A reversal of the traditional left/right divide on international affairs

by observer in Europe Wed Mar 17, 2004 19:56

Very interesting analysis, you could also play on the theme of WMD. Traditionally the left saw WMD as all four horse of the apolcapyse at once and now are blase about Libya, Iraq, Iran and N. Korea's behaviour in that regard.

by observer in europe - the trusted one Wed Mar 17, 2004 20:08

well, there are several saddle types.
and several types of stirrup and indeed horse as well.
It might have been notived by the observers in Europe, the "neo-con"men that the horse was first introduced to the Americas by the same bunch who gave the little raspberry family his name.
He is alive and yes he is now "our bastard".
Don M. has been much misunderstood for the very best of reasons, and you know, he is an old type conservative not a conman at all, even if he did lie a bit.

¿Who coined your phrase?

by observed in europe - ah now the spelling is really going getting interesting now isn't it? Wed Mar 17, 2004 20:16 open source news wire

that the same day neocon Aznar presented his proof on WMD which he got from ponyboy Bush2, my local newspaper carried a photo of the charred helmet from Space Shuttle Colombia, which as both Aznar and Bush2 know fell along with oddles of contaminant on his ranch.
It caused a "sour milk" panic didn't it?
mala leche as they say in español.

by Chekov Wed Mar 17, 2004 20:35

Hardly a line in this little article is without its own glaring inaccuracy. Actually 'lie' would be a more accurate term, since I assume the author knows just how far he has strayed from any accurate depiction of the world. To break it down.

Lie #1: "the left have oppossed the attempts by many on the right to create a world on a democratic basis"

The argument over the Iraq war had nothing to do with democracy. The left generally argued that the war was motivated by a desire to control the oil wealth of the middle east and that democracy had nothing to do with it. In fact the 'democracy' excuse only really surfaced after the war had finished and it had become quite clear that the original (WMD) excuse had been patently false and indeed knowingly so.

There are many, many facts that can be brought to bear to illustrate the fact that the left were right in disbelieving the heralded democratic drive of Bush and his cronies. For example, the fact that any country which actually listened to the democratic will of its people not to go to war was reviled by the Bush junta. Meanwhile those governments, like Spain's, which defied the will of the vast majority of the population were revered as heroes of democracy. Then when it came to Iraq, the Bush junta made it clear, again and again, that the Iraqi people were not to have any say in the form of their government and in particular that the Shia majority were to be forbidden from holding power. The list of such anti-democratic practices from the apparent champioins of democracy is very, very long and shows very, very clearly that they were lying.

lie #2: "Generally, if there was hated dictator killing person by the thousand, the left would be demanding revolution and his immediate overthrow. they would generally support foreign powers supporting his overthrow as well. "

For a start, leftists have generally been strongly anti-imperialist and have almost always opposed intervention by the great powers, because they only ever intervene when it is in their own interests. The attempt to conflate revolution by the victims of a tyrant with external interventions by the great powers is an extremely dishonest argument and is one that the left has not made. So your assertion is just not true.

lie #3 "Examples of this can be seen in Angola, whereby the left supported the intervention of Cuban forces, as well in the Congo and the overthrow of Tshombe's separatist Katangan government. Plenty of other examples can be found throughout the world as well."

This is laughable. For a start your choice of examples is instructive. You choose two extremely obscure cases, presumably in the hope that readers will not know enough about them to challenge you. In any case, both of your examples are actually quite the opposite of what you make them out to be:

"Castro decided to send troops to Angola on November 4, 1975, in response to the South African invasion of that country, rather than vice versa as the Ford administration persistently claimed;"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67/

Thus, the cuban intervention, far from being aimed at overthrowing a bloody dictator, was actually at the invitation of the government in response to a full scale invasion by the South African armed forces.

Your second example is equally misleading. The UN intervention in the Congo happened a full year after Mobutu had siezed power and Lumumba had been murdered by Tshombe. Far from being demanded by the left, it was championed by France and the US who wanted Congo back under a single ruler (under their control) once the threat of Lumumba's radical nationalism had been definitely extinguished.

What is even more revealing than your blatant distortion of the facts of these two interventions is the "Plenty of other examples" that you neglect to mention. Examples of bloody dictators like Pinochet, Mobutu, the Shah and many, many more that the major powers put in place through interventions. In these cases the left was vocal in demanding that the great powers cease their interventions in support of the dictators. Remember that France has intervened militarily more than 60 times since 'independence' in Africa alone, almost all of which were to prop up a bloody dictator or to replace him with another.

