Author: Jonathan Down Gailey
Publication: The Statesman
Date: October 18, 2001
Introduction: In the wake of the
World Trade Center tragedy, Jonathan Down Gailey can think of no other
voice at the current time whose perceptions and messages are more misguided,
more ill informed and more harmful to the national debate than that of
the Left. And the sad truth is this: there is a message, a mission, a role
for the Left in this crisis.
In the days following the tragedy
of the World Trade Center's demolition, the mysterious and sudden nature
of the attack has propelled a public dialogue to two fundamental questions
- who was behind the violent act, and, as important, why'? Indeed, as aid
workers pick through the rubble of the twin towers, the world has been
left to ponder the central dilemma of seeking the underlining cause of
this dramatic event.
Normally, it happens that in times
of crisis the official versions given by governments and channelled through
established media are more spin than substance, seeking to bolster public
support more than to educate inquiring minds. It then falls to the progressive/left
constituents in America and Europe to offer balanced/alternative/or clarified
interpretations of news and policy.
The Gulf War was a perfect example
of this, as the US government failed to explain the strategic significance
of its actions, opting to veil the operation in a facade of idealistic
propaganda. Americans were only informed of the oil interest by a smug
progressive constituent as to the "real" intentions of the USA,
How times change. In real time,
not only did CNN provide shocking footage at every step of the crisis,
it immediately recognised the possible fallout to the epoch tragedy. Even
as the buildings stood aflame, guests were invited on air to urge Americans
not to unleash their anger at the Muslim community, to restrain themselves
until the nation could rally to some policy, and has since been patient
and unflagging in its efforts to explain the complex and sometimes embarrassing
history the USA has had with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Hats off
to CNN!
By contrast, the political Left
has offered the most distorted, misinformed and, occasionally, harmful
explanations surrounding these events. Pieces by notable progressives such
as Fisk and Noam Chomsky, in fact, are so misguided they rank near the
mythological fantasies of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson - each extreme
political wing, seeing divine justice as the cause, and humble 'acceptance
the proper response.
Similar to the benighted lens of
the religious Right, the Left has failed to understand, and, therefore,
communicate an instructive message to the public because it is largely
ignorant of the facts. This is not a coincidence. The Left, though avid
searchers for victims of the West's depredations abroad, seek victim communities
that can model their own value system as closely as possible, and that
can most easily be explained by the more rudimentary intellectual crutches
as Marxism and neo-imperialism. Thus, though we see an abundance of progressives
well schooled in the affairs of Latin America - that veritable playground
of Leftist intellectualism - the well runs dry in West Asia, where issues
such as political Islam, multilateral geopolitics, and cross-civilisation
affairs either befuddle the simple prisms through which the Left views
the world, or else the Left simply finds those regions distasteful In a
word, it is difficult to create a Che out of an Osama, and it is difficult
to construct the Taliban into the Zapatists.
Let us briefly appraise, or as the
Left is fond of saying, deconstruct, the Left's current perceptions of
the crisis, repeated by many of its most outspoken proponents. First, there
is the notion that America deserved the attack, that the USA "had it coming"
and that, therefore, the act was essentially inevitable and unavoidable.
The reason that the attack stems from two essential sources US support
for Israel and the humanitarian disaster wrought by UN sanctions against
the citizens of Iraq. Assuming that bin Laden is the perpetrator, an assumption
most in the Left will accede, we are therefore to conclude that he launched
or assisted this attack for those principal reasons.
In fact, this could not be further
from the truth. To begin with, bin Laden has for years been widely criticised
for his ambivalence to the Palestinian cause by many Islamic groups who
have accused him of myopia and neglect. Second, bin Laden has had no positive
relations with Iraq since the Baathist party assumed power. He is an arch-opponent
of the socialist/military regime paradigm, of which Iraq is one, and in
fact volunteered to send fighters to Saudi Arabia in its defence from Iraq
during the invasion of Kuwait.
Furthermore, when we examine the
interviews and writings of the man, we find only one primary justification
for bin Laden's hostility to the USA the presence of troops in the Holy
Lands of the Saudi desert, and their defilement of the religious shrines
at Mecca and Medina. The plight of the Palestinians and the Iraqis may
be on the agenda of the political Left (and one that I, too, feel strongly
about) but they were not on the agenda of the perpetrators of the WTC hijackings.
