The Left isn't listening
Nick Cohen | 11.03.2003 13:54
When Saddam is sent to rendezvous with a judge in The Hague, or a rope on a lamppost, the democratic opposition in Iraq will need help. It has many enemies: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the CIA and the Foreign Office want to replace the old tyrant with a new, compliant dictator - a Saddam without a moustache. As the moment of decision arrives, Iraqi democrats and socialists have discovered that their natural allies in the European Left don't want to know them. They must add the shameless Stop the War coalition to the enemies list.
Iraq is the only country in the Arab world with a strong, democratic movement. Yet I wonder how many who marched yesterday know of the dissenters' existence. The demonstration's organisers have gone to great lengths to censor and silence. How else could the self-righteous feel good about themselves? The usual accusation when whites ignore brown-skinned peoples is that of racism. It doesn't quite work in the Stop the War coalition's case. The Socialist Workers Party, which dominates the alliance, was happy to cohost the march with the reactionary British Association of Muslims. The association had blotted its copybook by circulating a newspaper which explained that apostasy from Islam is 'an offence punishable by death'. But what the hell. In the interests of multi-culturalism, the SWP ignored the protests of squeamish lefties and let that pass. The Trots aren't Islamophobes, after all. The only Muslims they have a phobia about are secular Iraqi Muslims who, shockingly, believe in human rights.
The Iraqis made a fruitless appeal for fraternal solidarity last month. The Kurdish leader Barham Salih flew to a meeting of the Socialist International in Rome to argue for 'the imperative of freedom and liberation from fascism and dictatorship'. Those marchers who affect to believe in pluralism should find his arguments attractive, if they can suppress their prejudices long enough to hear him out. Salih explained that the no-fly zones enforced by the RAF and USAF had allowed his Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party to build a fair imitation of democratic state in liberated northern Iraq. The Kurds promote the freedom of journalists, women and religious and racial minorities. Naturally, the local supporters of al-Qaeda agree with Baghdad that this intolerable liberal experiment must end, and the Kurds are having to fight both Saddam and the fundamentalists.
Salih was prepared for that: what he wasn't prepared for was the enmity of the anti-war movement. Foolishly, he tried to reason with it. He pointed out that the choice wasn't between war or peace. Saddam 'has been waging war for decades and he has inflicted hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.' Indeed, he continued, the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds who are still under Baghdad's control continues to this day. 'I do not want war and I do not want civilian casualties, nor do those who are coming to our assistance,' he said. 'But the war has already begun.'
What, he then asked, about the strange insistence of the anti-war movement that Iraqis must not be liberated until Israel withdraws from the occupied territories? Would the converse apply? If the Palestinians were on the verge of seeing Israeli rule overthrown, would hundreds of thousands take to the streets of London and bellow that Palestinians could not get rid of Sharon until Iraqis got rid of Saddam? Salih doubted it and also had little time for those who say war should be opposed because 'it's all about oil'.
So what? he asked. 'Iraqis know that their human rights have too often been ignored because Iraqi oil was more important to the world than Iraqi lives. It would be a good irony if at long last oil becomes a cause of our liberation - if this is the case, then so be it. The oil will be a blessing and not the curse that it has been for so long... So to those who say "No War", I say, of course "yes", but we can only have "No War" if there is "No Dictatorship" and "No Genocide".'
Readers with access to the internet can read the whole speech at www.puk.org. I urge you to do so because you're never going to hear democratic Iraqi voices if you rely on the anti-war movement. For most of the time, the comrades pretend the Iraqi opposition doesn't exist.
Harold Pinter is the most striking member of a British Left with its hands over its ears. In 1988 he staged Mountain Language, a play about the banning of Kurdish in Turkey. The conceit was all too realistic: the world would never know of the suffering of the Kurds because the Kurds would never be allowed to speak. ('Your language is forbidden,' an officer bellows at Kurdish women. 'It is dead. No one is allowed to speak your language. Your language no longer exists. Any questions?')
In 2003 when Iraqi Kurds found the words to ask for aid in an anti-fascist struggle, Pinter turned Pinteresque. He refused to hear the mountain tongue he had once defended and became a noisy supporter of the Stop the War coalition. The current issue of the left-wing magazine Red Pepper takes evasion into outright falsehood. It condemns journalists - well, one journalist, me - for being conned into believing the Iraqi opposition supports war. Only American stooges in the Iraqi National Congress want war, it announces with mendacious self-confidence. The main Iraqi parties - which Red Pepper lists as the Kurdish Democratic Party, Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan - are with the peace protesters.
It's a convincing case, spoilt only by the fact that the Iraqi National Congress is an umbrella organisation whose members include the Kurdish Democratic Party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and, indeed, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, whose leader flew to Europe to beg the Left to get its priorities right and support a war against tyranny.