Lie #4: "Saddam Hussein was overthrown, but people on the left complain (as can be seen throughout indymedia and beyond) of the break down in law and order, and seem to suggest that because Saddam did a good line in repressing fanatics, he should have been left in power, as a bulwark against Islamic terror"

That is not the argument of the left, that is the argument of George Bush and his cronies, or at least it was until they decided to invade and get rid of Saddam. In particular the US explicitly allowed Hussein to crush the uprising of the Shias in 1991 because of the fear of what might follow Hussein.

People on the left generally use the breakdown of law and order, not to say that Saddam should have been left in power, but to show that the stated desire of the invaders to improve the lives of Iraqis was a sham and that the real reason lies, as always, in the self-interest of the invading power.

HALF TRUTH #1: "Similarly there is a huge toleration of the corruption of Arafat and his Fatah movement on the grounds that well, he's 'our (the lefts) bastard'.

Other examples can be seen in Chavez, in Cuba, Iran and most recently Equatorial Guinea. The attitude of the left is increasingly reactionary, and is dependent on the ideology of if Bush's America opposes a ruler, well then, he cannot be too bad."

This is one point of your article where you are only half lying. There are those on the left who have been overly soft, imho, on those governments which are in conflict with the US regime. However, your explanation of the motives is again a plain lie. The defence of these deeply flawed characters rests not on the fact that they are good in themselves, but on the recognition that they are up against a far more powerful force which has proved time and time again to be a much greater threat to the people it claims to liberate than any of the small time dictators.

LIE #5: "In comparison, the right are becoming increasingly ideological and pro-democracy through the influence of the neo-conservatives."

There is not one single example since the second world war where an imperialist invasion has ushered in anything remotely resembling a democracy. We have lots of Vietnams, Chiles and Guatemalas and not a single Norway to show for all of these invasions. Your assertion is just that, an assertion, and it is an assertion that runs against all the evidence.

LIE #6: "A quick read of American journals publishing the works of theses thinkers, highlight their willingness to overthrow anti-democratic governments anywhere and to install democratic regimes. No longer is there support for the Kissinger style realism, but the ideological fervour of the neo-cons political birth."

This is just not true. They have no willingness to overthrow the regimes of Uganda, Russia, Rwanda, Burma, Tajikistan, or a host of other friendly tyrannies. They do, as always, have a willingness to overthrow any regime that doesn't obey them, whether it be a dictatorship like North Korea or a formal democracy like Venezuela. There is simply no change in their behaviour. The propaganda that they use to describe their conquests is not that relevant when you consider the fact that a quick look at the propaganda that preceded the Belgian invasion of the Congo had lots of stuff about educating the savages and teaching them nationhood and so on and not a word about enslaving the population and pillaging their wealth -and we know how that one turned out.

LIE #7: "Most neo-cons were once of the left, however the increasingly reactionary nature of the left, particularly in the USA pushed them to the right where they are today."

Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld were all born into the US ruling class, started out extremely wealthy and right wing and stayed there. Your assertion is classic disinformation, unsupported and unsupportable bullshit.

HALF-TRUTH #2: "their desire to overthrow the regimes is Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Saudi Arabia and so on and replace them with democratic regimes."

They may desire to overthrow these regimes. Their desire to replace them with democratic regimes runs against all the evidence. Not a single post-WW2 US invasion has culminated in anything like a democratic regime. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq are keeping this trend nicely alive.

LIE #8: "those around Wolfowitz quite clearly must be considered the most pro-democatic people in the world, unwillingly under any circumstances to tolerate, the 'our bastard' scenario."

This has already been adressed at length above, but I should add that your hyperbole has reached farcical levels here. Could anybody believe this crap? To quote Woflowitz himself about the Iraq war:

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." (Guardian Wednesday 04 June 2003)

Not too much democratic zeal there and surprisingly reminiscent of the real-politik of Kissinger. Imperialists do as imperialists will.

LIE #9: "The best example of this being, of course, the collapse of the Saudi-US relationship"

There is, as far as I know, no plausible claims anywhere that the collapse of the US Saudi relationship had anything to do with the lack of saudi democracy. In fact, I don't believe there was ever a mention of the lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia from the US administration until after the breakdown of the relationship. The breakdown was primarily caused by the Saudi's attempt to pursue a course of independent non-oil industry related development with their oil revenue, followed by their refusal to allow the US to use their country as a launching pad for the Iraq war. If you do have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.

