Much has been made of The Euston Manifesto, a movement which in many respects makes sense and in many others, conjures up strawmen, and seems to be another example of hairshirt modeling by the left-leaning Iraq War Supporters. Here are a few choice excerpts:
The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.
First of all, they appear to be more concerned about AI's abuse of metaphor rather than the torture abuse in Abu Ghraib. What I find downright offensive is this comment:
The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles[.]
Oh please. Talk about defining deviancy down. It's not a "departure from universal principles," it's a crime against humanity okayed by attorneys who believed that the president could do anything he damn well pleased and a military command structure (the higher echelons of which remain largely unpunished) that apparently chose to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Should the writers of the Euston Manifesto consider similar treatment by dictatorial governments to be "a departure from universal principles" if they started shipping western citizens to other countries to be tortured interrogated or for western soldiers to be tortured by these same governments? I certainly wouldn't and for the sake of consistency and intellectual honesty, the authors of this manifesto should not be seeking to downplay criticism of democracies. That would make for genuine "unambiguous democratic commitment."
As for criticizing democracies, one expects better behavior of democracies, including respect for the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions as well as the Unversal Declaration of Human Rights which the writers reference in paragraph 3. This is simply a way of making the tired case that there is a zero-sum universe when it comes to discussing human rights abuses. That's nonsense.
Another point to which I feel compelled to respond is this one:
6) Opposing anti-Americanism.
We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people. [my emphasis]
What constitutes anti-Americanism? Some would have you believe that any criticism of the US is anti-American. Some on the loony right would have you believe that criticizing Henry Kissinger is anti-American. While I certainly would never excuse "generalized prejudice against either the country or its people," no nation is exempt from criticism. Please don't take my word for it:
"The durability, self-confidence and security of a government can be measured by its toleration of peaceful dissent."
That's from that notorious leftie William Safire.
I don't get the thing about anti-americanism either. What person, real or imagined, with any political influence or power, has expressed what would truthfully be considered "anti-americanism."
Posted by: Roxanne - | April 17, 2006 at 02:25 PM
I'm assuming by now you will have seen Norman Geras' post in response to this? I followed the link from there. He deals in more detail with your point where you say, "It's not a "departure from universal principles," it's a crime against humanity". It's not clear to me why you seem to think this is some sort of euphemism; it is not. Torture - all torture - is a crime against humanity precisely BECAUSE it is a departure from universal principles. Indeed, one cannot operate with a concept of 'humanity' itself being violated WITHOUT such a conceptual framework of universal principles. This is why some of us are in fact supporters of Amnesty International - but this doesn't forbid us from criticising them when we feel they've lost a certain sense of historical proprtion. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear you're argument. As it stands, this is a non-argument.
On anti-Americanism: it is simply opposition to, indeed hatred of, America because it is America - not because of Kissinger, US foriegn policy in general, or any other legitimate basis on which one could criticise your republican polity. It is rather found in the idea that the United States is uniquely malevolent and responsible for all of the world's ills and, crucially, reponsible for no benefits whatsoever. Again, if you disagree, I'd be interested to hear you're argument and specifically, by what historical standard one would hold the United States to in this regard? This is the form of thinking that allows people who sincerely believe themselves to belong to the wide church of the centre-left to prefer the most fascistic, reactionary, ultra-nationalist and obscurantist political movements and regimes on the face of the planet simply because they have set themselves in opposition to the United States.
More generally it is opposition to America based on the belief that liberal capitalism is the most malign social arrangement in human history. One doesn't have to be a supporter of either liberalism or capitalism to see the absurdity of this position. Again, if you disagree, it would be interesting to hear what historical precedents you are using as your frame of reference.
Posted by: Shuggy | May 05, 2006 at 03:00 PM
I'm assuming by now you will have seen Norman Geras' post in response to this? I followed the link from there. He deals in more detail with your point where you say, "It's not a "departure from universal principles," it's a crime against humanity". It's not clear to me why you seem to think this is some sort of euphemism; it is not. Torture - all torture - is a crime against humanity precisely BECAUSE it is a departure from universal principles. Indeed, one cannot operate with a concept of 'humanity' itself being violated WITHOUT such a conceptual framework of universal principles. This is why some of us are in fact supporters of Amnesty International - but this doesn't forbid us from criticising them when we feel they've lost a certain sense of historical proprtion. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear your argument. As it stands, this is a non-argument.
On anti-Americanism: it is simply opposition to, indeed hatred of, America because it is America - not because of Kissinger, US foriegn policy in general, or any other legitimate basis on which one could criticise your republican polity. It is rather found in the idea that the United States is uniquely malevolent and responsible for all of the world's ills and, crucially, reponsible for no benefits whatsoever. Again, if you disagree, I'd be interested to hear you're argument and specifically, by what historical standard one would hold the United States to in this regard? This is the form of thinking that allows people who sincerely believe themselves to belong to the wide church of the centre-left to prefer the most fascistic, reactionary, ultra-nationalist and obscurantist political movements and regimes on the face of the planet simply because they have set themselves in opposition to the United States.
More generally it is opposition to America based on the belief that liberal capitalism is the most malign social arrangement in human history. One doesn't have to be a supporter of either liberalism or capitalism to see the absurdity of this position. Again, if you disagree, it would be interesting to hear what historical precedents you are using as your frame of reference.
Posted by: Shuggy | May 05, 2006 at 03:03 PM
Oops - sorry.
Posted by: Shuggy | May 05, 2006 at 03:04 PM
Oops - sorry.
Posted by: Shuggy | May 05, 2006 at 03:04 PM
Actually, I'm not sorry - it's your goddam commenting system. What's that all about?
Posted by: Shuggy | May 05, 2006 at 03:05 PM