If I were black, Asian, American Indian or Aborigine and was told about, say, the wholesale massacre of an entire tribe committed by my ancestral tribe, should I feel guilty? a need to make reparations? Happy are those who did not write down their history, for they shall not be judged.

Eugene, Brno, Czech Republic

We have a moral code already, one based on bitter global experience. It has been signed by just about every nation on this planet. Its aim is to prevent genocide, which is in everyone's interest, irrespective of political, religious, and ethnic persuasions. I refer of course to the International Declaration of Human Rights. This must be the central plank of a democratic global constitution that Mr Aaronoavitch is in effect proposing.

Unfortunately, the UDHR is routinely breached by nation states, even by democracies. The Quartet, for example, is in breach of Articles 22, 24, 25, 26 and 28, by their economic blockade of the Palestinians. Through its barbaric occupation, Israel is in breach of at least the first 13 articles, including the right to life.

Mr Aaronavitch wants to export democracy. I want modern secular democracies to abide by their international treaty obligations. Why should anyone trust us otherwise?

Nick Ferriman, Bangkok, Thailand

Moral relativism is one of the more ridiculous notions currently fashionable. 'We hold these truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal'. As so often we have to look to the past to find people who have the appropriate courage and eloquence.

Mark Hebert, St Ives, UK

Would like to reply to the comment from Richard in Portugal. If we did go and remove some of the dictatorships you mention, you would complain about that too, wouldn't you. Saddams Iraq was as murderous and vile as any of the other regimes you mention, if not more so, not to mention a greater danger to the west, and that includes North Korea.

Chris, Birmingham, UK

Pathetic. Britain's own democracy was seriously compromised by Blair's banana republic postal vote system in the last election so we know all about his idea of democracy.

Before bombing, invading and "fixing" imperfect democracies why don't we try to deal with full-on authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Syria to name just a few.

Richard, Aveiro, Portugal

Military interventions are inherently undesirable, firstly, because they lead to people being killed and, secondly, because they typically erode the fabric of international law.

That is not to infer that such interventions are not mean in some rare circumstances justified. But such circumstances are inherently rare.

Ian Morrison, Auckland, New Zealand

From the time of the Norman conquest, almost the whole population of England were basically slaves until the end of the Middle Ages. So what?

Simon, Zhuhai, China

A shallow argument for the war in Iraq but what can one expect from a socialist. In the 19th century Britain abolished slavery on its own (and its empire's) account but did not go to war with USA or any European nation in order to stop them from slaving. Britain may have exhorted and even used forcing tactics but that was all. The analogy between slavery and non-democracy is, of course, very remote. Aaro and all other 'beneficent' interventionists take no account of history and culture in their arrogant presumptions of what system should prevail in countries far removed from their own but socialists always know what's best for other people. If, say, a hitherto unknown Amazon people which had no democracy but came to tribal decisions through a witchdoctor were discovered would he presume to destroy their tribal customs and force western democracy upon it? Probably not! But why not? If it's good enough for us, it will be good enough for them. A bit more moral realism is needed.

Peter, sutton coldfield,

Its laudable that the Brit gov intervened for whatever reason to stop slavery. In Iraq the real reason for intervening and the reasons made public were very different as we all know now. At first it was WMD, then to remove Sadaam, then to bring democracy and while all this was made public the the real reason was taking place that is the economy of Iraq. This was taken over by Western firms and Im sure their control will be felt a long time after the Western armies have left. It was terrible to hear the Brits and Americans squabble about big business contracts, the military asserting that all the oil fields were safe while the people of Iraq were dying and continue to and the historical museums were ransacked around them. In life you make your decisions and if you make the wrong judjement u cant blame another hence those who went into Iraq without fully thinking about all eventualities are definately open to carry the blame for the state of the country now.

T. Lusiola, St. Albans, UK

What "white guilt"? There's no such thing, My ancestors owned slaves at one time, but I take no responsibility for their actions, and I personally feel no guilt on their behalf. That was their business one hundred and fifty years ago, not mine. Get on with life in the present.

Thomas, Altanta, GA, USA

I do not feel guilty for being white.
As someone from a working class background, I feel sympathy for the people who suffered from legalised slavery , however I andmy kin didnt take part in it, therefore I feel no guilt at all.
To apologise for something which happend a hundred or so years ago seems like the rantings of the chattering classes not the working classes.

