The Euston Manifesto: Why I Signed It and Why Conservatives Should Support It
By Aaron Goldstein (06/03/06)
So what is the Euston Manifesto? ( http://www.eustonmanifesto.org/ )
It is a political treatise written by a number of left wing British intellectuals at a pub on Euston Road in London, England near the British Library and the British Rail/London Underground station. The two most prominent members of the group are Norman Geras, a professor emeritus of politics at Manchester University and author/journalist Nick Cohen. They co-wrote an article about the Manifesto in The New Statesman which can be found at www.newstatesman.com/200604170006 before formally launching it last month.
Conservatives might ask, “Has Goldstein gone mad?” Assuming they haven’t already arrived at that conclusion those on the Right might instead ask, “Is Goldstein reverting back to the Left?” Or perhaps they would ask, “What do we want to do with a bunch of pinkos?” or “Why are we interested in ideas coming from the land of warm beer?”
No, I have not any desire to identify myself as a man of the Left much less participate in any New Left movement. That ship left port long ago and is not going return back to dock. However, the drafters of the Euston Manifesto have done something that has been sorely lacking in left wing thought over far too many years. They have written something that is reasonable.
So what do I find to be so reasonable about the Euston Manifesto?
First, the Manifesto affirms its support for democracy. Well, one might argue that everyone is in favor of democracy in the same way everyone is in favor of chocolate fudge. Yes, but one must remember there is a strong current of left wing thought that views democracy as a Western construct and frowns upon the imposition of democracy on so called traditional or Third World societies including Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact the document begins without a whiff of cultural relativism is a good sign.
Second, the Manifesto rejects tyranny in all its forms and also does not excuse terrorism. The Manifesto reads, “We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently “understand”, reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy – regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so.” The Manifesto rejects the notion that the ends justify the means and argues that terrorism “cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that it is just.” It further argues, “Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is widespread today. It threatens democratic values and the lives and freedoms of people in many countries.”
Third, the Manifesto explicitly rejects the knee jerk anti-Americanism so long in vogue on the Left. While the document is critical of past and present U.S. foreign policy they do not denounce America itself. On the contrary, they praise it:
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 people have produced a vibrant political culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and envy of millions.
Consequently, the Manifesto also rejects the notion that America somehow deserved its fate on 9/11:
We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11, 2001 were America’s deserved comeuppance, or “understandable” in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from U.S. foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.
Fourth, the Manifesto also explicitly rejects the anti-Semitism which has become nearly as rigeur du jour as anti-Americanism:
The recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of “anti-Zionism”.
“Anti-Zionism” has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form allegiances with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other “polite” and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics – remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves.
Fifth, while the drafters of the Manifesto are critical of the American military with regard to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib they do not equate these events with the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan, al Qaeda in Iraq or the Sudanese government in Darfur:
We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse.
Sixth, the drafters of the Manifesto were divided on British involvement in Iraq. Some favored military action while others did not. However, the Manifesto is very clear that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein and that democracy ought to have an opportunity to succeed:
We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted – rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.
Seventh, the Manifesto extends an olive branch to conservatives. “We reject…the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right,” the Manifesto argues. The Manifesto further welcomes “liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.” This ought to be music to the ears of conservatives in America and abroad.
Eighth, the Manifesto supports the exchange of ideas even if those ideas arouse passion over reason:
We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas – even whole bodies of ideas – to which others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting.
Christian conservatives in this country might be uncomfortable with some aspects of the last passage. However, when I read that passage I could not help but think of the contrast of the civilized behavior of Christians when Jesus was depicted in a less than flattering manner in a University of Oregon student newspaper as opposed to the violent behavior of many Muslims throughout the world when Mohammed was depicted in a series of cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Ninth, the mainstream Left hates the Euston Manifesto. In an article written for Alexander Cockburn’s Counterpunch by John W. Farley titled, “A New Pro-Imperialist “Left” Manifesto”, (www.counterpunch.org/farley05272006.html), Farley criticizes the Manifesto for its support of the occupation of Iraq, for opposing human rights for Palestinians and for supporting colonialism. He even goes so far as to endorse al Qaeda and former Ba’athist insurgents who are terrorizing ordinary Iraqi and foreign civilians:
(T)hey mention the “anti-colonial transformation.” But isn’t the US invasion and occupation of the Persian Gulf (today Iraq, and tomorrow Iran?) a modern form of colonialism, motivated by the US desire to control the oil of the Persian Gulf? Aren’t the efforts of Iraqis and Iranians to resist US imperialism therefore an anticolonial struggle? Of course, the signers of the Euston Manifesto have absolutely nothing good to say about the “the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance.
