Читать книгу Dissidents of the International Left - Andy Heintz - Страница 24

STEPHEN R SHALOM

Stephen R Shalom is director of the Gandhian Forum for Peace and Justice and is on the editorial board of New Politics. He is the author of The United States and the Philippines: A study of neocolonialism, Imperial Alibis: Rationalizing US intervention after the Cold War; and Which Side Are You On?

What are your thoughts about the sharp disagreements within the American Left about what US foreign policy should have been during the Syrian civil war?

I thought that basic leftist principles call for a concern and solidarity with democratic and progressive forces anywhere in the world. People in Syria are living under a vicious dictatorship and, during the enthusiasm of the Arab Spring, Syrians came out in the street looking to democratize their society. The first point for a leftist should have been sympathy with protesters because we believe in progressive change, democracy, ending dictatorships and ending the situation for people who are depressed and suffering. Unfortunately, there was a tendency of many sectors of the Left to look at Syria and say, ‘well, because Assad is an enemy of the US government, and since we don’t like the US government, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.’ Therefore, anyone trying to overthrow the Syrian regime is involved in the terrible practice of regime change.

If you’re a leftist, regime change should be one of your most important goals, because unless a country is run by a progressive socialist democratic regime, of course you should want it replaced. That doesn’t mean I’m calling for the United States to replace the Syrian government, but for many leftists the mere fact that Assad was portrayed as anti-US was enough for people to side with him and to oppose all efforts at challenging his dictatorial rule.

What do you think US government foreign policy should have been in Syria?

The US government’s largest intervention in Syria, contrary to the popular myth that it was seeking regime change, was to make sure the rebels didn’t get the one weapon they needed in their uprising against Assad: anti-aircraft weaponry. We know the CIA was very carefully monitoring what kinds of weapons were coming in, and explicitly excluded anti-aircraft weapons. Had the United States stopped blocking those weapons from getting to the rebels, there was a chance the uprising would have won in the early days before the more secular democratic forces were overwhelmed by the jihadist groups who already had access to weapons.

Did this behavior remind you of the reaction of some leftists to the Green Revolution in Iran?

The Green Movement in 2009 was protesting a questionable election and the people who came out and protested in the street were reflecting progressive leftist values. But some on the Left said that because the regime in power was opposed to the US government they felt we should oppose the Green Movement and dismiss everything going on in Iran as a CIA plot and as an illegitimate attempt at regime change.

Given the finite amount of time we have each day, how much time do you think should be spent criticizing other leftists, and how much time should be allocated to opposing the Trump administration?

The problems in the Left are long-term because the Left isn’t in power. The Left doesn’t actually help or harm people, except at the margins right now. Trump hurts people tremendously every day, so I spend much more time opposing the Trump administration’s policies than on intra-Left concerns. I do focus on trying to rid the Left of its bad tendencies as a future contribution to producing a Left that can be worthy of our respect and commitment.

Do you find it difficult in today’s political discourse to articulate a viewpoint that doesn’t embrace mainstream American exceptionalism, Trumpian nationalism or the Manichean Left’s anti-imperial absolutism?

One of the reasons I’m happy to be working for New Politics is I think it tries and generally manages to express a view that has none of the defects of those three belief systems. You mentioned the Trump view and the Stalinist Left view, but there is also a problem with the liberal view. I’m encouraged when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can challenge the centrist democrats because I don’t think Americans should embrace any of those positions.

Do you think some leftist critics of US foreign policy in Syria and Russia have been unfairly accused of being pro-Putin or pro-Assad?

There are certainly cases of people being accused of things that aren’t warranted. But there also are leftists who deserve harsh criticism. There is a group called the White Helmets that goes and digs out buildings that have been bombed by the Assad and Russian air forces in Syria, and there are some on the Left who note that they have received funding from various Western forces and that therefore they are legitimate targets. So, when the White Helmets are bombed, you have some analysts saying, ‘this is great, and this is what they deserve because they are supporting terrorists’. The people who are saying this are justifying war crimes. Saying it’s justified to target the White Helmets, who are unarmed first responders, is just grotesque. It’s been a basic principle of humanitarian law that you don’t shoot medics.

A pro-German medic during World War Two may have had rotten views but it was still a war crime to intentionally target medics. The people taking the view that killing medics is acceptable are basically echoing the Assadist view that everyone against him is a terrorist and he has a right to massacre anyone.

There are things about US foreign policy in eastern Europe that should be strongly condemned. The United States told Gorbachev in the late 1980s that if Germany was reunited, NATO would not be moved further east. But NATO has moved further east and this is a provocative move, and people who have criticized the expansion of NATO shouldn’t be denounced as Putin puppets. On the other hand, people who insist there is no problem with what Russia is doing in eastern Ukraine or Crimea are adopting the ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ approach. When you look at Soviet leaders, at least the people they were trying to put the thumb on the scale for were people on the Left of their respective societies. So, if Soviet money went to any parties in western Europe, they were likely to be communist parties. But today, Putin’s money goes to rightwing forces in Europe.

Do you think leftists are neglecting to pressure the Trump administration to lobby Russia for mutual reduction of nuclear weaponry?

I think some people in the Democratic Party have gotten so enthusiastic about Trump’s political vulnerability in terms of his positions on Putin that they have overlooked that it has always been a progressive position that the nuclear arms race is a) very dangerous, b) very wasteful, and c) something that we should be trying to reverse.

Trump acts randomly based on his own ego, so it’s hard to see a consistent foreign policy. If there is a consistent foreign policy position on an issue, it’s a John Bolton intention, which is not good in any case. But it is good to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula, even though one step in reducing the tensions involved Trump because he wanted to make himself look like he had been a great negotiator. Although Trump did it for narcissistic reasons, I think his decision to stop the annual joint US-South Korean exercises was correct because they are not helpful. The South Koreans want to see an end to the Korean War, the North Koreans wants to see an end to the Korean War, and progressives have always been saying that one way to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula is to end this state of war. Let’s see if we can do things that could build mutual confidence and, in turn, lead to a less militarized situation. I supported this position before Trump was elected, and I still support it. But I also believe there was nothing in the Trump platform to suggest he will lead us to a more peaceful world. Trump has increased military spending, pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, making war with Iran much more likely, and aligned himself with the Far Right forces in Israel. These are not the policies of a peace candidate.

Could you talk about the consequences Trump’s decision to pull out of the nuclear deal and apply sanctions on Iran will have for the pro-democracy and pro-reform movements in that country?

Those folks have always said, don’t impose sanctions because they make things worse for us. They rationalize repression. Trump’s decisions will strengthen the most reactionary forces in Iranian society and will make the democratic space in Iran that much smaller. ■