On Open Democracy (at http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict) Sasha Abramsky has an interesting article entitled: "Whose al-Qaeda problem?" which takes to task those on the Left (Tariq Ali, Robert Fisk, George Galloway, Naomi Klein, and John Pilger specifically) who have ever since the attacks of 9/11/2001, and again since the bombings in London of this year, done their rhetorical best to argue that it is the fault of the United-States and Britain that these events happened at all. Whether because of their (primarily the U.S.') support of Israel, or because of the sanctions on, and then later invasion of, Iraq, al-Qaeda is, these people insist, with some justification punishing these countries for their imperialist ways. The errors of this line of argumentation should be obvious to anyone: al-Qaeda's motivations stem from far deeper roots than American support for Israel or for any actions taken in recent years in Iraq. To understand Islamist fascism, of which al-Qaeda is one notable example, one must go back at least as far back as the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the decades that followed. What was involved here (and still is today) was a reaction against the Enlightenment derived ideals of secularism, individual rights and the emancipation of women (among other things). These ideals, traditionaly celebrated and fought for by the Left, have instead been ignored in favour of finding common cause with reactionary religious fanatics who want to re-conquer Andalusia (Moorish Spain that came to an end in 1492), have targeted Australia (the Bali bombings of 2002 and again within the last week) for daring to help predominantly Christian East Timor become independent of Muslim dominatated Indonesia and have attacked any groups - the United-Nations, the Red Cross, Shi'as (who are seen as unredeemable heretics by Sunni fanatics like bin-Laden and Al-Zarqawi), Kurdish rights groups - who dare oppose their authoritarian ambitions.
Critiquing this "blame the West" mentality, Abramsky writes:
They assume that groups like al-Qaida are almost entirely reactive, responding to western policies and actions, rather than being pro-active creatures with a virulent homegrown agenda, one not just of defence but of conquest, destruction of rivals, and, ultimately and at its most megalomaniacal, absolute subjugation.
It misses the central point: that, unlike traditional “third-world” liberation movements looking for a bit of peace and quiet in which to nurture embryonic states, al-Qaida is classically imperialist, looking to subvert established social orders and to replace the cultural and institutional infrastructure of its enemies with a (divinely inspired) hierarchical autocracy of its own, looking to craft the next chapter of human history in its own image.
Simply blaming the never quite defined, yet implicitly all-powerful “west” for the ills of the world doesn’t explain why al-Qaida slaughtered thousands of Americans eighteen months before Saddam was overthrown. Nor does it explain the psychopathic joy this death cult takes in mass killings and in ritualistic, snuff-movie-style beheadings. The term “collateral damage” may be inept, but it at least suggests that the killing of civilians in pursuit of a state’s war aims is unintentional, regrettable; there is nothing unintentional, there is no regret, in the targeting of civilians by al-Qaida’s bombers.
Moreover, many of those who reflexively blame the west do not honestly hold up a mirror to the rest of the world, including the Muslim world, and the racism and sexism and anti-semitism that is rife in many parts of it. If bigotry were indeed the exclusive preserve of the west, their arguments would have greater moral force. But given the fundamentalist prejudices that are so much a part of bin Ladenism, the cry of western racism is a long way from being a case-closer.
We should attend to the way bin Laden and his followers invoke “the west.” They do so alternately to describe any expansive and domineering “first world” economic and political system and, even more ominously, to demarcate a set of ostensibly decadent liberal political, cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices.
Indeed, what al-Qaida apparently hates most about “the west” are its best points: the pluralism, the rationalism, individual liberty, the emancipation of women, the openness and social dynamism that represent the strongest legacy of the Enlightenment. These values stand in counterpoint to the tyrannical social code idealised by al-Qaida and by related political groupings such as Afghanistan’s Taliban.
In that sense, “the west” denotes less a geographical space than a mindset: a cultural presence or a sphere of anti-absolutist ideas that the Viennese-born philosopher Karl Popper termed the “open society.” In his day, when fascists and Stalinists held vast parts of the globe, the concept of “the west” prevailed over a smaller territory than today. But with the rise of bin Ladenism, the prevalence of this concept again is shrinking.
It is because bin Ladenism is waging war against the liberal ideal that much of the activist left’s response to 11 September 2001 and the London attacks is woefully, catastrophically inadequate. For we, as progressives, need to uphold the values of pluralism, rationalism, scepticism, women’s rights, and individual liberty and oppose ideologies and movements whose foundations rest on theocracy, obscurantism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, and nostalgia for a lost empire.
His comments against Christopher Hitchens are, I think, undeserved since Hitchens, contrary to the polemic of many on the Left, has been nothing if not consistent in his anti-fascist viewpoint (check out http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/09/26/ to see an example of his contrarianess), but then bashing Hitchens ("traitors" to a cause are always the most hated afterall) seems to be almost a requirement for many to be taken seriously on the Left. The article is a good one though. Let's hope others on the Left start to see past their dislike of Bush to the real danger we who believe in secularism, individual rights and democratic freedoms face.
No comments:
Post a Comment