Well, I for one, am glad the signers of the Euston Manifesto have nothing good to say about the gangs of jihadist and Baathists thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance. I cannot bring myself to say anything good about organizations that kidnap, behead and bomb ordinary civilians be they Iraqi or otherwise. If Farley has something good to say about the jihadists and Baathist thugs then let’s hear it.
Farley, however, may be correct about one thing. He does not see the Left broadly supporting the Euston Manifesto and concludes:
The Euston Manifesto was written by social democrats who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. They are pleading for support from other leftists and from the broader community of liberals. I predict that this manifesto will fail to rally pro-war sentiment. It’s too late, and opposition to the war is by now nearly universal among the people they hope to convince. Instead, the likely effect will be the political isolation of the signers.
Tenth, if the Euston Manifesto fails to catch fire with the Left it might lead to meeting of the minds with conservatives. I am not the first conservative to publicly support the Euston Manifesto (although I might be the first conservative to have actually signed it). In The Weekly Standard, co-editor Bill Kristol wrote an article praising the Manifesto titled, “A Few Good Liberals: Liberalism stands strong in the United Kingdom”:
(I)n the fight against tyranny and terror, against secular dictatorships and Islamic jihadism, is it too much to hope that decent liberals and conservatives could make common cause? We think not, and we hope that this clarion call from overseas might contribute to a rebirth of political courage and moral clarity on the American left as well.
This is not to say that I am without disagreement with some aspects of the Manifesto. In the spirit of the exchange of ideas let me spell out a few of those disagreements.
First, I have reservations about their support for a two state solution with regard to the Israelis and the Palestinians. Granted, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, endorsed a two state solution. Granted a critical mass of Israelis desire a two state solution. Ditto for President Bush. Despite their outspoken manner on anti-Semitism, I was disappointed with the Manifesto’s statement on the two state solution:
We recognize the right of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and interests of one of the sides to the dispute.
The problem here is while the Israeli people and their government are prepared to live with a Palestinian state the Palestinian people and their government are not prepared to live with a Jewish state and, quite frankly, probably never will.
The Palestinian people knew exactly what they were doing when they elected Hamas to power. Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist let alone the existence of Judaism. Unless there is a concerted effort to secularize, modernize and yes, dare I say, civilize a critical mass of Palestinians such a geopolitical arrangement is simply not possible. I am not sure that the drafters and signers of the Manifesto completely appreciate this dynamic.
Second, the Manifesto makes no mention of the role of the United Nations. The Manifesto does urge radical reform of the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in order to have globalization that means “global social integration and a commitment to social justice.” The problem here is that the aforementioned organizations are all creatures of the United Nations. One cannot meaningfully reform the WTO, IMF or World Bank without radically reforming the UN itself. But so long as the state of the UN is such that Iran can sit on its Disarmament Commission, that Cuba sits on the Human Rights Council and that Israel is ineligible to sit on the Security Council it is simply beyond reform. The globe might be better served if the world’s democracies left the UN and formed their own international organization.
Third, the Manifesto relies on increased aid and redistribution rather than limited government and free markets to lift the poorest nations out of poverty. There is certainly a place for foreign aid for countries that cannot feed themselves or are mired in sickness. But more often than not aid never gets to those who need it but ends up in the pockets of corrupt governments. The West might as well through the money down the sewer. If aid is to be expended it is better allocated to non-governmental organizations with a proven track record such as CARE or Doctors Without Borders. But even so it is a short term fix not a formula for long term self sufficiency. South Korea was once as poor as South Africa but has become one of the world’s economic powerhouses. It did so through allowing individual initiative tempered by limited government. There are too many countries in the world where governments make their citizens go through waiting periods exceeding ten years to get a license to either operate or expand a business. If the authors of the Euston Manifesto want to make poverty history they must support measures that will allow people to take initiative and risk in a framework of a democratic government that administers few rules but rules that are fair for all.
Notwithstanding these reservations, the positive aspects of the Euston Manifesto far outweigh the negative ones. The Euston Manifesto supports democracy universally, opposes tyranny and terrorism, does not suffer fools who espouse anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism or who equate Guantanamo Bay with the Soviet Gulag, promotes the free exchange of ideas through dialogue, will accept good ideas from people with whom they would normally disagree and believes Iraqis ought to have a chance to govern themselves. Sounds pretty good to me. I agree with a sufficient amount of what has been written in the Euston Manifesto to have signed it. I would also urge other conservatives to read it for themselves and hope they too will sign it.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
