Dissidents of the International Left. Andy Heintz
speech is loving speech. Libelous speech is not protected, but the definition should be narrow, as in the US, not broad, as in the UK. The right to insult people and ridicule their beliefs is essential in a free society. It may, of course, be foolish or even immoral, but it shouldn’t be illegal.
How should progressives approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Some commentators claim that if Hamas had the same technological sophistication as Israel, they would try to annihilate the country. Do you think these claims have any credence?
As the poet WH Auden observed: ‘Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return.’ I wouldn’t be surprised if many members of Hamas harbored murderous resentments. They have been badly treated for generations by Israel, with the support of the US. But those violent impulses must not be indulged, and Americans must not encourage or excuse them. Large-scale nonviolent resistance is not only the most moral strategy, it is also the most effective one. The best thing Americans can do for all concerned is to force our government to be serious, for the first time, about pressuring Israel to make a comprehensive peace – full return of the West Bank, an end to the strangulation of Gaza, reparations for dispossessed Palestinians, equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel – while it still has unquestioned military superiority.
In the United States, there was some talk by liberal commentators about Dick Cheney being jailed for promoting torture, yet very little mention was made about charging George W Bush for war crimes for invading Iraq. What, if anything, does this say about the mainstream press?
I think it reveals one tenet of the conventional wisdom: individual Americans can sometimes do bad things – after slavery and Vietnam, this would be a little awkward to deny – but as a state, the US is law-abiding.
What role should the US play in combating ISIS?
I think the US should acknowledge and apologize for past crimes against Muslims and then show the world’s billion Muslims a shining example of enlightened secular democracy and prosperity. Of course, the US should also participate in any discussions and actions taken by the United Nations Security Council in response to actions by ISIS.
What role, if any, should the US play in Syria?
Again, I think adherence to international law, particularly regarding the paramount role of the Security Council as arbiter of humanitarian military intervention, would be a good first step. Beyond that, of course I hope for the emergence of a unified, non-sectarian democratic regime without Assad.
In the mainstream press, events like the overthrow of democratic leaders in Guatemala, Iran, and Chile have been covered, yet the majority of commentators still write in a way that portrays the US as a country with a long history of fighting for freedom and human rights. How can they report on these events, yet remain unmoved in their beliefs about our country?
How can they, indeed? Actually, some don’t, but if they try to share their newfound beliefs about our country with their readers/viewers, their editors/producers ask if they’re feeling all right, or if they need to take some time off. And if they insist that, no, they’ve actually come to see the world in a radically different way, they’re eventually shown the door.
What you would like to see changed about the international Left?
I’d like to see it around a hundred times bigger. ■
STEPHEN R SHALOM
Stephen R Shalom is director of the Gandhian Forum for Peace and Justice and is on the editorial board of New Politics. He is the author of The United States and the Philippines: A study of neocolonialism, Imperial Alibis: Rationalizing US intervention after the Cold War; and Which Side Are You On?
What are your thoughts about the sharp disagreements within the American Left about what US foreign policy should have been during the Syrian civil war?
I thought that basic leftist principles call for a concern and solidarity with democratic and progressive forces anywhere in the world. People in Syria are living under a vicious dictatorship and, during the enthusiasm of the Arab Spring, Syrians came out in the street looking to democratize their society. The first point for a leftist should have been sympathy with protesters because we believe in progressive change, democracy, ending dictatorships and ending the situation for people who are depressed and suffering. Unfortunately, there was a tendency of many sectors of the Left to look at Syria and say, ‘well, because Assad is an enemy of the US government, and since we don’t like the US government, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.’ Therefore, anyone trying to overthrow the Syrian regime is involved in the terrible practice of regime change.
If you’re a leftist, regime change should be one of your most important goals, because unless a country is run by a progressive socialist democratic regime, of course you should want it replaced. That doesn’t mean I’m calling for the United States to replace the Syrian government, but for many leftists the mere fact that Assad was portrayed as anti-US was enough for people to side with him and to oppose all efforts at challenging his dictatorial rule.
What do you think US government foreign policy should have been in Syria?
The US government’s largest intervention in Syria, contrary to the popular myth that it was seeking regime change, was to make sure the rebels didn’t get the one weapon they needed in their uprising against Assad: anti-aircraft weaponry. We know the CIA was very carefully monitoring what kinds of weapons were coming in, and explicitly excluded anti-aircraft weapons. Had the United States stopped blocking those weapons from getting to the rebels, there was a chance the uprising would have won in the early days before the more secular democratic forces were overwhelmed by the jihadist groups who already had access to weapons.
Did this behavior remind you of the reaction of some leftists to the Green Revolution in Iran?
The Green Movement in 2009 was protesting a questionable election and the people who came out and protested in the street were reflecting progressive leftist values. But some on the Left said that because the regime in power was opposed to the US government they felt we should oppose the Green Movement and dismiss everything going on in Iran as a CIA plot and as an illegitimate attempt at regime change.
Given the finite amount of time we have each day, how much time do you think should be spent criticizing other leftists, and how much time should be allocated to opposing the Trump administration?
The problems in the Left are long-term because the Left isn’t in power. The Left doesn’t actually help or harm people, except at the margins right now. Trump hurts people tremendously every day, so I spend much more time opposing the Trump administration’s policies than on intra-Left concerns. I do focus on trying to rid the Left of its bad tendencies as a future contribution to producing a Left that can be worthy of our respect and commitment.
Do you find it difficult in today’s political discourse to articulate a viewpoint that doesn’t embrace mainstream American exceptionalism, Trumpian nationalism or the Manichean Left’s anti-imperial absolutism?
One of the reasons I’m happy to be working for New Politics is I think it tries and generally manages to express a view that has none of the defects of those three belief systems. You mentioned the Trump view and the Stalinist Left view, but there is also a problem with the liberal view. I’m encouraged when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can challenge the centrist democrats because I don’t think Americans should embrace any of those positions.
Do you think some leftist critics of US foreign policy in Syria and Russia have been unfairly accused of being pro-Putin or pro-Assad?
There are certainly cases of people being accused of things that aren’t warranted. But there also are leftists who deserve harsh criticism. There is a group