Earlier this month I was asked to address an audience about what future there might be for the “decent left”. For those unfamiliar for the term this is the tendency on the left generally associated with backing the Iraq War (though some of the key advocates of this approach did not), opposition to alliances with extreme-right Islamism and the identification of a tendency towards anti-Semitism in some left-liberal discussion of Israel and the Middle East. The Euston Manifesto, published in 2006 expressed some of the thinking of The Decents.

On the key issue of the Iraq War, I was an agnostic. I hoped that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would lead to a new era of democracy, but suspected it would probably lead to fratricide, sectarianism and the break up of the country into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish enclaves. The reality has been more complicated than either scenario.

“Among hyperventilating left-liberals, hatred of Bush is so intense that rational argument usually goes out the window. The result is a mindless cacophony.”

The full text of this article is only available to subscribers at the New York Times site where it first appeared, but there’s more detail at Jeff Weintraub’s blog

link to full text of article

Raul Hilberg, the Holocaust historian, explained that for genocide to take place there has to be a triangle: perpetrators, victims and bystanders. In Darfur all the elements are present. We have the victims, the perpetrators, the indifference of bystanders. The issue is what will happen next: will this escalate further as civil war with crimes against humanity, or is there something different here that will bring it into the realm Hilberg describes?

Who are the victims? More than 200 000 black African Muslims have been killed in two years. According to the UN, by September 2004 1.45 million had been displaced, with 500 000 more in urgent need of assistance. The figure now is probably nearer 3 million. Then there are the deaths from disease and malnutrition — in 2005 the UN estimated 180 000 and there are probably now some 80 000 more.

In the recent renewal of fighting the rebel groups who oppose the Khartoum government and who rejected the peace treaty that ended the civil war there have been attacking civilians in the displaced persons camps. The government has launched attacks similar to those condemned by the UN in 2004. Some argue this is a counter-insurgency like many others. But this one is different because of the nature and the project of the Khartoum government.

Who are the killers? The Sudan government has systematically engaged in mass murder; it has the tanks, the aircraft, and its own militia, the Janjaweed. They have their own racist ideology, in this case an Arab supremacist one, which they use to assert their solidarity with Hizbullah and to claim they too are being attacked by evil Zionists. Jonathan Steele has argued on these pages that this is as much an economic conflict between nomads and settlers as an ethnic one between Arabs and Africans. Others have pointed out that all those involved are Muslims. It is difficult to see how this explains the large numbers of black African Sudanese being killed and displaced in such a concentrated period of time.

Who are the bystanders? The international community is once again disgracing itself by its passivity. But the UN has never intervened to prevent a genocide — not in Bangladesh, not in Cambodia, not in Rwanda. It has only recently, under limited US and British pressure, passed resolutions authorising intervention in Darfur. It ignores vicious internal suppressions in other parts of the world.

What is more shocking is the indifference of the left. Instead of demanding our governments act now, we are told that what is going on in Darfur is none of our business. Or that this is civil war, not genocide. Or that it is far too complicated for us to intervene. Or that any intervention on our part would only make matters worse. Or that we shouldn’t call for intervention because no one has the slightest intention of doing anything, so we are raising expectations that cannot be met. Or that the real plan is to invade Sudan and create a new colony.

These are shameful evasions that run counter to all the left is supposed to stand for.

[link to full text online]

This past March, a group of intellectuals, scholars, and journalists in London posted a statement on the Internet calling for a “new political alignment” among those ranging from the democratic left to “egalitarian liberals.” A month ago a group of us wrote “American Liberalism and the Euston Manifesto” and were able to post it on the Euston Manifesto website. Today we are pleased to announce the launch of a new website, NewAmericanLiberalism.Org that continues this effort.

"The Euston Manifesto", named for the London underground station near the café where its key points were discussed and debated can be read at the group’s website. The statement was a defense of liberal democracy and human rights as well as a rejection of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism. Its authors supported a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We regard the Euston Manifesto was an important turning point in contemporary intellectual and political debates. As of today, 2,574 people, mostly in Britain but also in this country and many others around the world, have signed the statement.

In late summer, the Euston Manifesto group in London helped to put the American signers of the statement in touch with one another via e-mail. I wrote a draft of an American liberal’s response. Following several weeks of discussion with Russell Berman (Stanford), Thomas Cushman (Wellesley), Richard Just (The New Republic), Andrei Markovits (University of Michigan), Robert Lieber (Georgetown), and Fred Siegel (Cooper Union), we agreed on the revised text of “American Liberalism and the Euston Manifesto.” We then sought support from prominent intellectuals and scholars. The Euston Manifesto group agreed to post it on its website. The statement and the list of signers was posted on September 12, 2006, and is available here) or by clicking on the "International" icon at the Euston Manifesto website).

link to full text online

TODAY’S POLITICAL scene is not a friendly place for people who don’t see the world in stark black-and-white categories — people who, for instance, strongly condemn human rights abuses toward detained terror suspects in United States custody, but just as strongly reject the mentality that views the United States as the chief perpetrator of human rights abuses in the world today. Now, some of the politically homeless are building a home of their own, known as the Euston Manifesto.

The manifesto, which can be found at eustonmanifesto.org, was authored last March by a group of British academics, journalists, and activists headed by Norman Geras, emeritus professor of politics at Manchester University. In September, a group of American supporters of the manifesto issued their own statement, “American Liberalism and the Euston Manifesto.”

