STRANGE DAYS INDEED Stop the War and the Regressive Left
Curious this obsession by the regressive left with International
Law, indeed what one might call the fetishizing of, what is often in truth little
more than the Russian and Chinese veto on the UN Security Council. Now the
clique who head up the Stop the War (sic) Coalition do not of course view the
rule of law as a sacred principle, being ‘leftists’ how could they? Would they
denounce Trade Unionists for breaking anti trade union laws, or refugees for
entering the country illegally? [1]Of
course they would not and would have a strong moral case for supporting
defiance of such laws. Civil disobedience having a long and respectable
tradition on the left.
Still there is a strong case to be made for supporting the
concept of International Law, even if in practice its implementation proves flawed,
inconsistent and unjust. Some rules being better than none at all. Though one
only has to examine the existing framework of international law to see its
innate conservatism and that it protects the rulers rather than the ruled.[2]
Leaving aside whether the removal of Saddam Hussein was ‘legal’ or not, - there
are, though the ‘Stop the War’ clique would like to obscure the fact, arguments
on both sides of this issue,- surely a law that leaves a despotic tyrant in
power who has brutally invaded his neighbours and is committing acts of
genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the south and Kurdish population in the
north, on the grounds that ‘regime change’ is ‘illegal,’ is, to put it mildly,
deeply conservative and reactionary. Yet it is this law that the regressive
left champions. Thus for the first time since the French Revolution a
significant proportion of the Left champions the status quo.[3]
This embrace of the post 1945 international order is also
related to a new doctrine, which we perhaps should call the Chomsky doctrine
since it was he who first elucidated it. It goes like this, you cannot change
the policy of another country, but you can influence the policy of your own.
Thus you should only demonstrate against the policy of your own country. Stop
the War have completely adopted this doctrine, consequently you will not see
demonstrations outside the Russian embassy protesting at the Russian policy of
indiscriminate bombing in Syria.[4]
It is curious to note that with this doctrine that Tariq Ali, a stalwart of the
Stop the War movement, would not have attended any of the anti-Vietnam war
demonstrations.
Traditionally the Left was as much defined by its
anti-clericalism as its opposition to secular tyranny; "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the
entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot. No longer, the
regressive left now embraces clericalism, and is the best of buddies with
theocrats and religious fanatics, at least those of the most violent and
reactionary variety, i.e. Islamists. Religiously sanctioned wife beating, the
murder of atheists, ‘apostates,’ free thinkers, the hanging of gay men, nothing
is too gross to dampen their affection, though sometimes, like all shy lovers,
they are wary of displaying too much affection in public.
Against this background the left/right terminology becomes
increasingly inadequate, indeed how appropriate is it describe the kind of
positions I have described as in any way ‘left wing?’ We have Maajid Nawaz to thank for the term ‘regressive
left’ and it has proved useful in identifying a certain strand of thinking,
though even this only takes us so far, for what state of affairs do they wish
to regress? The incoherence of so many of the positions taken by the Stop the War/Socialist
Worker crowd makes any definitive definition difficult.
A year or so ago I
attended a protest in support of the Kurds of the YPG fighting for their lives
in the besieged enclave of Rojava, defending will add an experiment in communal
socialism. ‘A state of affairs,’ as George Orwell put it, ‘worth fighting for.’
The protest was thinly attended, mostly Kurds with a spattering of a few far
left groups. Needless to say Stop the War did not attend or send support, no
chanting members of the Socialist Workers Party were to be seen.[5]
The Kurds of Rojava it appeared unworthy
of displays of solidarity.
Strange days indeed, for increasingly, like the animals on
George Orwell’s farm we look to the Islamist right and then to the SWP/STW left
and no, we can no longer tell the difference. This is surely more than just a
matter of curiosity?
[1]
Do they also stand shoulder to shoulder with the lawyers enforcing the
provisions of GATT?
[2]
The current framework was largely dictated by the Post War Truman
administration and was deeply influenced by the threat of communist expansion.
[3]
One can have fun with the ideas underpinning this doctrine, thus the Stop the
War attitude toward, say the Russian Revolution. German assistance for the
Bolsheviks to facilitate regime change in Russia, absolutely illegal.
[4]
A policy incidentally that some members of Stop the War, such as George
Galloway support
[5]
Which I, for one, welcomed. Few things say ‘rent a mob’ than the mass produced
SWP placards.