Howard Leech, Morecambe, Lancashire

David is a brilliant analyst and commentator. Unfortunately his style can sometimes be oblique and confusing. But his honesty and sense of what is right are what matters. As for Humphreys, and the rest of the BBC's political wing, what can one say? If only we could be rid of them!

Stan Green, balsall common, uk

I do not understand the argument that "democarcy" is a value system like any other. Democracy is a system that attempts to ensure that the values of the majority are reflected by their government. The corollary is that the values of the minority should also be protected.

If the values of the majority dictate the election of a theocracy that believes in burying women up to their necks in sand and crushing their skulls with rocks as a legitimate function of the rule of law and expression of the values of the majority, then I suppose their right to do so cannot be challenged by another country that does not share those values. By the same token a country that lives by such values cannot object when another country, who finds those values repulsive, refuses to deal with them.

Bill, Vancouver, Canada

most people will agree that intervention is sometimes justified where it is clear it can do some good, but Iraq, as we all know, does not fall into that category. Intervention may have removed Saddam, but at what price? Can't he just admit he was badly wrong and move on? Erm, no, it doesn't appear that he can.

Daniel Waites is happy to tell us that we all know that intervention in Iraq has not done any good. Actually, I know no such thing. I have no idea what the verdict of history will be any more than the abolitionists would have predicted that Britain would be continually apologising for slavery rather than being congratulated for abolishing it. But whatever the outcome in Iraq, intervention was a moral act and David Aaronovitch is aboslutely correct when he writes that to allow moral relativism to dictate our foreign policy is what is immoral.

Cliff Pooley, Cheltenham,

I'm nearly 50 and I grew up in India but I learnt much of my British History from an extraordinary book called Great Men and Women Throughout the Ages by Louisa and Albert Hitchcock. I derived so much pleasure from it that though i read it at about ten years of age, I can remember much of it to this day, including the pictures). It had chapters on William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry, Lord Shaftesbury, among others. When I finally visited Britain, nearly two decades after reading the book, I wanted to the see the statue of Eros at Picadilly Circus because I'd read about how it was dedicated to Lord Shaftesbury.

Supriya Guha, Basel, Switzerland

As always I find reading David's article that there is someone who does express his views without worrying about the "flavour of the month" or not. Hope he continues writing with the same flair for many years to come.

Sergio Perelberg, London,

i suppose we can ignore the philsophical question of whether or not one has the moral right to inform a happy, contented slave that he should be unhappy with his/her lot in life and discuss a more formidable reality: Since perhaps 1815 (or 1867? ) countries that are essentially democratic do not oppress their own people and they do not make war on other democracies. When the do make war, it is usually because they are attacked (or severely threatened, as in early September 1939) by non-democratic countries, often countries tending toward totalitarianism. Therefore, everything should be done to promote democracey, including the world-wide difussion of an unimpeded internet, cell phones, the free flow of radio, tv, and newspapers, the creation of opposition parties, a fully independent judiciary, and constitutional provisions protecting the citizen from his/her own governmental excesses. Slavery will vanish, peace and justice (and prosperity) will prevail.

James, Jacksonville, Illinois U. S.

Whites rarely had to kidnap blacks. They bought them from blacks who had enslaved fellow blacks. The enthusiastic kidnappers were black. I point this out for reasons of historical accuracy, not to limit white guilt. Whites should have known better. The Africans were still in the dark as to a Christian moral base.

Graham Weeks, Greenford,

All subject matter aside, the exchange between Blair and the impotent Humphrys was a cool pleasure. The PM seemed to need barely a fraction of his intellect to wave away Humphrys like a fly.
John Humphrys, with Naughtie other bêtes noires who use their monopoly of our attention to present their world view as objectivity, have convinced me that the BBC does our nation far more harm than good. Abolition of the BBC should be the priority of the House of Commons - the Corporation is the real and far greater threat to our democracy, not the Lords. Waht do we get for a king's ransom in treasure? A humbug, wrapped in a delusion, inside a pretention. Off with all their heads (figuratively, of course).

maasai, London, UK

Perhaps, just perhaps, it should be reminded that the war in Iraq wasn't only founded on the desire to promote democracy in the middle east. It was a war based on lies from the us intelligence, and in all likelyhood, a war based on the desire to have control the natural resources of Iraq (oil). Perhaps people don't like the idea of democracy being promoted with lies. What all this has to do with being for or against slavery is beyond me.

hsh, basel, switzerland

Yet another insightful and though-provoking column by one of Britain's best journalists. Thank you David - yet again. Relativism - RIP.

