Remember that great film starring Peter Sellers?

This is not about that.

Rather it is to pick up a comment posted by our old friend Ivor (at least I think it is ‘Ivor’ – s/he again cunningly leaves no email trail) on my observations about Neil Craig’s claim that I said that Milosevic’s crime was to be innocent and naive.

Thusly Ivor:

I’m disappointed that you choose to base your argument around a "you weren’t there so you don’t know" thesis, which I’m sure works splendidly in the playground of a provincial grammar school but is scarcely worthy of one of Her Majesty’s ambassadors, even allowing for plumetting standards in this as in all other areas of our national life. Nevertheless, if such is to be the currency of debate, might I ask how you feel qualified to comment so frequently on the crisis in Honduras.

Let us ignore his/her oddly condescending remark about provincial grammar schools. What about the substance?

First, I did not ‘base my argument’ on questioning Neil Craig’s personal acquaintance with the region, although I did indeed ask what it might be.

The point is that Neil Craig in effect goes on at great length and volume accusing all and sundry who do not agree with him of accepting genocidal policies by NATO et al against Serbia, and presenting Milosevic some sort of hapless victim.

This is just not reasonable. And, luckily for Neil, there are friendly and honest people here and there with personal knowledge of the region (such as eg myself) who can brief him on what in fact happened.

As for Honduras, Ivor is right. My personal knowledge of Honduras is very limited. Let’s be honest. It is little more than this. 

But I have done my little bit of reading about the subject and feel comfortable giving a view based on various arguments I have read, a view which does not involve damning everyone who disagrees with me as pseudo war criminals. The more so since former President Zelaya was ousted not by a bunch of army corporals or people obviously funded by the CIA, but rather by people from his own party and other top people in the Honduras establishment who have argued (not unconvincingly?) that he was far out of order.

Basically, none of us really knows much about what is happening down the street, let alone in complex policy areas much removed from our ordinary lives. But we chatter on about them anyway. Democracy/freedom and all that.

The point is to do one’s best to maintain a certain humility and wisdom, and stick to basic principles and common sense.

Such as the proposition that if a leader of a country decides to deal with a tough insurgency by expelling from the territory great swathes of his own citizens, he is the one who needs to wear the genocide label, not those who try to stop him?