Saddam's execution: the western antiwar movement - the left boot of imperialism?
Kola Odetola | 30.12.2006 21:16 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Anti-racism | World
The silence of the western antiwar movement on the lynching of Saddam Hussein is deafening and is increasingly beginning to prove what a lot of discerning people have suspected all along – that the mainstream anti-war movement (including large parts of its left wing) in the west is the well concealed left boot of western imperialism, the conscience of the conqueror.
The silence of the western antiwar movement on the lynching of Saddam Hussein is deafening and is increasingly beginning to prove what a lot of discerning people have suspected all along – that the mainstream anti-war movement (including large parts of its left wing) in the west is the well concealed left boot of western imperialism, the conscience of the conqueror.
The main reason given by western radicals – including many on this board for ignoring the assassination of the deposed Iraqi president is the crimes against humanity he has allegedly committed. How many of these ‘left’ activists then would welcome a Chinese invasion of the British Isles, the sacking of British cities, the incarceration and torture of tens of thousands of English youths in concentration camps scattered along the Yorkshire Dales, the murder of a million British citizens (the equivalent of the Iraq dead) if the reason Beijing gave for the invasion was to arrest, try and execute Tony Blair for the limitless war crimes he has directly and indirectly carried out in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine over the last three years – killing in Iraq alone (in 3 years) more than Saddam killed in 35.
Saddam Hussein has not been tried; he has been executed by the west’s leaders, while their ‘radical’ sons look the other way. If a serial killer was brought to trial in the UK and during the trial three of his defence lawyers were kidnapped, tortured and murdered, (clearly by state agents) the media lens message board for one will be heaving with anger and righteous fury, but now there is only silence.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but as president of Iraq, he represented something which nobody ever talks about these days, the sovereignty of his nation, by his judicial murder by a foreign invader the sovereignty of every poor third world nation has just been executed. The reason why the left in the west cares so little about that is because the sovereignty of poor nations is as much a threat to them as it is to their ruling circles.
The multi billion pound human rights/NGO industry for one (the new missionaries) are as dominant in the third world as any multinational, and in many ways even more powerful, since they seduce the minds of the natives buying up activists by the barrel load, feeding them with inconsequential facetious drivel about ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ all the better to cement the west’s moral and ideological supremacy over the natives.
Trade unions from the west struggle to organise in the third world to ensure the starving do not go beyond the level of loyal opposition to the western banks and companies that impose the crucifix of hunger on their children. Even the far left get in on the act with an assortment of ‘Mac’Trotskyist groups fighting for the ‘world revolution’ creating so called internationals - a global franchise they dress up as fraternity. The headquarters of the ‘world revolution’ sharing its capital with that of world finance.
The primary contradiction for the last 500 years has not been between classes but between nations, the poor and the rich ones. It has been a struggle by the west to dominate and control the rest of humanity. While the ordinary people in the west do not participate in the oppression willingly, many of them share the same patronising and superior attitudes of their leaders. Thus even when they support the struggles of the oppressed in the poor world it is with conditions and qualifications that are never applied to them when they face similar circumstances.
It is this ingrained and unconscious superiority that made then overlook the humiliation of saddam – checking his hair on camera for lice, something they would have baulked at if it had probably been done on the German Herman Goring – who was treated with great personal dignity – in full uniform and well groomed throughout the trial at Nuremberg as was Slobodan Milosevic another ‘northern tyrant.
People fighting against imperialist enslavement in the poor world should accept the support of western radicals whenever it is forthcoming but should not subordinate the narrative of their struggle to the ‘friends of the people’.
The main reason given by western radicals – including many on this board for ignoring the assassination of the deposed Iraqi president is the crimes against humanity he has allegedly committed. How many of these ‘left’ activists then would welcome a Chinese invasion of the British Isles, the sacking of British cities, the incarceration and torture of tens of thousands of English youths in concentration camps scattered along the Yorkshire Dales, the murder of a million British citizens (the equivalent of the Iraq dead) if the reason Beijing gave for the invasion was to arrest, try and execute Tony Blair for the limitless war crimes he has directly and indirectly carried out in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine over the last three years – killing in Iraq alone (in 3 years) more than Saddam killed in 35.
