The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
The ‘humanitarian’ Left Still Ignores the Lessons of Iraq, Libya and Syria to Cheer on More War
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The instinct among parts of the left to cheerlead the right’s war crimes, so long as they are dressed up as liberal “humanitarianism”, is alive and kicking, as Owen Jones reveals in a column today on the plight of the Uighurs at China’s hands.

The “humanitarian war” instinct persists even after two decades of the horror shows that followed the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US and UK; the western-sponsored butchering of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi that unleashed a new regional trade in slaves and arms; and the west’s covert backing of Islamic jihadists who proceeded to tear Syria apart.

In fact, those weren’t really separate horror shows: they were instalments of one long horror show.

The vacuum left in Iraq by the west – the execution of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of his armed forces – sucked in Islamic extremists from every corner of the Middle East. The US and UK occupations of Iraq served both as fuel to rationalise new, more nihilistic Islamic doctrines that culminated in the emergence of Islamic State, and as a training ground for jihadists to develop better methods of militarised resistance.

That process accelerated in post-Gaddafi Libya, where Islamic extremists were handed an even more lawless country than post-invasion Iraq in which to recruit followers and train them, and trade arms. All of that know-how and weaponry ended up flooding into Syria where the same Islamic extremists hoped to establish the seat of their new caliphate.

Many millions of Arabs across the region were either slaughtered or forced to flee their homes, becoming permanent refugees, because of the supposedly “humanitarian” impulse unleashed by George W Bush and Tony Blair.

No lesson learnt

One might imagine that by this stage liberal humanitarianism was entirely discredited, at least on the left. But you would be wrong. There are still those who have learnt no lessons at all – like the Guardian’s Owen Jones. In his column today he picks up and runs with the latest pretext for global warmongering by the right: the Uighurs, a Muslim minority that has long been oppressed by China.

After acknowledging the bad faith arguments and general unreliability of the right, Jones sallies forth to argue – as if Iraq, Libya and Syria never happened – that the left must not avoid good causes just because bad people support them. We must not, he writes,

sacrifice oppressed Muslims on the altar of geopolitics: and indeed, it is possible to walk and to chew gum; to oppose western militarism and to stand with victims of state violence. It would be perverse to cede a defence of China’s Muslims – however disingenuous – to reactionaries and warmongers.

But this is to entirely miss the point of the anti-war and anti-imperialist politics that are the bedrock of any progressive leftwing movement.

Jones does at least note, even if very cursorily, the bad-faith reasoning of the right when it accuses the left of being all too ready to protest outside a US or Israeli embassy but not a Chinese or Russian one:

Citizens [in the west] have at least some potential leverage over their own governments: whether it be to stop participation in foreign action, or encourage them to confront human rights abusing allies.

But he then ignores this important observation about power and responsibility and repurposes it as stick to beat the left with:

But that doesn’t mean abandoning a commitment to defending the oppressed, whoever their oppressor might be. To speak out against Islamophobia in western societies but to remain silent about the Uighurs is to declare that the security of Muslims only matters in some countries. We need genuine universalists.

That is not only a facile argument, it’s a deeply dangerous one. There are two important additional reasons why the left needs to avoid cheerleading the right’s favoured warmongering causes, based on both its anti-imperialist and anti-war priorities.

Virtue-signalling

Jones misunderstands the goal of the left’s anti-imperialist politics. It is not, as the right so often claims, about leftwing “virtue-signalling”. It is the very opposite of that. It is about carefully selecting our political priorities – priorities necessarily antithetical to the dominant narratives promoted by the west’s warmongering political and media establishments. Our primary goal is to undermine imperialist causes that have led to such great violence and suffering around the world.

Jones forgets that the purpose of the anti-war left is not to back the west’s warmongering establishment for picking a ‘humanitarian’ cause for its wars. It is to discredit the establishment, expose its warmongering and stop its wars.

The best measure – practical and ethical – for the western left to use to determine which causes to expend its limited resources and energies on are those that can help others to wake up to the continuing destructive behaviours of the west’s political establishment, even when that warmongering establishment presents itself in two guises: whether the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States, or the Conservatives and the (non-Corbyn) Labour party in the UK.

We on the left cannot influence China or Russia. But we can try to influence debates in our own societies that discredit the western elite headquartered in the US – the world’s sole military superpower.

Our job is not just to weigh the scales of injustice – in any case, the thumb of the west’s power-elite is far heavier than any of its rivals. It is to highlight the bad faith nature of western foreign policy, and underscore to the wider public that the real aim of the west’s foreign policy elite is either to attack or to intimidate those who refuse to submit to its power or hand over their resources.

Do no harm

ORDER IT NOW

That is what modern imperialism looks like. We play with fire, and betray anti-imperialist politics, when we echo the bad faith arguments of a Pompeo, a Blair, an Obama, a Bush or a Trump – even if they briefly adopt a good cause for ignoble reasons. To use a medical analogy, we join them in fixating on one symptom of global injustice while refusing to diagnose the actual disease so that it can be treated.

Requiring, as Jones does, that we prioritise the Uighurs – especially when they are the momentary pet project of the west’s warmongering, anti-China right – does not advance our anti-imperialist goals, it actively harms them. Because the left offers its own credibility, its own stamp of approval, to the right’s warmongering lies.

When the left is weak – when, unlike the right, it has no corporate media to dominate the airwaves with its political concerns and priorities, when it has almost no politicians articulating its worldview – it cannot control how its support for humanitarian causes is presented to the general public. Instead it always finds itself coopted into the drumbeat for war.

That is a lesson Jones should have learnt personally – in fact, a lesson he promised he had learnt – after his cooption by the corporate Guardian to damage the political fortunes of Jeremy Corbyn, the only anti-war, anti-imperialist politician Britain has ever had who was in sight of power.

