Читать книгу Dissidents of the International Left - Andy Heintz - Страница 23

GEORGE SCIALABBA

George Scialabba is a regular contributor to the Washington Post, Village Voice, Dissent, Boston Globe and The Nation. Among his books are: The Modern Predicament, What Are Intellectuals Good For? and Slouching Toward Utopia.

How much of Islamic terrorism can be attributed to US foreign policy and how much of it was a spontaneous, grassroots movement?

Even if I were less ignorant of the various jihadist movements, I would hesitate to guess at the balance among their motivations, any more than I would do so in the case of, say, the Tea Party. I’m sure there are a variety of causes in play: religious sectarianism and cultural self-assertion; resentment of domestic corruption, repression and underdevelopment as well as foreign exploitation and violent intervention. But whatever the proportions, Americans should interest ourselves primarily in the causes of jihadism for which we may have some responsibility and which we may have some ability to affect.

Public statements by al-Qaeda (reprinted in Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris) have said emphatically that their primary goals in attacking the US were to protest and revenge the killing of Muslims by Western military interventions and to end interference by the West (through military bases and weapons sales) in Muslim countries. In response to the many Westerners who have claimed that al-Qaeda’s attack was motivated by hatred of the freedom and openness of Western democracies, bin Laden asked: ‘Why then did we not attack Sweden?’

If many American Southerners still, 150 years later, deeply resent the defeat inflicted by Union armies in an excellent cause – ending slavery – we shouldn’t be surprised that Muslims still resent the much more recent humiliations inflicted on them by the West for the sake of controlling their energy resources.

Do you think American exceptionalism itself has become a secular religion that requires its own subtle forms of blind faith and absolutism?

The nationalist, as George Orwell once remarked, has an uncanny ability to see the atrocities committed by other nations and not to see those committed by his own. In other words, there is nothing exceptional about American exceptionalism. Every state portrays its motives as disinterested and generous, and insider intellectuals in every society are happy to parrot the State’s propaganda. The American propaganda system is unusually effective (see Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent for a detailed description). But in every society, those intellectuals, editors, scholars et al who toe the official line are rewarded with power and influence. Still, the US is a relatively free society, so we can find the truth – if we can tear ourselves away from television and social media.

When do you think humanitarian intervention has been warranted in the past (Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo)? What are your thoughts on R2P (‘responsibility to protect’)?

International law certainly recognizes a responsibility to protect. It belongs to the UN Security Council, when appealed to by a State or population under attack. Of course, the United Nations is now largely non-functional in this respect, because the superpowers have never fulfilled their obligations under the UN Charter. But, rather than give individual great powers the authority to intervene militarily, as at least some versions of the R2P doctrine envision, it would be preferable to address honestly the defects of the UN and try to repair them. The populations of the great powers must force their governments to obey international law, which those governments will never do otherwise.

How should progressives approach the freedom-of-speech issues that are being put to the test by Islamic terrorist attacks against speech they don’t find acceptable?

I think the traditional distinction between speech and action – action may be regulated, speech not – is by and large adequate. In general, the best remedy for falsehood is truth, the best remedy for wounding speech is healing speech, the best remedy for hateful speech is loving speech. Libelous speech is not protected, but the definition should be narrow, as in the US, not broad, as in the UK. The right to insult people and ridicule their beliefs is essential in a free society. It may, of course, be foolish or even immoral, but it shouldn’t be illegal.

How should progressives approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Some commentators claim that if Hamas had the same technological sophistication as Israel, they would try to annihilate the country. Do you think these claims have any credence?

As the poet WH Auden observed: ‘Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return.’ I wouldn’t be surprised if many members of Hamas harbored murderous resentments. They have been badly treated for generations by Israel, with the support of the US. But those violent impulses must not be indulged, and Americans must not encourage or excuse them. Large-scale nonviolent resistance is not only the most moral strategy, it is also the most effective one. The best thing Americans can do for all concerned is to force our government to be serious, for the first time, about pressuring Israel to make a comprehensive peace – full return of the West Bank, an end to the strangulation of Gaza, reparations for dispossessed Palestinians, equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel – while it still has unquestioned military superiority.

In the United States, there was some talk by liberal commentators about Dick Cheney being jailed for promoting torture, yet very little mention was made about charging George W Bush for war crimes for invading Iraq. What, if anything, does this say about the mainstream press?

I think it reveals one tenet of the conventional wisdom: individual Americans can sometimes do bad things – after slavery and Vietnam, this would be a little awkward to deny – but as a state, the US is law-abiding.

What role should the US play in combating ISIS?

I think the US should acknowledge and apologize for past crimes against Muslims and then show the world’s billion Muslims a shining example of enlightened secular democracy and prosperity. Of course, the US should also participate in any discussions and actions taken by the United Nations Security Council in response to actions by ISIS.

What role, if any, should the US play in Syria?

Again, I think adherence to international law, particularly regarding the paramount role of the Security Council as arbiter of humanitarian military intervention, would be a good first step. Beyond that, of course I hope for the emergence of a unified, non-sectarian democratic regime without Assad.

In the mainstream press, events like the overthrow of democratic leaders in Guatemala, Iran, and Chile have been covered, yet the majority of commentators still write in a way that portrays the US as a country with a long history of fighting for freedom and human rights. How can they report on these events, yet remain unmoved in their beliefs about our country?

How can they, indeed? Actually, some don’t, but if they try to share their newfound beliefs about our country with their readers/viewers, their editors/producers ask if they’re feeling all right, or if they need to take some time off. And if they insist that, no, they’ve actually come to see the world in a radically different way, they’re eventually shown the door.

What you would like to see changed about the international Left?

I’d like to see it around a hundred times bigger. ■