If evasion and lies won't do, vilification is the last resort. The writings of the Iraqi intellectual Kanan Makiya have inspired the opposition and brought him many enemies, not least Saddam Hussein, who wants him dead. Edward Said has been only slightly less forgiving. Makiya, he wrote recently, is a man 'devoid of either compassion or real understanding, he prattles on for Anglo-American audiences who seem satisfied that here at last is an Arab who exhibits the proper respect for their power and civilisation... He represents the intellectual who serves power unquestioningly; the greater the power, the fewer doubts he has.'
I like a good polemic and used to have some time for Said. But he too has fled into denial. Like the rest of anti-war movement he refuses to acknowledge that Makiya, Salih and their comrades are fighting the political battle of their lives against those 'Anglo-American audiences' in the powerhouses of London and Washington who oppose a democratic settlement. (See Makiya's article on page 20.) The democrats are struggling without the support of Western liberals and socialists because they don't fit into a pat world view.
Here's why. The conclusion the Iraqi opposition has reluctantly reached is that there is no way other than war to remove a tyrant whose five secret police forces make a palace coup or popular uprising impossible. As the only military force on offer is provided by America, they will accept an American invasion.
This is their first mistake. American and British power is always bad in the eyes of muddle-headed Left, the recent liberations of East Timor, Sierra Leone and Kosovo notwithstanding.
Then the uppity wogs compound their offence and tell their European betters to think about the political complexities. The British and American governments aren't monoliths, they argue. The State Department and the CIA have always been the foes of Iraqi freedom. But they are countered by the Pentagon and a US Congress which passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 - a law which instructs the American government to support democracy. Not one Iraqi I have met trusts the Foreign Office. However, they have had a grudging admiration for Tony Blair ever since he met the Kurdish leaders and gave them a fair hearing - a courteous gesture which hasn't been matched by the Pinters, Trotskyists, bishops, actresses and chorus girls on yesterday's march.
The Iraqis must now accept that they will have to fight for democracy without the support of the British Left. Disgraceful though our failure to hear them has been, I can't help thinking that they'll be better off without us.
Nick Cohen
e-mail:
n.cohen@observer.co.uk
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
this is not news!!
11.03.2003 14:14
when it was posted before many people responded to it.
why post it again? cos u hope that people won't be bothered to rewrite responses pointing all the ommissions and lies in the article?
hk
how many times....
11.03.2003 14:46
obviously the hundreds or even thousands of iraqis and kurds on the demo don't exist in nick's world cos they don't agree with him. he prefers to depend on self-serving politicians, who hope to gain power in the new iraq, for opinions
-'Iraq is the only country in the Arab world with a strong, democratic movement'
right, and bombing the country then installing a new dictator is not going to help the movement, lifting sanctions which will mean people no longer have to depend on saddam's regime to survive, will give grassroots democracy a chance in iraq.
-'The Socialist Workers Party, which dominates the alliance, was happy to cohost the march with the reactionary British Association of Muslims.'
there were 2 million people on the march, the SWP must have a huge membership if they 'dominated it, nick's trying to confuse the issues of the demo with the opinions of a tiny minority of people on the demo. far more unsavoury people are on nick's side (bush/sharon/zionists/farright crusaders etc)
-'the no-fly zones enforced by the RAF and USAF had allowed his Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party to build a fair imitation of democratic state in liberated northern Iraq'
right, and since this article was written the US has decided to allow Turkey to invade N.Iraq. Turkey has as bad a record with the Kurds as Saddam, but turkish kurd victims aren't useful for nick so they don't exist (cos the US provides weapons and support for the turks ethnic cleansing). the war will undo all the good work that the kurds in n.iraq have done. they thought they had put the days of massacres behind them, until the US' latest betrayal
-'Saddam 'has been waging war for decades and he has inflicted hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.'
saddam's worst crimes are far behind him. u can only get away with the kind of atrocities saddam did if you're a US favourite. the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis thru sanctions are not mentioned by nick cos their deaths are attributable to the west and so are not useful to him.
-'iraqis must not be liberated until Israel withdraws from the occupied territories?'
how about 'iraqis must not be massacred again by the west until...etc' what does liberated mean? a new dictator?
-'"No Genocide".'
the man responsible for implementing UN sanctions resigned after many years in the job, because he said that the sanctions were 'genocidal' and 'deliberate'. his succesor resigned for the same reason. again nick ignores victims of US/UK
'tyrant whose five secret police forces make a palace coup or popular uprising impossible.'
tyrants much more powerful than saddam have been overthrown in popular uprisings, even ones which had US support, so if US/UK were to support an uprising, i don't see how saddam could put it down.
