Euston manifesto

peter_j

I have just been pointed towards this website by Phillip Adams on the ABC. It is a manifesto written by one Norman Geras, who was interviewed by Phillip.

http://eustonmanifesto.org/

It has been signed by some big names about town, and I'd agree with most of it - but struck a few paragraphs like the following, which, as Geras admits, shows an acceptance for the Iraqi invasion because of the multiple human rights violations.

If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a "responsibility to protect".

Christopher Hitchins, who went to great troubles to justify the invasion, is apparently considering signing the manifesto.

Looking at the above paragraph again, a phrase like, "its claim to sovereignty is forfeited" reads in the passive - it isn't clear on who the judeg is. In the case of Iraq, one distant government decided to forfeit Iraq's sovereignty, overriding the U.N. And it was a government who at the very least had some serious conflicts of interest in justifying, then coordinating the invasion.

What do others make of the manifesto and its purpose?

beatriz

Hum…
As I tried to read this, I realised I have serious trouble accepting these series of arguments, for example:

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.

If the intention is to convince your friends, unless your friends are a bit dumb, this is a very badly written statement. However, it may just be a reflection of the way some US citizens see themselves. That the US may be a "great country" - well it really depends on whether you were black or white in the 40's, or whether you are a migrant worker today - what does this sentence really mean? We all think our respective countries are the best!
What a stupid thing to say, I am sure I heard this before from the mouth of G. Bush.

The noun Americanism suggests a style, a way to do things, not a country and not a nation. Do they mean that they have the right to impose their style and the rest of the world should gladly accept it?

Note: US citizens are not the only Americans, as America IS a continent, inhabited by Americans, in its majority non-Anglophones who live in the South and North parts of the continent. USA= United States OF America, this means "belonging to" .
America is a continent made of all the American countries and their people. As Africans belongs to the African continent, Europeans to Europe and Americans belong to America (the continent) - why is this so difficult to understand?

I have nothing against the US people (so please don't shoot!), but I have the right to oppose the US style when imposed somewhere else – I am all for anti-Americanism (Americanism meaning allegiance to the United States and its customs and institutions), as I have witness the crimes of the "Americanist" regime.

I am not sure about the US exporting democracy, but I am completely certain of the US invasions, occupations, crimes against humanity and imposition of tyrants in order to “secure their own interests” and "life style". Every single country in America has suffered in one way or another from various forms of US despotism.

If the people drafting this manifesto cannot even admit to this, well, I don’t think this manifesto is worth my time.
Nevertheless, I am optimistic, so I'll kept reading:

9) United against terror.
We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just. Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is widespread today. It threatens democratic values and the lives and freedoms of people in many countries. This does not justify prejudice against Muslims, who are its main victims, and amongst whom are to be found some of its most courageous opponents. But, like all terrorism, it is a menace that has to be fought, and not excused.

“Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology…” ?? give me a break…! Pinochet, Hitler and others also called their opponents terrorists.

At this point I decided to wait for some real light at the end of a very long, dark and violent tunnel ("American" style dark tunnel).

And I am wondering, why should some US people - even if with the best of intentions - come up with the solution to the problems they are not capable to understand in their entirety? Did the Roman Empire suggest the way out? Did Nazi Germany suggest the way to the future?

Inspiration may come from countries that have not been traditionally dominant. To continue to look at the Anglophone world or rich countries (materialistic speaking) for inspiration and a way out is missing the point. There are great things happening in America (non-Anglo), inspiring societies, with truly secular institutions, far less conservative that ours here - what can be less inspiring than Australia at the moment? I believe the light at the end of the tunnel may not be in Europe or the US and we should be more tuned to it and ready to learn sometimes.

beatriz

To find more about the power of words, and the responsibility of our leaders in the tragedies they bring about, have a read/listen at Carmen Callil's article in Radio National, Perspective (June 5th, 2006).
Find the transcript: here

Marshall P