Skip to content or view screen version

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’.

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

The USA just wanted to kill Sadam as a trophy and use it as reasoning for their war. Sadam had no right to kill all the people he did, not did the US or UK. The people of Iraq are celebrating the death of Sadam, even though supporting a killing makes them as bad as the above.

All parties involved are as bad as each other. Anarchism is the only way forward.

Emo Kid


Silence?

31.12.2006 02:35

I do not know how you come to the conclusion that the anti-war movement is silent on this issue. This event has only just occurred this morning with very little warning. Perhaps you have seen immediate reports from television channels including the usual 24 hour news channels. These organisations have massive resources with full-time staff working to present their agendas. I think you need to give anti-war groups a chance to respond. Anti-war groups are also often small groups operating in thier localities, operated by normal people acting in whatever spare time they have (between full-time jobs and other commitments) with perhaps the Stop the War coalition having just a small central office in London.

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

Editor's Comment: The rhetorical question in the title of Kola Odetola's article is profound and damning. As one who has been deeply involved in the anti-war movement in the United States since September 11, 2001 and before, I can attest to it's truth: The western anti-war movement is indeed the "left boot of imperialism". In one sense, Odetola may be painting with too wide a brush for there are many committed individuals, organizations and coalitions within the anti-war movement who sacrifice and fight every day against the U.S.-led empire. It must be understood that those who sacrifice so much to stop these imperial wars are fighting on multiple fronts. They are fighting against the empire in a very difficult theater. They are also fighting against large well-funded organizations and coalitions within the anti-war movement who are not "anti-war" at all. Thus, in the broad sense of Kola Odetola's statement, there can be no doubt that the force of the anti-war movement has been compromised, blunted and to a large extent rendered ineffective by the empire. But those who are committed to stop the advance of the Global Corporate Empire will fight on.

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

Making statements like some in the anti-war movement say it has been infiltrated without proof is not good analysis. It is the same with saying the movement is supporting imperialism. If those people wittering on about this really want to do something they would join the anti-war movement and help it to do something instead of attacking it from the outside, trying to discredit it further, and making it less able to be effective.

Brian B


PROOF

31.12.2006 23:34

the leaders of the anti-war movement (SWP and RESPECT) regularly have the likes of Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbin on anti-war rallys/marches. what party are they from? Labour. and what party sent troops in to iraq and afganistan? Labour.

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

Have SWP & Respect been leaders to anyone other than its membership?

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

a gog, never, and summit that was never stated.

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

never, which is something that i never stated, as we both know.

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

I think sir you are definitely reading the wrong newspapers.

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