Christian Legerheim, London,

To Gilbert Phiri - David Aaronovitch is not insinuating that there is nothing wrong with slavery. If you had taken the time to read the article properly you would have seen that. I am also not sure where the rant about Zimbabwe has come from, although the blaming of all Zimbabwe's current problems on the British is a popular tactic among partisans of President Mugabe...

Rob k, Norwich,

David misses the point somewhat. If everyone is free to determine their own behaviour and their own future, then those women that want to be shut away, or not to drive can do so. Those that want to strictly follow what they believe to be the word of God can do so, and those that want to smoke, dance and drink themselves to oblivion also can do so. Most of the problems with the world can be traced back to the fact that many - perhaps a majority of - people are not happy to mind their own behaviour but want to mind everybody' else's as well. Of course there are areas where we all have to co-operate and agree, but why should I care whether my neighbour is a Christian, a Muslim or an atheist? Why should I care whether he smokes or east too much? Why should I care what a woman chooses to wear? Liberty is what we should espouse and what we should wish on others - paradoxically perhaps!

Tim, London,

Bemi,

David was using irony to reinforce his view that morality cannot be separated from foreign policy. His quote on slavery is intended to represent the other side of the argument (in exaggerated form), letting the repugnance of "And what is bloody wrong with slavery anyway? " speak for itself.

James, London,

Thing is, if you say that its ok to impose your will on foreigners, based on Britain being first to stop the Atlantic slave trade, what of our involvement in it before-hand? Either we participated thinking it was bad, or thinking it was good. Either way kind of invalidates the theory that moral intervention is OK, as it shows that moral thinking changes.
Incidentally, judging from the statistics in America and here, that black people still have less chance of education, employment, lower life expectancies and quality of life, and the state of large parts of Africa itself, it seems that neither strategy has worked particularly well. I am reminded of a quote from Mao Zedong - "revolution can be neither imported nor exported." Instead, a people should do it for themselves, and they will be all the stronger for it.

Jack Thursby, Sheffield, UK

More facts please and fewer innacuracies. The slave trade in England was effectively abolished in 1102 by an ecclesiastical council in London. In 1561, the Case of Cartwright E 11 found that English law did not support the institution of slavery. The slave in question was a Russian. The United states prohibited the importation of slaves prior to 1807. So British policy made no impact on legitimate American commerce. Finally I challeng anyone to provide an example of the term "cultural genocide" being used in the 50 year period following the abolition of slavery in the US.

Doug Forbes, Wheeling, USA

A minor correction: "and the US...were taken aback"-- Actually the US prohibited the importation of slaves at nearly the same time, January 1, 1808 (slavery itself, of course, persisted in some states until the 1860s). I do give credit to the UK, though, for being the country most responsible for ending the international slave trade.

The problem with saying that people of another culture prefer an authoritarian regime is that without democracy and freedom of expression we can't really know what they prefer. All we know is what their rulers prefer. A large percentage of Iraqis braved terrorist attacks to exercise their right to vote. The small minority that are slaughtering them in no way show the "preference" of the culture.

Lies basis for Iraq war? No, see my comments--http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1438006.ece

Jean Carent, Columbia, USA

There is an argument emerging amongst historians that one of the main reasons that the American South did not want to give up slaves was economic. While the North was industrialised, the South was (and still is) largely agricultural, dependent on cheap labour. They were worried that without slaves, their economy would collapse.

I find it funny that Tony Blair believes that Britain should be spreading democracy,when the British political system is, in fact, not democratic. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, and the "first past the post" system ensures that parliament is not in fact representative of the voters' choices.

Lisa, London,

Can I respectfully suggest a 'recognising irony' course for Bemi and Gilbert. It may improve their blood pressure if they don't have to get worked up so often.