To sum up. This article contains two half-truths, every other word is a blatant, and probably deliberate, lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

by me - none Wed Mar 17, 2004 21:14

pure shite. chekov is right on every point. why publish this crap? too many fucking wackos with too much time on their hands out her on indymedia. this is the home of the irish crackpots--i wouldn't even call them left....

by David Wed Mar 17, 2004 21:32

that the right might is right and because he is used to arguing to those who dont know any better he figured that the same strategy can work on indymedia.
hard luck.
this isnt a corporate newspaper, every article, every submission includes an automatic right of reply. Lies that are as shallow as these can not survive in an open environment, maybe he should have written into the Irish Times instead

by Eoin O' Cearbhaill Wed Mar 17, 2004 21:40

Chekov,

I'm only going to point out 3 flaws in your argument (the rest of them would take two long).

Firstly Katanga.

Your lack of knowledge on the situation in Katanga after July 11th, 1960 is very poor and demonstrates and arrogance that hides your ignorance.

France was probably the primary backer of Katangan secession after Ileo's government was created and Mobutu's rise to power. To image that the backers of the Abbe were at the same time supporting the UN in their actions against Katanga is unbelievable.

Indeed all the literature on the subject would poin to continiug UK & French support for Katanga until at least January 2nd but proably even until the night of January 13th.

What I'd suggest you do Chekhov, is rather than imaging yourself as an intellectual giant, read Conor Cruise's Katanga and back. It is quite clear from that, as well as from the speeaches of the UN general assembly and the UN security council that the dynamic for the increased UN activity in Katanga came from both Afro-Asian section of the UN. US support for the action appears to be entirely based on their desire to keep this section of the UN on side, in particular Nkraume's 'pan-african wing'.


Secondly,

Th intellectual journey of the neo-conservatives is well known. Firstly no one but the incredibly ill-informed consider Rumsfield or Cheney amongst the neo-conservatives. The neo-conservatives are the 'new' conservatives [ i thought you might under stand the expression neo meaning new], not the 'old' conservatives of Reagan, Bush and Cheney. Their journey from the left is actually well documented, and can easily be seen from their published biographies, never mind the un published ones. The fact of their birth to middle class society mean nothing with reagrd to their politics. Just because your father worked for a middle of the road newspaper and earned an above average wage doesn't mean that you'r politics of the left are an less worthy than mine of the right.

Thirdly,

Your refer to the Vietnams and Guatameala's of the world to discredit my argument, it actually strenthens it as it shows the change in American foreign policy to the current situation.

Chekhov, idon't believe that your lying, in your false presentation of my argument, i just believe that your ideoglogical blinkers fail to allow you see any merit in the arguments of others. Your are a prisoner of your own ideology, maybe you understand that, maybe you don't.

by E.o'C Wed Mar 17, 2004 21:46

Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." (Guardian Wednesday 04 June 2003)


Th reasoning behind that comment is that given the natural wealth of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, he had a greater potential to develop WMDs, invade neighbours, etc, etc.

by Chekov Thu Mar 18, 2004 00:56

E O' C picks me up on a couple of points, a brief response.

"To image that the backers of the Abbe were at the same time supporting the UN in their actions against Katanga is unbelievable."

One phrase suffices to dismiss this line of argument: "French veto on the UN Security council". Conor Cruise O brien has his own very strong agendas - you should read more widely. The speeches of the great powers in the UN general assembly are little more than propaganda. You need to read some of the memoirs of the French diplomats of the time to have any idea of what was really happening.

The second is the 'neo-cons'. I confess, I don't distinguish between the neo-cons and the cons because there is no substantial difference beyond the rhetorical. To claim any real difference in policy between the various imperialists based on their rhetorical flourishes is the height of naivety. You could probably argue the toss about some substantial difference between the groups, but it would be like arguing about how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin. Certainly different groups in the US ruling class will have different strategies for achieving domination, but the important thing is that they are merely tactical differences among people with a common goal to extend the power of the US. All talk of democracy, human rights, or the old favourite 'anti-communism' is just that: talk.

Incidentally, evidence (such as a list of names) of the 'many' leftists who are now neo-cons would help your case here, not that it is especially relevant anyway.

Finally, your explanation of Wolfowitz's remark:

"Th reasoning behind that comment is that given the natural wealth of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, he had a greater potential to develop WMDs, invade neighbours, etc, etc."