Saddam Hussein has not been tried; he has been executed by the west’s leaders, while their ‘radical’ sons look the other way. If a serial killer was brought to trial in the UK and during the trial three of his defence lawyers were kidnapped, tortured and murdered, (clearly by state agents) the media lens message board for one will be heaving with anger and righteous fury, but now there is only silence.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but as president of Iraq, he represented something which nobody ever talks about these days, the sovereignty of his nation, by his judicial murder by a foreign invader the sovereignty of every poor third world nation has just been executed. The reason why the left in the west cares so little about that is because the sovereignty of poor nations is as much a threat to them as it is to their ruling circles.
The multi billion pound human rights/NGO industry for one (the new missionaries) are as dominant in the third world as any multinational, and in many ways even more powerful, since they seduce the minds of the natives buying up activists by the barrel load, feeding them with inconsequential facetious drivel about ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ all the better to cement the west’s moral and ideological supremacy over the natives.
Trade unions from the west struggle to organise in the third world to ensure the starving do not go beyond the level of loyal opposition to the western banks and companies that impose the crucifix of hunger on their children. Even the far left get in on the act with an assortment of ‘Mac’Trotskyist groups fighting for the ‘world revolution’ creating so called internationals - a global franchise they dress up as fraternity. The headquarters of the ‘world revolution’ sharing its capital with that of world finance.
The primary contradiction for the last 500 years has not been between classes but between nations, the poor and the rich ones. It has been a struggle by the west to dominate and control the rest of humanity. While the ordinary people in the west do not participate in the oppression willingly, many of them share the same patronising and superior attitudes of their leaders. Thus even when they support the struggles of the oppressed in the poor world it is with conditions and qualifications that are never applied to them when they face similar circumstances.
It is this ingrained and unconscious superiority that made then overlook the humiliation of saddam – checking his hair on camera for lice, something they would have baulked at if it had probably been done on the German Herman Goring – who was treated with great personal dignity – in full uniform and well groomed throughout the trial at Nuremberg as was Slobodan Milosevic another ‘northern tyrant.
People fighting against imperialist enslavement in the poor world should accept the support of western radicals whenever it is forthcoming but should not subordinate the narrative of their struggle to the ‘friends of the people’.
Kola Odetola
Homepage:
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1167439871.html
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
Fuck them all
30.12.2006 23:34
All parties involved are as bad as each other. Anarchism is the only way forward.
Emo Kid
Silence?
31.12.2006 02:35
The following comment has appeared on the Stop the War Coalition website. George Galloway was also on his Talksport radio programme tonight railing against the way this lynching of Saddam has occurred and the likely backlash it will cause. I also heard Tony Benn on the radio critical of the execution and saying it will not solve anything. This is all less than 24 hours after the event.
Saddam Hussein executed: Saturday 30 December
Saddam Hussein's execution changes nothing
Saddam Hussein's execution changes nothing in Iraq. His death is just one more to add to the 650,000 slaughtered by the Bush/Blair war. In the 24 hours before he was hanged, dozens of Iraqis died violent deaths. Six American soldiers and one British soldier were killed. This carnage will continue and worsen for every day that the US/UK occupation of Iraq continues.
The greatest indictment of the occupation—which George Bush and Tony Blair said would bring liberation from Saddam Hussein—is that 90 per cent of Iraqis think the country was better under his brutal dictatorship.
Saddam Hussein's trial—in a court set up and controlled by the occupying power—had nothing to do with justice and everything to do with trying to justify an illegal war after the event. His execution was also intended to stop him disclosing how for much of his reign of terror he was supported by the US and Britain.
Dead men don't talk, but Iraqis don't need Saddam Hussein's death to remind them that US and British intervention has always brought catastrophe to the country.
Whether by illegal war and occupation, or whether by supporting tyrants or toppling them, US and British governments have always had the same objective: to control the region that has most reserves of the world's most valuable asset: oil.