Dan Crow, London, UK

It is an insult of immense proportions to insinuate that there was nothing wrong with slavery! Just who does this author think he is? Vainly disguising our contempt of other cultures and traditions in the name of objective comment isn't amusing at all. The descendants of slaves in Britain are not better of at all. They find there opportunities in both work and educational advancement utterly limited, this, in their so-called land of birth! As for the Zimbabwe situation don't you even go there. If it had not been for the world-renowned tight-fistedness of the British Government in reneging on paying compensation for the land that was grabbed from black ownwers at the turn of the century we wouldn't have had the land grabbing exercise. Period!

Gilbert A. Phiri, Swindon, UK

Well done Bemi of London. It needed pointing out that someone could take a single line out of context and willfully misinterpret it, as is a risk with any article that uses this type of rhetorical device. I do hope that nobody mistakes your ironic post as idiocy.

Dan Crow, London, UK

To Bimi who posted earlier: David is engaging in irony. He doens't really think slavery was OK.

On the question of moral relativism, I remember having a discussion with a woman about what I saw as the oppression of women in Middle Eastern countries. She thought I was not being objective, was seeing things from a Western perspective and she argued that no one value-system is superior to another. My observation that in the Middle East she would not even be permitted to argue with me as an equal seemed to be lost on her.

Tom Day, Haslemere, Surrey

David you almost sound like the Islam fantastic. Okay I agree the whole Iraq issue was a faked idea but where does the slavery question come into this. There are no masters no slaves. Just dead and alive people frightened to death as to what is going to happen to them?

Thank you

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam , Tanzania

Ah - Bemi - I think you have the wrong end of the stick. He is not realy saying slavery was ok, he was saying that it was right for the UK to impose a unilateral ban on it on other nations, even though they were soverign, and even if it had to be done by force. He was then drawing a parallel with Iraq

Paul, Stafford,

In my history books it says that Kings and Queens from Elizabeth I onwards were prime investors in the slave trade. Thank God Wilberforce didn't fall for your 'moral relativism'. He believed the slave trade was wrong by his own Christian standards and he knew most people would believe it was wrong if they knew the facts. He also knew that the King and much of parliament had huge financial interest in the lucrative slave trade, but was politically astute to neither mock or upset his powerful opponents. After 22 years of articulate, reasoned persuasion the slave trade lobby simply ran out of poor excuses. Passing the bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was our parliament's finest hour and those MP's knew it at the time.

Chris Winn, Gateshead, UK

Dear Bemi in London, I think you may have misinterpreted the article. The comment "And what is bloody wrong with slavery anyway" is, by my reading, David's attempt to show just where the arguments of "more extreme others" can lead.

It is clearly accepted (by David, by Bemi, and nearly all other civilised people who advocate democracy) that slavery really is "bloody wrong". The link is that, how then can the arguments of Islamist extremists ("women aren’t yearning for the right to education, or to be treated by (male) doctors. Or to be anything except shut up in their father’s or husband’s houses") possibly be acceptable to those of us who do believe in democracy if slavery isn't?

Excellent article.

Carl, London, UK

I am well aware that nothing of the above argument makes what has happened in Iraq the less appalling. Hating the occupiers I could cope with, but I didn’t remotely foresee the insanity — the bloody aimlessness — of blowing up students or day-labourers, with Allah knows what long-term objective in mind.
David you almost sound like the Islam fantastic. Okay I agree the whole Iraq issue was a faked idea but where does the slavery question come into this. There are no masters no slaves. Just dead and alive people frightened to death as to what is going to happen to them?

Thank you

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam , Tanzania

What Stu of London fails to grasp is that some (perhaps all) dictators can only be removed at the point of a gun. My abiding memory of the period leading up to the Iraq invasion is not George Galloway saluting Saddam for his "indefatigabilty", but Tony Benn trying to engage the blood-soaked psychopath in a cosy chat about their grandchildren. Lunacy we can recognise and discount; delusion is far more dangerous.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

One of a number of confusing articles Aaronovitch has written since the war went wrong... Somewhat discredited on the left for his support for the war, he seems rather desperate to keep hold of the moral high ground- his career as a columnist depends on it after all. So we get articles like this, where he resorts to all sorts of confusing intellectual gymnastics in order to justify his position. David, most people will agree that intervention is sometimes justified where it is clear it can do some good, but Iraq, as we all know, does not fall into that category. Intervention may have removed Saddam, but at what price? Can't he just admit he was badly wrong and move on? Erm, no, it doesn't appear that he can.