The signatories are truly a varied group. A few, such as American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen, could be described as conservative. Some, notably Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, are noted “liberal hawks” with the reputation of right-wing Democrats. Many others are liberals: emeritus Harvard professor sociologist Daniel Bell; Progressive Policy Institute president Will Marshall, the founder of the Democratic Leadership Council; noted psychiatrist Walter Reich; feminist legal scholar and City University of New York professor Cynthia Fuchs Epstein.

The signatories of the Euston Manifesto, American and international, stress that there is no consensus among them on some key policy issues, including the military intervention in Iraq. What brings them together is a commitment to liberal values in the broadest sense of the word — and an understanding that these values must be defended from the grave threat of radical Islamist terrorism.

link to full text online

PRAGUE, Czech Republic (UPI) – Earlier this year, a group of ‘small-l’ liberals, left-wingers and progressives came together in Britain to produce a document called the Euston Manifesto. It was a statement of principles in support of democracy, freedom of speech and ideas, and firm opposition to terrorism, all forms of totalitarianism and all soft-headed apologies for it.

Now it has found an echo in the United States, where a number of leading academics and intellectuals have signed the Euston Manifesto, and issued their own statement on American liberalism that endorses it. The original British document was the work of a small group of mainly leftist academics, swiftly joined by members of Parliament, including former Minister for Europe Denis MacShane, journalists and trade unionists.

There are three interesting and significant features to this development. The first is that while the British group makes an absolute commitment to openness and free debate, it stresses that there are indeed enemies on the Left and that quislings and appeasers and apologists for terror should be called by their proper names.

‘Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the ‘anti-war’ movement with illiberal theocrats) we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left,’ the manifesto says. ‘We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right.’

link to full text online

cached copy here

El fin se ha empezado a oír la voz de gente de la izquierda política -es decir que está en favor de la igualdad, la democracia, y el respeto a los derechos humanos- intentando combatir la enfermedad que aqueja a grandes sectores internacionales de quienes se definen también como de “izquierda”, pero que en los hechos han dejado de serlo. Se trata de un agrupación surgida en Inglaterra la cual ha elegido el internet como medio de contacto y comunicación para tratar de formar un frente de verdadera izquierda. Este grupo, ha producido un documento base, el Manifiesto de Euston, en el que se detallan los principios básicos de su postura, la cual ha comenzado a recibir miles de adhesiones de personas que se identifican plenamente con dichas ideas.

El mencionado Manifiesto, con traducciones a varios idiomas -el español, entre ellos- puede leerse íntegro en euromanifesto.org y constituye un documento inspirador en la medida en que señala con claridad hasta qué grado una gran parte de quienes se ubican dentro de la izquierda internacional han desviado su camino para caer en posturas que le hacen el juego a las corrientes más reaccionarias y retrógradas del escenario mundial. Entre sus principios destacan los siguientes: oposición a justificar o manifestar “comprensión” hacia los regímenes autoritarios enemigos de la democracia y opresores de sus propios pueblos; condena a las violaciones de derechos humanos con independencia de quiénes sean responsables y cuál sea su contexto cultural, sin tolerancia hacia las nociones de relativismo cultural sobre las que se apoya la idea de que el respeto a los derechos humanos no es aplicable en determinadas naciones o pueblos; igualdad social y económica, igualdad entre sexos, etnias, religiones y orientaciones sexuales.

Otros puntos destacables tienen que ver con el desarrollo económico dentro del marco de la globalización, por lo que se proponen reformas radicales a instituciones como la OIC, el FMI y el Banco Mundial, con objeto de impulsar una justa distribución de los beneficios del desarrollo.

Es importante también en el Manifiesto la oposición al antiamericanismo a ultranza que infecta una parte importante del pensamiento de izquierda y, también, del conservador, lo cual ha generado un prejuicio generalizado contra Estados Unidos y su pueblo, sin matices y sin atenuantes. En el mismo tenor, se condena el racismo de todo tipo, ya sea antiinmigrantes, interétnico, tribal y el surgido contra poblaciones musulmanas, dentro del contexto de lucha contra el terrorismo. Igualmente, hay un pronunciamiento contra el antisemitismo tan virulento hoy en las izquierdas que, explotando los legítimos agravios del pueblo palestino, han dado rienda suelta a una postura “antisionista” que enmascara a un viejo antisemitismo, al cuestionar el derecho a la existencia del Estado de Israel, haciéndole el juego a regímenes totalitarios que gravitan sin tapujos alrededor de ideas de esa índole.

Sin duda, otro punto importante reside en la defensa de las democracias pluralistas y liberales contra quienes ignoran las diferencias entre ellas y los totalitarismos y regímenes tiránicos. Se establece, por ende, que sólo los Estados que protegen mínimamente la vida de sus gentes (porque no torturan, asesinan o masacran a sus propios civiles y cubren responsablemente sus necesidades básicas) merecen que su soberanía sea respetada. Al mismo tiempo se alude a la desastrosa experiencia de las justificaciones de los crímenes del estalinismo y el maoísmo avaladas por la izquierda, para hacer un paralelismo con las justificaciones también inaceptables del terrorismo suicida. En síntesis, el Manifiesto de Euston es un documento clave para definir los contornos de una izquierda digna y coherente a la que valga la pena pertenecer.

link to original