|
September
26, 2001
Hitchens At War
By Tariq Ali
When Christopher Hitchens supports a
Western war he usually concentrates his fire on the 'enemy'.
During the Falklands escapade he wasn't bothered by the sinking
of the Belgrano or other such trivia that 'liberal twits' were
questioning. For him Galtieri was a fascist and Mrs Thatcher
was right. During the Balkan wars he decided that the Serbs were
the enemy, Milosevic was a fascist and NATO was right to wage
war. He slipped up on the Gulf War, which he opposed despite
the fact that Saddam, in the eyes of many who supported that
war, was a fascist as well.
Perhaps Hitchens should re-think
his position on that war, to make his overall posture slightly
more consistent. Everyone would understand. What is odd about
the current crisis is that his targets in this war seem to be
Pilger, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Pinter, et al. This list too is
incomplete. For some reason he excludes Susan Sontag whose excellent
New Yorker piece warning against crude revenge has been reprinted
all over the world. The position adopted by all those under attack
is fairly straightforward. The terrorist attacks were appalling
and unjustifiable, but to explain is not to justify. Explanations
are desperately needed to avoid a repetition anywhere in the
world.
To say that the Manhattan and
Pentagon bombers are 'fascists with an Islamic face' can help
whip up a war-frenzy, but it solves nothing, apart from being
a wrong-headed analogy. Pre-war fascism was based on both mass
and corporate support, which they retained till it became obvious
that they were going to be defeated. Likewise the European 'post'-
fascists today: Haidar in Austria, Fini in Italy, Le Pen in France
and their friends in Britain base themselves on a certain degree
of popular support.
The groups that carried out
the attack on the United States are reminiscent of another tradition.
They are propagandists of the deed. They imagine that by sensational
terrorist actions they can exert sufficient pressure to change
the course of politics and history. It is pressure politics of
the sort, which deliberately excludes any attempt to mobilize
mass support. Someone once referred to them as 'liberals with
a bomb'. They believe that the spectacle of murder and mayhem
can effect change and usually they're wrong.
Who were they? How were they
recruited? What made them decide to sacrifice their own lives
and thousands of others? Here the answers are obvious. The question
is not what Osama Bin Laden thinks of the state of the world.
His former employers in the CIA are well versed as far as he
concerned. The question is how he recruits middle-class graduates
in Saudi Arabia and Egypt to his cause. For it is they and not
the illiterate bearded fanatics in Afghanistan who carried out
these monstrous actions. Here a quick viewing of Bin Laden's
video messages to his followers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt makes
his appeal obvious. What he says (and I've seen one of them)
is that the Gulf War was a crime against the people of Iraq.
He and Hitchens agree on that. Secondly he denounces the continued
occupation of Palestine and Western complicity with the suffering
of the Palestinians. Hitchens would agree with that as well.
Thirdly he denounces the corrupt and hypocritical Arab regimes
and venal political leaders who refuse to re-distribute wealth.
He refers to them as bloodsuckers
living off the oil that is a 'common property'. Here, too, I
think, Hitchens would be in agreement. Of course, Bin Laden's
solution is a nightmare Pax Talibana throughout the world of
Islam, which few Muslims or non-Muslims want. But his appeal
for educated young men in the Middle-East lies in what he demands
and therefore our response must surely be to insist on political
solutions that drain away support from terrorist groups. When
the IRA attempted to blow up the British Cabinet in Brighton,
the British state, horrified though it was, did not declare war
on Ireland. In fact, soon afterwards it began to search for political
solutions.
The same applies here even
though the circumstances are much more horrific. Until the question
of Palestine is resolved; until the bombing and sanctions against
Iraq cease, there will be many willing recruits to carry out
terrorist actions. Even Jack Straw understand this, which is
why he spoke of Palestinian suffering as a cause of this disaster
while on a recent trip to Teheran. To bomb a shattered and famished
remnant of a Third World country is not an answer. It will do
nothing to deter future recruits. The same applies here even
though the circumstances are much more horrific.
Perhaps deep down Hitchens
is aware of this fact, he doubts the efficacy of what the West
is about to do, and, for that reason has turned his guns against
the critics of the war. What is needed is a sober reflection
on what really needs to be done. If Hitchens carries on in this
vein, he'll soon find himself addressing the same gatherings
as his sparring partner, Henry Kissinger. CP
|