Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A New Pro-Imperialist "Left" Manifesto

by JOHN W. FARLEY

A group of left intellectuals have recently issued The Euston Manifesto. The signers are mostly British, and the American signers include both editors of Dissent magazine (Michael Walzer and Mitchell Cohen), a member of the Dissent editorial board (Paul Berman), a Dissent contributor (Kanan Makiya) and a contributing editor to The Nation (Marc Cooper).

The Euston Manifesto consists of (A) Preamble, (B) Statement of Principles, (C) Elaborations, and (D) Conclusions.

(A) In the preamble, the signers declare themselves “democrats and progressives,” proposing a “fresh political alignment”. The identify themselves as people on the left, reaching out to others (whether leftist or not) who have “an unambiguous democratic commitment”.

(B) The 15-point Statement of Principles is a catechism of positions:

(1) For democracy,

(2) No apology for tyranny,

(3) Human rights for all,

(4) Equality,

(5) Development for freedom,

(6) Opposing anti-Americanism,

(7) For a two-state solution (In Israel and Palestine),

(8) Against racism,

(9) United against terror,

(10) A new internationalism (in favor of “humanitarian intervention”),

(11) A critical openness,

(12) Historical truth,

(13) Freedom of ideas,

(14) Open source, and

(15) A precious heritage.

In part C, “Elaborations,” we finally we get to the point: support for the US occupation of Iraq.

The signers explain that “the founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted–rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.”

Translation: the signers proclaim that the Left should be helping, not opposing, the US occupation of Iraq. After all, teaching the backward natives the art of self-government is part of the White Man’s Burden!

(D) Conclusion, quoted in its entirety: “It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist outlook should now speak clearly. We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic ‘anti-imperialism’ and/or hostility to the current US administration. The values and goals which properly make up that agenda–the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression–are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to.”

They have not noticed that some of their principles are contradicted by their political positions.

For example, consider Principle #8, “against racism”. The signers write that “the recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of ‘anti-Zionism’. We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.”

The manifesto signers do not consider that the “legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel” arise because the Palestinians are the victims of Israel’s racism. In this connection, what about Principle #3. “Human rights for all”? Do they really mean all, even including Palestinians? In that case they would be severely critical of Israel, but they are not. Dissent magazine’s editor, Michael Walzer, actually endorsed Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon! To the manifesto signers, anyone accusing Israel of systematic racism against the Palestinians is guilty of “anti-Zionism”, and of course this equals anti-Semitism. So there you have it! Anyone accusing Israel of racism must be an anti-Semite!

Among the Statement of Principles, there is no mention of opposition to war or imperialism. There is only a passing mention of colonialism in point #15, “A precious heritage”:

“We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries–by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women.”

Finally they mention the “anti-colonial transformation.” But isn’t the US invasion and occupation of te Persian Gulf (today Iraq, and tomorrow Iran?) a modern form of colonialism, motivated by the US desire to control the oil of the Persian Gulf? Aren’t the efforts of the Iraqis and Iranians to resist US imperialism therefore an anticolonial struggle? Of course, the signers of the Euston Manifesto have absolutely nothing good to say about the “the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance.”

The Euston Manifesto was written by social democrats who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. They are pleading for support from other leftists and from the broader community of liberals. I predict that this manifesto will fail to rally pro-war sentiment. It’s too late, and opposition to the war is by now nearly universal among the people they hope to convince. Instead, the likely effect will be the political isolation of the signers.

John Farley lives in Henderson, Nevada. He can be reached at: johnwfarley@yahoo.com

 

 

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]