Daniel Waites, Newcastle, England

slavery still exists today in blairs britain. millions of working class people struggling in wage slave jobs just to survive.

dave brown, barton-on-humber, england

Spot on as usual. But surely not even Times readers need to be told that Goethe was "great" - it's pretty much taken for granted, I thought. You'll be telling us about the "noted composer" Mozart next...

Bryn, London,

Well said, David! It's perfectly consistent to believe, as I do, that promoting and encouraging democracy is a good thing, and at the same time, that the war in Iraq was morally wrong and practically misguided. Morally wrong, because although we should be trying to persuade people to adopt democratic forms of government, killing them is a rather extreme form of persuasion. Practically misguided, because the resentment that the war has induced across the entire Mulsim world will set back our efforts to promote more humane government by a generation.

Pete Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

As much as I agree with the writer that history lessons should not be dominated by black history and the history of everyone and everywhere else but Britain, I am even more disgusted that in this day and age, there are still people who hold these kind of thoughts and are happy to be blissfully ignorant enough to share it to the whole world. How can anyone in their right mind try to justify slavery? "And what is bloody wrong with slavery anyway? " If anyone told me i would read this on a site that is visited worldwide, I would have told them where to go.
There is no ramification in which slavery can be justified. It is wrong for people to treat other human beings like pets and property. Just ask yourself one question, how would you feel if you had to be taken away to a place you didn't like, didn't know, out of your will and had to work for someone just because he could afford you.
The most disturbing thing is that more and more of this articles are surfacing today, especially in The Times

Bemi, London,

OK I think David is slightly tilting at windmills here. I suspect (although I've never had the opportunity to discuss it with him) that John Humphries would be very happy to see Iran adopt a form of democracy which is more equitable and is not dominated by an unelected council of clerics. I imagine this is true for the vast majority of people in the this, and most other countries.

What people are a little less happy with is the idea, promoted by the Washington neo-cons and their British cheerleaders, that democracy can be imposed at the point of a gun.

Stu, London,

So if it's a democracy we'll leave them alone? I think not. So there will be good and bad democracies and that will be roughly the same as those for us or those against us. And who'll be the judge of that then...? Not the ones with the nicest democracy, but the ones with the greatest force and then so much for democracy - or is there some greater moral code, call it religion, and the remote possibility that Bush and Blair will end up in an Islamic hell?

Grouchy, London,

The thing that really irritates me about John Humphrys is not that he has the right to peddle the lie that Iran "has a form of democracy" (which it no more has than that previous object of Humphrys's admiration, the Soviet Union) but rather that he gets paid a large amount by the British taxpayer to do so, camouflaged by the so-called "objective" BBC. There are no objective criteria whatsoever by which Iran can be said to have "a form of democracy".

Ollie, London,

The whole question of banning the slave trade was a typical example of British hypocricy. What right had they to enforce their ideas of morality on others?
As for the descendants of slaves they are probably far better off than their counterparts in Africa today see Zimbabwe for a typical example. On top of that their ancestors might never have met and they wpold not exist.

Brian O Cinneide, Durban, South Africa

It would have to be nearly a century later for Southerners (in the US) to begin to talk about "cultural genocide" as the word "genocide" wasn't used (according to the OED) until 1944 -- presumably figuratively as in "culture genocide" came even later.

Kate Blackmon, Oxford, UK

Churchill did not have the benefit of a medium, namely the internet, that now empowers everyone with a modem or mobile phone to put in their two-penny'orth. What could be more democratic than allowing the people collectively to take decisions? The technology has already been shown to work. 1.8 million signatures on the Downing Street web site on one proposal alone prompted the Prime Minister into action, reaction and responding. If the system were refined, and as long as 95% of all Britons have access to the internet, why can't we introduce a system that is more like the Swiss system? For sure, what we have at the moment is an elected dictatorship, with Tony Blair continually introducing more and more authoritarian legislation on the basis of a roughly 30% vote.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

Keep going David.

The, what seems like, mindless majority will hopefully one day understand that removing Saddam WAS a moral imperative. Management of the war is certainly open to critism but the decision to go was, and to me still is, indisputable. The man was an unimaginable monster. To my mind the arguement NOT to remove him is morally vacant.