The roots of bin Laden's resistance to US Gulf deployments go deep within
Saudi domestic politics, in Wahhabi traditions, and, - it appears, beyond
the reach of the Left.
If it were simply a basic understanding
of West and South Asian affairs lacking among progressives, we might have
forgiveness. But ideologically driven distortions and even delusion compound
the essential ignorance often displayed. Take, for example, the Left's
droning debate on Iraqi sanctions and its humanitarian costs. The statistics
compiled are regularly abused or used selectively. In just one example,
recent health reports have shown not only positive health indicators for
the Kurdish north, but an actual improvement in Kurdish conditions in some
areas from the pre-war baseline. The reasons as to why humanitarian assistance
is so successful in the north, as opposed to lower Iraq, has nothing to
do with the supposed cruelty of the sanctions, as the Left would have,
and everything to do with to whom and how those aid packages are used.
The Kurds, who manage the assistance directly, deliver it to their people.
The Iraqi regime, on the other hand, sells it back off on the black market
to augment military purchases. Who shall be held culpable here?
Similar distortion is rampant in
the explanations, I'm sorry, disparagements, that the Left presents toward
Israel and US policy toward the Palestinians. Far from offering a truly
alternative view, most progressives use a cut-and-paste approach to the
issue, borrowing directly from the speeches of the Fatah. We do learn of
the justifiably unfair treatment of the Palestinians and the US bias toward
Israeli policy, no doubt, but we do not learn of the tempering effect Washington
has had on Israeli policies. It is only from CNN that we learn that the
USA was instrumental in persuading Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, to
sign the Oslo peace accord, and to engage the PAL m final settlement talks.
Anytime CNN informs more Um the Left, the Left has failed.
Between ignorance and ideology,
the Left has floundered. Chomsky and Fisk, entirely evading the actual
motives of the attackers, have retreated into the comfortable haven of
Israel bashing, and guessing from their silence on a course of action for
the world, seem to be counselling capitulation. Ardent feminists who had
been vocal critics of the harsh gender discrimination imposed by the Taliban
have now changed hats, and borrowing from the Iraqi humanitarian crisis
debate blast the USA for contemplating genocide on Afghanistan. Environmentalists
spin the crisis as a ploy for George Bush to Alaskan drilling rights.
Blanket myths are propagated at
frightening speed - that the CIA created the Taliban, that the USA is seeking
oil transits through Afghanistan, that the war was sold to Bush by the
military establishment for financial gain. Lurking below this rhetoric
come a host of the most fantastical conspiracy theories a mind could dream
up - of the CIA hiring bin Laden to destroy the WTC, of Israeli plots,
of a secret oil cabal at the command of Mr Bush.
I can think of no other voice at
the current time whose perceptions and messages are more misguided, more
ill informed and more harmful to the national debate than that of the Left.
And the sad truth is this - that there is a message, a mission, a role
for the Left in this crisis. Progressives worldwide should be cautioning,
tempering and consoling the world in this inevitable conflict. They need
to be the guardians who prevent Mr Bush's high ratings from letting him
ride roughshod over other legislative issues such as global warming and
energy policy. They should work to slow the pace of civil liberties actions
in this period of insecurity. And as a final goal, they should slowly ask
Americans to re-evaluate US foreign policy, specifically on the sources
that lead to US enmity abroad.
To achieve these goals, the Left
need not tamper with complex regional histories, trace obscure theological
movements or attempt vain brinkmanship against a vengeful public. They
simply need to work from their strengths, which are desperately needed
at this painful time.
As virtually the entire world (including
Germany and Japan, whose constitutions forbid military action) has united
into a coalition to fight international terrorism, the followers of Falwell
and the political Left stand dumb in the cold, unable to recognise a good
war, yes, a good war, when they see one. After some introspection, Falwell
and Robertson eventually apologised for their initial comments on the WTC
attack, realising that their statements were inappropriate, not well thought
out, and harmful. Is the Left big enough to likewise come forward?
(The author is a US citizen with
a background in West Asian and post-Soviet affairs.)
