


Will the British Army make a solemn oath that they will never use force against non-violent British civilians?


*OK, primary purpose. Commenters are welcome to enter other uses, like, UN peacekeeping missions.

4 comments:

GIDEON MACK said...

(PD306): All serving personnel will be required to sign a pledge that they will not obey any order which would entail any breach of international law. In particular they will be able to disobey any order that required them to fire on unarmed civilians of their own or any other country.

I have not read your PD 306 but does this not rely on a soldier's knowledge of international law?

What constitutes an armed or an unarmed citizen?

Seems a bit nebulous to me although I admire the attempt.

DocRichard said...

Hi Gideon
The soldier's knowledge of international law will originate in their briefing and rules of engagement.

"What constitutes an armed or an unarmed citizen?"

er...whether they are carrying arms?


"Seems a bit nebulous to me although I admire the attempt".

Not nebulous, just a statement of principle. IN all policy making, there is a limit to be set about how much detail is to be put in. There is a difference between a manifesto and the detailed legal framework in Bills and Acts of Parliament.

The principle is strong. Armies are there to deter invasion, not to kill their own fellow citizens. It is amazing that the British Army is not already signed up to this position. (Maybe it is. in which case we need to see chapter and verse).

GIDEON MACK said...

Hello Doc

Thank you for your reply. You neatly sidstepped my question though.

Carry what arms? A gun? A knife? A table leg (you can do alot of damage with a table leg) - you see my point?

I will say again however that I like the concept.

DocRichard said...

Gideon
As always, there is a grey area. However, I learn that the Egyptian Army take an oath not to shoot their own people. I will try to get to the source today if I can.

It is time for the British Army to catch up with the Egyptian Army.