Mark, Oslo, Norway

i'm afraid you miss the point, Tony - the examples you give are all of populations making THEIR OWN revolutionary choices (ironically, not unlike the Iranian revolution, which both you and JH seem to have voluntarily overlooked). that is acceptable -- but the West has absolutely no prerogative to dictate to other sovereign states how they should be governed. let them make their own choices in time. surely, if Europe and America could be transformed from a population of bigoted, violence-loving, misogynistic religious fanatics ruled by absolute dictators (monarchs), into a modestly 'free' and 'democratic' place in the relatively short time of two hundred years, it can happen elsewhere without us prodding them into instant democracy at gunpoint. meanwhile, let us try to set a good example and continue to seek a way of life that inflicts the least possible harm.

AL Brown, UK,

We have a bit of bait and switch here, haven't we. It was moral to attack the slave trade, surely. But the raison d'etre of Iraq was the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the association of Saddam with the terrorists who had attacked the World Trade Center. Neither the weapons nor the association existed. The intelligence was cooked to afford revenge against Saddam. Afterwards we were treated to dreams of democracy in the Middle East, but these were after thoughts, a polishing of the propaganda, as if Britain had thought to attack slavery out of concern for the chieftans of West Africa.

Dante, Portland, Oregon

William Wilberforce was a Tory, a fact you don't often find worth acknowledging by Left-wing historians and writers.

The point about the blood shed in Iraq, (and indeed the French Revolution, Tony Wilson) is that said blood is being, and was, shed in the vast majority of cases by innocents caught up in a struggle over which they have and had no control.

And a final point, democracy is an abstract, like society. Try telling an Iraqi woman - who cannot today walk outside wearing Western dress without risk of assault or murder from religious fundamentalists - that at least she has the vote. Most people would plump for individual freedom under a tyranny to subjection under good ole Western-style democracy any day.

Ray Burke, Stockport, England

The "basic security of three square meals a day" it is quite worrying that slavery as an aspect of British history or slavery at all can be qualified by means of adjectival positives. How can we discountenance the far reaching effects of people's scared pysche and the battering of their confidence as a result of slavery? is it possible to ignore the fact that most Africans and Caribeans nations had their cultural economic and political growth stunted as a result of slavery?
Slavery in all its ramification is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

nicholas okpeku, cardiff, wales

Odd article, It's not quite clear what Mr Aaronovitch is saying, relaying the Humphries/Blair interview we then get comments in response to "JH" . I can be quite clear to Tony Wilson though, the revolution in Frace, the upheavel in Rhodesia, were/are not worth it, nor was the Civil War in America, that bloody business could have been resolved otherwise , Abe Lincon was clear about that.

Frank Hutchinson, London,

I've recently started wondering why 1807? Is it entirely a coincidence that in 1807 we had the know-how to build machines that could do the work as cheaply as slaves, and perhaps wished to make money by exporting the Industrial Revolution to other countries?

After all, even though both slavery and the slave trade were outlawed, they were never abolished, and still thrive today - even in Britain - in areas where machines can't replace people. The sex industry, for example. If slavery was "abolished" for reasons of conscience, and not for economic reasons, why is that anomaly tolerated?

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

No, I'm afraid you still don't have it right. You write "200 years ago, on May 1, 1807, slavery was banned in Britain" when in fact slavery in Britain was abolished by Lord Chief Justice William Mansfield in 1772. Your error is that in 1807 what was banned was the slave trade itself.

jon livesey, sunnyvale, ca/us

What makes the invasion of Iraq moral? This is a very bizarre article.

Neil Murphy, cromer,

Democracy in some quarters had been shortened to a four letter word. Expanding it back out to "having the right to choose who governs you" makes it far more difficult for the likes of JH to argue against. My guess it that he (as most people do, including myself ) believes the world would be a much better place if he ran it. Democracy many not be the best system of govenment but as someone said (and Churchill repeated) it is the worst
"except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It turns out to be extremely practical. It has "evolved" because it meets that elusive requirement of pleasing most of the people most of the time, and it the best system for simultaneously having maximum freedom and maximum agreement.

JH's argument is that democracy in Iraq isn't worth the bloodshed, so presumably he believes that the French Revolution, The English Civil War , and the American War of Independance (to name a few) weren't worth the bloodshed either?.