George Bush is poised to announce a "new policy" for Iraq. We can be certain that it will not include the one solution to the horrific levels of death and destruction suffered by Iraqis every day: The end to the occupation and the removal of all foreign troops.
Which is why across the world in the coming months the anti-war movement—representing the vast majority who oppose the Bush/Blair wars—will be holding mass protests in London, in Washington and elsewhere, with the clear message: Bring the troops home now.
»Robert Fisk: A dictator created then destroyed by America
»Patrick Cockburn: Iraq after Saddam
Brian B
the so-called "war on terrorism" has been planned for 25 years
31.12.2006 07:53
When a war like the so-called "war on terrorism" has been planned in Washington think-tanks for 25 years, you can bet that one of the pillars of that architecture was to prevent and destroy dissent in empire's back yard. Some in "the movement" say the government "infiltrates" the anti-war movement. I say they don't have to infiltrate it - large organizations and coalitions were already owned and operated by the empire before the war began. They are owned and managed because they come from imperial seed. They have been effective in sabotaging the efforts of solid organizations like Ramsey Clark's International Action Center and the Troops Out Now coalition. They have been effective in sucking many well-meaning people into their treachery. Go to their websites now and you will see no mention of the lynching of Saddam Hussein - which serves as a litmus test for the authenticity of any movement against the U.S. war on the people of Iraq. Even now, these "imperial left-wingers" are praising and supporting the Democratic Party in the United States while the Democrats continue to fund the war on Iraq. But really, what do we expect of them? At bottom, they are capitalists. - Les Blough, Editor
Les Blough
Homepage: http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23660.shtml
proof?
31.12.2006 20:49
Brian B
PROOF
31.12.2006 23:34
Until the likes of the SWP and RESPECT breaks from the Labour Party and trade union movement, then they will be the "left foot" of imperialism.
tipobarra
Since bloody when...
02.01.2007 23:33
If you labour under that kind of misapprehension what are you doing on IndyMedia?
Honestly!
A Gog
stwc/swp/respect support labour
03.01.2007 15:06
the point is that the stop the war, swp and respect support labour. why else would they have have the likes of benn (former labour mp) and corbin ("left wing" labour mp) speaking at anti-war rallys? why would they want to stick "labour against the war" at the front of an anti-war march and have those that are against labour at the back? labour can not be reformed or made progressive.
this is a party, along with the conservatives, that supported aparthied south africa. that sent troops in to northern ireland. the labour party is a racist, imperialist party, and always will be.
a gog, indymedia is there for people to express progessive politcal view points which are not stamped out by the likes of stw, swp and respect. i won't be suprised if you are one of the many hardcore reactionary members of the swp/respect.
tipobarra
swp/respect support labour
03.01.2007 15:20
my points is that the stop the war, swp and respect call for support for labour. why else do they have the likes of benn (ex labour mp and cabinet minster) and corbin (labour mp) on their platforms and speaking at anti-war rallys? why would you have ANYONE that is a member or former member of a party that sent troops to fight an imperialist war as a speaker? seriously. if benn and corbin were progressive, they would of NEVER join the labour party, or any other party at that. galloway (another stop the war favorite) had to be chucked out of the labour party, but like benn, believes that "old" labour was progressive. "old" labour support aparthied south africa, supported the viet nam war. benn even support sanctions on iraq, which killed over 1,000,000 children.
why put "labour against the war" at the front of an anti war march, and those opposed to labour, aswell as other parties at the back? why have "labour against the war" on an anti-war march?
LABOUR IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE PROGRESSIVE!
a gog, you are the typical swp type that will attack any one high lighting the swp's support for labour.
and on you point about indymedia, indymedia is "A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.", not for swp types to take control clamp down on anti-labour party positions.
tipobarra
tipobarra
04.01.2007 13:07
If you think STWC are some sort of NewLabour apparatus and you think anyone here supports NewLabour in any form, you are waaaay off the mark.
The Beast of Bodmin