Why?
I never really wanted to comment on the pro-imperialist twaddle known as The Euston Manifesto. It's not that my comments would ever serve to legitimise a document that I considered a pretty duff manifesto, supported as it was, by some pretty duff names, and some even worse arguments, it was just that it was so obviously a piece of turgid propaganda.
The Euston Manifesto was a contribution of mendacious and mischievous cant in favour of empire and hegemony, and against all forms of rebellion. It replaced the outdated notion of "aid as imperialism" with "democracy as imperialism", a cynical attempt to justify the unjustifiable by arguing, not that the anti-imperialists, anti-globalisation and anti-western movements are wrong, but that they are not democratic, and they that do not share "our values" or our political or philosophical heritage.
Moreover, in order to legitimate their pro-imperialist position, they deliberately went out of their way to try and redefine the left, in their terms, to delegitimize a plural left, to exclude those on the left who genuinely and honestly seek reasons to explain why the world is screwed up; politically, economically and socially.
What they say it is
Well, the Euston web site seems to have been hacked in February 2009, and they don't seem to have wanted to reinstate the "About" page. I can't say that I'm really surprised. This kind of sucking up to the former Bush-Administration is probably as welcome these days as a fart in a spacesuit.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about it:
The Euston Manifesto is a 2006 declaration of principles by a group of academics, journalists, and activists based in the United Kingdom. The statement is a reaction to what are asserted to be widespread violations of leftist principles by others who are commonly associated with the political Left. The manifesto states that "the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between forces on the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values.
What is it?
The Euston Manifesto is presented as a statement of principles, a statement of principles that seems awkwardly uncomfortable with the principles in and of themselves, often finding the need to qualify the doctrine with relation to particular people, communities and movements.
Simply stated, The Euston Manifesto is a thin libertarian veneer on reactionary neo-liberal dead-ended shallowness.
Devil in the Details
As a manifesto, the Euston Manifesto is rubbish, but a lot of the devilishly cunning deviousness can be found in the detail.
If I am in favour of the principle that everyone's vote in an election should count, do I need to qualify that by stating who I would like to be favoured by such an equitable electoral system, and more importantly, whom I would like to see disadvantaged by such a system?
My argument would be that an equitable electoral system, including an equitable way of making votes count by counting all of the votes cast, rather than by weighing votes, is a principle, a principle that doesn't require qualification for cases that we don't particular like.
The same goes for the principles of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We cannot be for these principles just when it suits us, or against them when the principles are an inconvenience to us and the achievement of our aspirations, fulfilment of reasonable needs and the attainment of legitimate goals.
The oddly titled principle "No apology for tyranny" (#2), is yet more selectively principled relativism from the Euston lot. What they fail to understand is that we do live in a globalised world, where Kennedy's interdependence of nations, is a real and evident presence. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have removed oppressive regimes, to replace them with less repressive and arguably more corrupt regimes. As my grandmother used to say, if you are going to do something, then do it well, or don't bother. What is also odd about this principle is that it violates other principles, principally the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3 - In principle #3, Human rights for all, they argue for fundamental human rights, but then take to task people who are more concerned about lesser human rights abuses closer to home, rather than more important human rights abuses further afield. This is a variation on the Bush theme of "don't look at Iraq, look at Mars", or the more commonly used ruse of "don't look at Gaza, look at Darfur". What they fail to understand is that, in Human Rights terms, some people can actually chew gum, walk and fart, have a conversation with their partner, whilst using their mobile phone to message a bloke half way around the world, all at the very same time.
6 - Principle number six deals with something that they describe as anti-Americanism. The Euston bunch seem to feel that there is no relationship between cause and effect, that anti-Americanism is some sort of phenomenon that just happened, because of errant left-wing ideology. A lot of people around the globe have suffered from the consequences of empire and imperial hubris, and they still do. Anti-Americanism is as much a consequence of hegemony, as dislike of western values is the product of a completely unfair notion of globalisation, which favours the developed countries, at the expense of the weak. The Euston bunch made a principle out of anti-Americanism, but failed to identify and condemn the anti-Europeanism of the Bush era. Actually, its isn't a question of anti-Americanism or anti-Europeanism, but a respect for people, irregardless of the political and cultural orientation of the countries they come from or live in. However, of course, principle six is not a political principle at all, but more of a "suck up to power" point.
This is a sample of what Nick Cohen had to say about anti-Americanism (Why it is right to be anti-American, New Statesman, 14 January 2002):
"Anti-Americanism" is a transparent slur that libels and subverts the best of American freedom. It's a propaganda insult that is as contaminated as "terrorist". Right-wingers in London and Washington use it shamelessly to suggest that those who are not happy with their abysmal status quo are the moral equivalents of blood-drenched murderers.
7 - The inclusion of a reference to the two-state solution in relation to Israel/Palestine, as a principle (#7), is incomprehensible. What principle does this article actually embody? Alternatively, is it, as I suspect, just a meagre political sop to certain political interest groups?
9 - Principle 9, United against terror, simply fails to address the phenomenon of state terror, and therefore is not valid either as a principle or a balanced political perspective. It focuses on terrorism as inspired by "Islamist theology" but completely ignores the terrorism of "capitalist expediency".
10 - A new internationalism. This is just an unprincipled case for armed intervention in the life of nation states. It is a crudely pornographic form of Lady Bountiful jingoism, wrapped in a neo-liberal brown-paper bag.
12 - Historical truth. It is perhaps telling that "Political honesty and straightforwardness" don't seem to be the primary obligation of a number of the Euston Manifestos supporters.
Conclusions
Call me an old-fashioned bourgeois liberal, but I find the absence of any mention of the "right to life" in the Euston Manifesto a reason in itself to suspect its purpose.
In addition, notable by its absence is any explicit reference for the need of a democratic society to go hand-in-hand with a secular society, it is coy about the meaning if the separation of religion and state, whereas it is expansive about more peripheral crap.
A manifesto of principles that mentions anti-Americanism and Muslims by name, yet fails explicitly to mention the universal "right to life" - that's real living people's lives, not the abortion issue - and "secularism". That is neither a statement of principles nor a manifesto that is really worth wanting. A manifesto that is so clearly a suck-up to the status quo of the Bush Administration era, and so obviously Anglo-centric, was never a universal and egalitarian manifesto that one could be trusted or taken seriously.
In my opinion, The Euston Manifesto pretends to impose a hidden hand of rigid and uniform interpretation of historical developments and their consequences as manifested in present day reality. They fail to draw the distinction between approval and understanding, and fail to draw the distinction between support and concurrence. If we are for the right to life, if we are for the United Nations Charter, then this is the case, no matter who coincides with our views.
The definers of Euston Manifesto have been rightly criticised for their blatant support of the USA lead invasion and occupation of Iraq, their conflation of opposition to government policies and actions with racism, and as a covert attempt to subvert the liberal-left politics and to rally a pro-war response from people on the left.
It is perhaps also telling that the writers of the Euston declaration do not mention capitalism even once in their manifesto, nor do they mention empire, and the only time they mention imperialism is to rail against "a blanket and simplistic" anti-imperialism.
Simply stated, as a public declaration of principles and intentions, the Euston Manifesto is a particularly suspect, reactionary, inconsistent and rubbish attempt at a new declaration of human rights principles for the liberal-left.
Print | posted on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:41 AM