Tony Wilson, UK,

Because David Aaronovitch believes that human rights and democray are by far the most superior form of governance and is willing to promote this belief overseas he in some eyes is a neocon...............unbelievable.

D DUNN, NEWCASTLE, UK

There is something pernicious and insincere about the modern day discussion of slavery. It is somewhat grotesque for intellectuals to believe that slavery was only to do with transplanting individuals from one country to another, for that would mean that our modern day insistence on doing the same thing, to do our ‘dirty jobs’, is equally as ugly. Like the missionary zeal that only sees want in far off places, a means of unburdening the conscience of the many-headed, while they carefully skirt-round the ‘want’ on their doorsteps. ‘They’ would say that perhaps the ‘want’ here does not deserve help. If slavery refers to pain then I feel we are discussing the plight of the individual and angst, in an historical perspective, is not an empirical measure. Is the modern day American black advantaged by the nature of his being or are his former lands more graced and favoured? Was there an atypical slave and is there a conformance in experience to all our lives? What a dilatory conception.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

Whatever the intention of the war in Iraq it is unlikely to bring democracy or Human Rights (a no less noble cause)to Iraq.
Incidentally, it might be a good idea for the Holocaust memorial day to be extended to commemorating the slave trade as well.

Jonathan Lowenstein, Tel-Aviv (and London), Israel

Moral relativism should not guide our foreign policy. I agree that should be true, what should guide our foriegn policy should solely be based on what is humanly right and proper along with what is good for the UK. We spend huge amounts of our wealth on others who despise us for being what we are, British. We plumb the depths when we sell arms, known as defense contracts to others who routinly turn out to be despots. As a citizen I have virtually no control over who we sell our old bombs and battleships to or who the chancellor throws our money at in Africa, the only Moral control I can exercise is in forums like yours where I can voice my opinion and secondly who I think I should vote for at the next elections

Jim, Cardiff, UK

Loved your description of Red Ken - pity he was using our taxes to pay for that rubbish though. Now, if Britain was primarily responsible for freeing the slaves that means we are also responsible for every crime commited by their descendents right? Thats surely what a confederate would argue if he were still alive today. If not, then how are we responsible for the crimes of the Iraqis we freed? And yes, we did free them.
Incidently, I think you have a lot more moral integrity in this article than those who would like to see the Iraqi experiment fail.

David Banne, Oxford, UK

Barry, you came up with a smart couple of soundbites but they are sadly lacking in substance. First, an important principle to maintain democracy is that the military should always be under civilian control. Therefore, the idea that only those who fight can express an opinion on matters of war is both distasteful and dangerous. Second, the neocons cannot 'put their children' into the army, because in Britain we are fortunate enough that people can only join the army through their own free choice. These are some of the benefits of living in a liberal democracy.

Stuart Hudson, London, UK

Barry, the reason the neocons don't "put their children into the army" is that they are their children, not their slaves. You can't force someone else into the army. Maybe in Iran or North Korea, but not in the west.

Joining an army won't do anything to promote democracy and human rights overseas unless that army is led by a civilian government that has the determination and courage to do something about oppression and injustice.

Phil, Vienna, Austria

If David Aaronovitch and other neo-con warriors are so eager to promote democracy and human rights overseas, why don't they join the British army and put their bodies where their consciences are? Failing that, why not put their children into the army? What nobler cause could there be?

Barry, Manchester,

It is incredible that, in Britain, this can be published and discussed in an intelligent manner. In America, slavery is such a pronounced concern, despite how archaic it is, that public disregard for it is akin to holocaust denial. One can not speak truly of it without irrational vilification and animosity. Circa 1692, it was a "witch"; 1949, it was a "commie" or a "Nazi", and today, it is a "racist" or "terrorist".

Wang Li, Seaside, Oregon, United States

Great article, David, but you are confusing the abolition of the slave trade (1807) with the abolition of slavery (1833).

Anne Stott, Gravesend, UK

David, please try to understand, get into your head, that it is not the 'encouraging' of democracy abroad that makes people wary of you --- it is your justification and support for this catastrophic and mendacious war. Claiming that anyone who takes your words with a massive pinch of salt because of the decimation of your credibility and moral integrity is a satanic moral relativist is just further mendacity.

Jackson Paul, London,

everything is relative, even democracy, freedom, and human rights

markhb, nelson,