This is once again remarkably dishonest given the fact that North Korea not only has greater potential to develp WMD than Iraq ever had, but it actually HAS developed nukes! It is compounded by the fact that it has been well proved at this stage that the Iraqi WMD programs had been abandoned long before the invasion and that, after a decade of sanctions, Iraq's capacity to invade anybody was actually diminishing all the time prior to the invasion to such a stage where none of Iraq's neighbours felt threatened in any way by the prospect of an Iraqi invasion.

Again, you are being fundamentally dishonest. Your gross generalisations and vapid assertions about the left are not backed up by the smallest iota of evidence. Perhaps you have created some strange intellectual universe where your theories hold true and you actually believe yourself, but evidence and reality will continue to elude your neat little theory.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Mar 18, 2004 02:04

are just two of the problems that mark "Eoin O'Cearbhaill's" piece above. I shall concentrate on a couple of the more egregious problems.

QUOTE: "In comparison, the right, presumably because they were of a more realist bent, were inclined to do deal with dictators and strong men, the 'he may be a bastard, but he is our bastard' mentality.
However, in the past four years that mentality has reversed entirely."
ANSWER: In the past month alone we have seen the USA support the ouster of the democratically elected president of Haiti: Arisitde, and his replacement by men widely recognised as war-criminals. There is good evidence that these men were given weapons by the USA through a Guatemalan connection and it is indisputable that at least one of them was actually allowed to stay in the USA at a time when Haitian boat-people were being turned away. Similary we have seen the support of the attempted coup against the democratically elected president of Venezuela: Chavez.

So already your thesis is in tatters "Eoin".

QUOTE: " Saddam Hussein was overthrown, but people on the left complain (as can be seen throughout indymedia and beyond) of the break down in law and order, and seem to suggest that because Saddam did a good line in repressing fanatics, he should have been left in power, as a bulwark against Islamic terror."
ANSWER: Saddam Hussein was a dictator created by the USA (and the rest of the West). It was the "right" that saw him as a bulwark against Arab nationalism and a constraint on the new Islamic democracies (such as Iran) that were getting rid of their corrupt Western-supported dictators (such as the Shah). The West has done a lot to create the conditions under which Islamic-fascism thrives and shows its contempt for democracy when it threatens Iran which is moving towards being a much more democratic egalitarian country by many accounts. The complaint of most of those "on the left" is that getting rid of one dictator that we created (Hussein) and replacing him with some other sort of dictatorship/non-democracy isn't good enough. But you probably know this.

QUOTE: " Similarly there is a huge toleration of the corruption of Arafat and his Fatah movement on the grounds that well, he's 'our (the lefts) bastard'."
ANSWER: Look Avi, sorry "Eoin", Arafat's election was verified by UN monitors. I hold no candle for the man and his policies, preferring instead a single-state socialist Israel which practices no discrimination against Arabs or Israelis, but he was elected.

QUOTE: " Other examples can be seen in Chavez, in Cuba, Iran and most recently Equatorial Guinea. The attitude of the left is increasingly reactionary, and is dependent on the ideology of if Bush's America opposes a ruler, well then, he cannot be too bad."
ANSWER: Now I know you're trolling. You couldn't possibly have cited Venezuela if you were serious.

by European Observer Thu Mar 18, 2004 16:38

"new Islamic democracies (such as Iran)"... "Iran which is moving towards being a much more democratic egalitarian country by many accounts."

Are you mad? Iran - democracy? Do you know which country you are talking about? ...Iran...it does not have democracy by any accounts.

by Davy Thu Mar 18, 2004 17:22

'Phuqq Hedd' if you re read the piece, as i did, i can't see anywhere were he quipples with Arafat's election, all he complains about is his corruption.

Are you, in defieance of the EU and 300 Fatah members who resigned over it, suggesting that Arafat and Fatah aren't seriously corrupt?

Your support of Arafat desipte his corruption is staggering, and proof of the argument above.

by Dr. Faustus Sat Mar 20, 2004 13:22

Just a couple of counter-examples. (I haven't read the whole thread, sorry).

1. Haiti: The elected leader stands on a neighbouring island, and US troops which are already in place refuse to restore him to power.

2. The Republic of Spain elects to opt out of the War on Terror. The US accuses the Spanish people of being undemocratic.

These two, at least, surely require some explanation if we are to conclude that the US neo-conservatives do in fact support democracy.