Fred Halliday Rocks
Fred Halliday: My view is that the kind of position which the New Left Review and Tariq have adopted in terms of the conflict in the Middle East is an extremely reactionary, right-wing one. It starts with Afghanistan. To my mind, Afghanistan is central to the history of the Left, and to the history of the world, since the 1980s. It is to the early 21st century, to the years we’re now living through, what the Spanish Civil War was to Europe in the mid and late 20th century…The issue of rights is absolutely central. We have to hold the line at the defense, however one conceptualizes things, however de-hegemonized, of universal principles of rights. This is how I locate my own political and historical vision—it is my starting point.
And it is emphatically not the starting point of all too many people on the left now, and that’s the problem. But…that ice-jam seems to be breaking up a little now. Check out the comments on this absurd piece at Comment is Free for example. A cheering sign, I think.
I feel much happier with a copy of the U.N.D.P. Human Development Report than with the New Left Review. Or with the very courageous three annual editions of the Arab Human Development Report, which itemize in a statistical, perhaps over-quantified way, things like women’s access to education, women’s access to politics, treatment of minorities, freedom of speech, fair elections, and the like.
Danny Postel: “Bourgeois” liberties.
Fred Halliday: No, I don’t accept that category.
Danny Postel: I mean that in scare quotes: the crude, ultra-left way of dismissing such rights.
Fred Halliday: Exactly. And Marx himself had too much disparaging language of this kind as well…But I will barricade myself in my bunker with copies of the U.N.D.P. Report and with Amartya Sen’s and Martha Nussbaum’s attempts to define new forms of universal human needs, with feminists who are concretely engaged in social policy…
Yeah.
The Fred Halliday link seems to be broken. Or is it just my browser? Thanks.
Found it at this address:
http://www.skidmore.edu/salmagundi/halliday.htm
Thanks again.
Drat! Sorry. Second time I’ve done that this week – I can’t even figure out how I managed it. Clumsy.
Well, it’s fine to “loathe” such states, but to fund, train, and equip reactionary religious terrorists to oppose such states, then act surprised when said religious terrorists turn against you is rather disingenuous, no? Unless, of course, such terrorists are CHRISTIAN, then it’s ok.
Brian – Afghanistan is one state, not all Islamist ‘states’ as you imply. And let’s not blame the rise of Wahabism on the CIA… arm as it did the Mujahadeen, the Wahabist leaders were Saudi ricj kids, dissaffected with their royal familly, and lusting after power.
It’s interesting how siome parts of the left have adopted defence of Islamism – no matter how pernicious its aims and outcomes – as some kind of modern day Spanish civil war… as if they’re defending defenceless Muslems at the hands of reactionary despots.
Nick: I realize that it is much more complicated than “the CIA did it.”
I have never defended Islamism at any time or in any way. I just think that the way we behave in the world exacerbates the problems, doesn’t really strengthen our case or arguments, weakens alliances, and does nothing to appeal to the “hearts and minds” of the middel east. Does that make me a weak-willed liberal? No, it makes me far more of a realist than the dreamy eyed PNAC bomb them into Democracy people.
My crtiique is more that the United States still seems to spout off about “realism” in foreign policy, which somehow always means supporting dictators that buy a lot of American weapons while boiling their opponents alive. Then we act surprised when the vicious forces that rise up against this kind of thing hate us. And no, I’m not saying that Wahabbists would love us if we weren’t engaged in our various policy fallacies. Still…how successful has the interventionist program been recently? Iraq, anyone? Yet, the neoconservatives are fondly telling us that once we drop multi megatons of bombs on their cities, the Iranians will suddenly rise up and overthrow the mullahs.
So…bringing up the CIA all the time may seem tiresome. But, as we have not learned our lessons at all (billions of dollars for Egypt and Mubarak;’s regime?), maybe reminding ourselves of history is not always a bad thing.
Brian – Sloppy of me , my second para was a general observation that popped into my head – not specifically aimed at you…
But I was surprised to see your post with specific reference to Halliday’s comments that he ‘loathed’ soviet regimes under Communism. So did I. Dreadful life for most citizens. That’s all. And I think we’re pretty much on the same page with recognition that the US has supported and empowered some absolutely vile regimes over the decades – and I am certain that going into Iraq was the dumbest move in living memory. You can’t impose democracy, just as you can’t make an individual be more considerate of other people… It was refreshing to see Halliday’s piece so carefully argued and I don’t think he can be in anyway seen as an apologist or Stooge for W Bush…
whatever, not,one of my better posts …
Well, Nick…I am a bit obsessive/repetitive about my own obsessions, so dragging them into this thread as well was unsporting of them. Namely, I mean that dislike of Islamism and the more nefarious side of Islamic (or Christian fundamentalist, or fundamentalist Hindu, or, heck, repressive Buddhism, if there was ever such a thing) not lead to support for the Neoconservative-activist view of foreign policy. I remain as skeptical about military interventionism by supposedly unselfish western powers as, for example, Mr. Tingey is about religion. :) So…just ignore me when I go on one of my rants. :)