'recent liberations of East Timor,'
east timor was not 'liberated', troops only went in after Indonesian troops withdrew. incidentally indonesia conducted the largest genocide as a ratio of population since the holocaust in east timor, with arms and support from US/UK, so for nick to choose this case is pretty sick
-'US Congress which passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998'
bush has since said he will not uphold this act
all in all typical state terrorism propagandha, victims of atrocities for which we bear responsibility for are ignored, while showing huge sympathy for victims of the official enemy. ignoring all the voices who disagree with him, quoting only defectors who want to grap power in the new iraq.
nickcohen'sconscience
Nick Cohen isn't istening
11.03.2003 16:25
Can you hear them Mr Cohen? - MM]
By Phil Hazlewood, PA News 11/03/03
British Muslim groups and Iraqi exiles united today to condemn any military action against Saddam Hussein.
Led by the Labour MP for Halifax Alice Mahon, humanitarian organisations, charities, academics and political parties insisted Tony Blair and George Bush had not yet made the case for war.
Instead, they called for the UK and US leaders to reflect the will of the people and seek different, more peaceful ways of ousting the Iraqi dictator.
At a news conference at the House of Commons, the organisations said Mr Blair did not speak for the majority of the estimated 350,000 Iraqi exiles in the UK.
And Mr Bush and Mr Blair did not reflect the views of the millions of people who marched against war in demonstrations around the world on February 15.
Sabah Al-Mukhtar, chairman of the Arab Lawyers Organisation, said his relatives in Iraq had questioned why Britain appeared to be about to go to war against them.
He said people's views on the issue were being "steam-rollered" and their voice was not being heard.
Although accepting that the Iraqi people were against Saddam, he stressed that bombing was not the answer.
"This is just like assuming that civilian passengers on a hi-jacked plane would welcome the plane being shot down to get rid of the hijackers. That's nonsense," he said.
Haifa Zangana, a novelist, said the Iraqi people had been suffering since the start of the UN-imposed sanctions in 1991, which had done little to weaken the regime.
"We don't want the war in our names," she added. "We've suffered enough."
Fareed Sabri of the Islamic Party of Iraq declared "firm opposition to military action", noting that "another war would create great human suffering."
Sabah Mukhtar of the Arab Lawyers Association told Mr Blair that "to say that because we are against Saddam we welcome an invasion is a travesty of the truth."
Lecturers' union NATFHE treasurer Fawzi Ibrahim, an exiled Iraqi Jew, told reporters that "the great majority of Iraqis are in opposition to the war. War against Iraq would solve no problems either for the Iraqi people or for the Middle East."
Kawa Beseram, a representative of the Iraqi Communist Party reiterated his party's firm opposition to war and emphasised that it was against both Saddam's dictatorship and the imposition of any US military regime alike.
Several other representatives of Iraqi opposition forces spoke. All underlined their opposition to the Saddam regime and to the dangers of a war against their country.
Alice Mahon said it was not too late for the Government to change its stance. There were other means of dealing with Saddam Hussein, including sending in UN human rights monitors and starting repatriation programmes.
Insisting that a peaceful resolution to the crisis would not constitute a victory for the dictator, she added: "I hope that even at this late stage, he (the Prime Minister) backs down and doesn't support President Bush's expansionist policies."
end 111218 MAR 03
Mad Monk
Trust?
11.03.2003 17:13
His pro-war articles have been snide and fallacious, full of strawmen agruements and self rightious cheap shots that for all the world sound like the reactions of someone sore at being ostricized by his lefty media freinds. Cohen's citing of the Association of British Muslims as significant in organising antiwar protest is either either sloppy research or deliberately dishonest. Why is he seeking to confuse the mainstream Muslim Association of Britian (who are significant particpants in the antiwar movement) with the much smaller but similarly named fringe group; the Association of British Muslims?
If the antiwar movement is in denial that many Iraqi democrats support war, why cannot he admit many Iraq also dissidents oppose war? That opinion is divided in the exiled Iraqi community? Then he accusses the antiwar movement of ignoring complexity!
All the time Nick focuses myopically on the single point that Saddam is a brutal dictator, and Iraqi would be better off without him (very true). But to the neglect of bitter inter-ethnic dispute within Iraq and widely held resentment in the Arab world beyond - which all goes to make regime change in Iraq a hornets nest which could cause far more deaths, repression and chaos than even Saddam is capable off. Perhaps Nick should ask himself why Blair and Bush pledge to preserve Iraqi "territorial integrity", with greater strength that democracy? Just whose interests does Iraqi territorial integrity serve anyway? And don't Shia muslims and Kurds have a democratic right to break Iraqi territorial integrity and set up their own state or join Iran if they so wish? It is naive to assume inter-ethnic dispute will melt away in the absence of Saddam, after all it existed before Saddam as it exists in Turkey. The Iraqi people could have rid themselves of Saddam if the west had been willing to tolerate the break up of its carefully constructed post colonial geopolitical balance ensureing nobody could challenge western interests in the region. As it is there is every reason to suspect American intentions and thus that the Iraqi people would better off if America bombs them.
Foreign policy has never been Nick's strong point.
Calgacus