The moral quicksand of the moral high ground
by Mike Marqusee, April 2006
Much of the Euston Manifesto is comprised of worthy banalities, assertions about rights, equality and critical thinking that are a good deal less contentious or novel than the authors think. The document only really bristles when it comes to its enemies on the left. And the only significant parts of this remarkably pompous, vague and prolix declaration are where it proudly "draws a line" between itself as an "authentic carrier" of the left's democratic traditions and the anti-war, anti-occupation left that it claims has abandoned it.
Speaking as an anti-war, anti-occupation leftist, I actually agree with a number of their criticisms of the left (see my talk on the subject), sections of which fail miserably on the tests posed by the Euston Manifesto authors: critical openness, respect for historical truth, consistency of principles, rejection of double-standards, moral relativism. The problem is that the authors of the manifesto fail all these tests far more egregiously than their enemies on the left.
In the first place, there's the dishonesty of treating the Socialist Workers' party and Respect as the totality of the left or the anti-war movement. One of the problems with the "line" they wish to draw is that it obliterates the existence of much of the actual left: which is diverse and predominantly anti-authoritarian. Huge numbers of people found no difficulty in opposing the war and the regime of Saddam Hussein; they didn't hesitate to condemn either the atrocities of 9/11 or those committed by the US, the UK and Israel; they want an end to the occupation but do not support actions that target Iraqi civilians. In fact, this latter category also comprises the vast majority of Iraqi opinion. It's telling that this is a constituency whose existence the manifesto authors refuse to acknowledge. Likewise, it's telling that among left secular activists across the developing world - the people in the front line of the struggles against fundamentalism, obscurantism, and repression - there is almost no support for the manifesto perpsective.
There's a refusal here to acknowledge the existence of a very large anti-war and pro-Palestine left which is committed to universal human rights, freedom for women, open and critical dialogue, which firmly and expressly rejects both the Ba'athist tyranny and the US rule that has replaced it. Despite the manifesto authors' claims about supporting independent trade unionism in iraq, there's no room in their world view for one of the msot important, and most genuinely independent, of those unions, the Bastra oil workers' union, which is resolutely opposed to the occupation as well as the jihadis.
That September 11 was "an act of mass murder ... redeemed by nothing whatsoever" is of course true, and (contrary to the implication in the manifesto) this was the sentiment embraced by the overwhelming majority of the anti-war movement in this country. The manifesto authors are indignant at the attempt to explain, to make intelligible, that atrocity - an effort they they seem to regard as the original sin of the anti-war left. But here they succumb to the irrationality they decry in others. All social and political acts and movements must be subject to explanation and analysis. The left's tradition in relation to fascism and racism has precisely been one of explanation, not mere demonisation. "We stand against all claims to a total - unquestionable or unquestioning - truth," the manifesto boldly assert, yet their view of the world, certainly of Iraq at the moment, is strikingly Manichaean.
As John Kampfner notes, the manifesto authors remain compromised by their failure to concede their error in supporting the initial invasion. But worse yet is their current refusal to acknowledge the on-going horrors perpetrated by the occupiers in Iraq (details in my article) Here they are the ones guilty of a moral blind spot as disgraceful as any in the history of the left.
The manifesto condemns those "who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such [jihadist, terrorist, reactionary] forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country". This is just Bush's for us or against us politics given a sophisticated veneer. It's certainly an ill-informed view of the situation. Yes, there are brutal reactionary forces among the resistance - as there are, in very large numbers, in cahoots with the occupiers. But that is not and never has been the whole story of the resistance and to claim that it is is an intellectually self-serving denial of a demonstrable reality.
"The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare," declare the manifesto authors, "and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just". I agree with this and without qualification. Which places me in a different camp from them, who between them have said not a word about the slaughter of civilians by occupying forces in Fallujah and numerous other Iraqi towns and cities. Here the manifesto authors are themselves guilty of what they denounce as "the cultural relativist view according to which ... basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples".
In fact, there is no acknowledgment anywhere in the manifesto that such a thing as state terror exists, and that it is as abominable as other forms of terror. Instead, the focus is exclusively on "terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology". The manifesto authors are guilty of one of the oldest and most discredited types of double-think: disregarding or minimising the crimes committed by one's own government and society while boldly denouncing crimes committed by foreign regimes or movements.
One of the left sins that the manifesto fulminates against is what they dub "anti-Americanism". They even go so far as to remind us that "The United States of America is a great country and nation" - as empty a phrase as there is in our language. Of course, when they argue that US foreign policy "does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people" they're right. But this lecture is redundant for an anti-war movement profoundly influenced by dissident US culture and one of whose major components is in fact the vast anti-war constituency among US citizens. It's simply not enough to say, as the manifesto does, that the US has "its problems and failings" like other nations. The US's military and economic power shapes the fates of billions outside its borders, and that in itself is an injustice. The US claims and exercises prerogatives it denies to all other nations. It is at the centre of a system of global inequality - and the manifesto's refusal even to address the question of US and western power is as gross an error as anything committed by the Stalinists.
Worse yet, they license this power and its allies to repeat the crime committed against Iraq on a serial basis. This is the import of their embrace of an ill-defined right of humanitarian intervention. "Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a 'responsibility to protect'," they argue. Typically, the authors advertise this as great and progressive departure from received nostrums about "sovereignty". But there's nothing in the least novel about the idea. British, French, Belgian colonialisms all justified their land grabs and mass murders in the name of a disinterested humanitarianism. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman all justified US intervention (military aggression and conquest) on similar grounds. There's not the slightest admission in the manifesto that the doctrine of military humanitarianism is at the least problematic: who decides when and where it's to be implemented? By whose armies, under whose command? Withdrawn at whose diktat? Accountable to whom? You don't have to buy the notion that sovereignty is the be-all and end-all of international principles to reject the issuing to the US and its allies of such an ll-defined license to intervene (to invade and conquer).
The authors condemn "prejudice against Muslims" but are exercised at far greater length and with much greater passion about what they see as a burgeoning anti-semitism. Yes, there has been an increase in anti-semitic acts and utterances, and yes, at times, people on the left have shown that they are no more immune to this disease - or to any other form of racism - than the rest of a twisted society. But that doesn't for a moment justify the attempt to smear as anti-semites the pro-Palestine, anti-war left (see my article). The manifesto refuses to acknowledge the painfully obvious fact that the anti-semitism charge is being used indiscriminately by supporters of Israel, and that such indiscriminate usage (repeated in the manifesto) is detrimental to Jews and to democratic debate. People who claim that "political honesty and straightforwardness are a primary obligation for us" and then routinely smear their opponents as anti-semites and terrorist apologists are nothing but rank hypocrites.
Finally, it's very hard to feel sorry for the authors when they complain about the opprobrium and "excommunication" they have suffered at the hands of the left. Over the last few years, they've dished out the bile and the misrepresentation pretty lavishly in their own columns and blogs. Frankly, their vision of the world is a self-serving fantasy. Which won't stop it getting far more publicity and being taken far more seriously than it deserves.
Mike Marqusee is an activist and writer based in London. This article was first published on the Guardian comment blog