Anti-imperialist politics is not about good intentions; it’s about beneficial outcomes. To employ another medical analogy, our credo must to be to do no harm – or, if that is not possible, at least to minimise harm.

The ‘defence’ industry

Which is why the flaw in Jones’ argument runs deeper still.

The anti-war left is not just against acts of wars, though of course it is against those too. It is against the global war economy: the weapons manufacturers that fund our politicians; the arms trade lobbies that now sit in our governments; our leaders, of the right and so-called left, who divide the world into a Manichean struggle between the good guys and bad guys to justify their warmongering and weapons purchases; the arms traders that profit from violence and human suffering; the stock-piling of nuclear weapons that threaten our future as a species.

The anti-war left is against the globe’s dominant, western war economy, one that deceives us into believing it is really a “defence industry”. That “defence industry” needs villains, like China and Russia, that it must extravagantly arm itself against. And that means fixating on the crimes of China and Russia, while largely ignoring our own crimes, so that those “defence industries” can prosper.

Yes, Russia and China have armies too. But no one in the west can credibly believe Moscow or Beijing are going to disarm when the far superior military might of the west – of NATO – flexes its muscles daily in their faces, when it surrounds them with military bases that encroach ever nearer their territory, when it points its missiles menacingly in their direction.

Rhetoric of war

Jones and George Monbiot, the other token leftist at the Guardian with no understanding of how global politics works, can always be relied on to cheerlead the western establishment’s humanitarian claims – and demand that we do too. That is also doubtless the reason they are allowed their solitary slots in the liberal corporate media.

When called out, the pair argue that, even though they loudly trumpet their detestation of Saddam Hussein or Bashar Assad, that does not implicate them in the wars that are subsequently waged against Iraq or Syria.

This is obviously infantile logic, which assumes that the left can echo the misleading rhetoric of the west’s warmongering power-elite without taking any responsibility for the wars that result from that warmongering.

But Jones’ logic is even more grossly flawed than that. It pretends that the left can echo the rhetoric of the warmongers and not take responsibility for the war industries that constantly thrive and expand, whether or not actual wars are being waged at any one time.

The western foreign policy elite is concerned about the Uighurs not because it wishes to save them from Chinese persecution or even because it necessarily intends to use them as a pretext to attack China. Rather, its professed concerns serve to underpin claims that are essential to the success of its war industries: that the west is the global good guy; that China is a potential nemesis, the Joker to our Batman; and that the west therefore needs an even bigger arsenal, paid by us as taxpayers, to protect itself.

Belligerent superpower

The Uighurs’ cause is being instrumentalised by the west’s foreign policy establishment to further enhance its power and make the world even less safe for us all, the Uighurs included. Whatever Jones claims, there should be no obligation on the left to give succour to the west’s war industries.

Vilifying “official enemies” while safely ensconced inside the “defence” umbrella of a belligerent global superpower and hegemon is a crime against peace, against justice, against survival. Jones is free to flaunt his humanitarian credentials, but so are we to reject political demands dictated to us by the west’s war machine.

The anti-war left has its own struggles, its own priorities. It does not need to be gaslit by Mike Pompeo or Tony Blair – or, for that matter, by Owen Jones.

(Republished from Jonathan Cook by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Antiwar7 says:

    I agree with everything Jonathan Cook says about not buying into pro-war rhetoric for “humanitarian” reasons. It’s always a fraud, and if pursued militarily always makes things worse. Every single time.

    But I question the veracity of the Uyghur oppression stories themselves. The sources are usually not there, or lacking in real evidence, or even have a paper trail of changing stories. See, for example, some of the investigative reports here on the issue:
    https://thegrayzone.com/?s=uyghurs

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  2. Sirius says:

    It seems like there is no anti-war movement at all in most western countries, at least the Anglo-American ones. In the countdown to the Iraq war of 2003, there were mass demonstrations and protests. Now it’s quite rare, or maybe just unpublicized?

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
  3. @Sirius

    Many of those demonstrators and protesters may think that the “wars” have all but ended. Caitlin Johnstone (who should allow her work to be published here) has recently pointed out

    https://consortiumnews.com/2021/01/26/what-biden-wars-will-actually-look-like/

    how both Red and Blue voters are in denial about the changed means of waging war.

    People don’t like to see that picking their favorite color in the Exceptional! puppet show makes no practical difference, that voting for either is to condone more of the same.

    • Replies: @Sirius
  4. Sirius says:
    @Greta Handel

    True, and perhaps the 2003 Iraq was the last overt, full-scale invasion we’ll see for a while. Now it’s air strikes, missile strikes, Stuxnet, assassinations, inducing famine (Yemen), harsh sanctions and in the case of Syria, a stealth invasion and an occupation the general public either ignores or doesn’t regard as such.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  5. Biff says:

    One thing that should be made clear is that the Washington Blob doesn’t give a flying fuck about the Uighurs or any other minority group it canonizes for its own political goals. In the truest sense the Uighurs are simply a tool to dissect the mind into acquiesce to blind obedience in vilifying a political foe. If the Uighurs were more political useful dead the Blob wouldn’t hesitate to bomb the fuck out of them.

    Think of all the allies the Blob turned into enemies when it was politically expedient to do so(and the people bought it).

    When you realize it’s a ruse, you can see right through the pricks pontifical p***.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  6. Wyatt says:

    Leftists should not vote. They should not be allowed to speak. They should not be allowed to think. I would question the value in letting them exist in first world civilizations.

    Because they somehow manage to create the anti-war war party. Peak stupid.

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
  7. @Sirius

    Good points.. In Libya and Syria and Yemen mercenaries were hired by the tens of thousands. Air and cruise missile strikes were launched to help them – usually with a lame excuse as to why they were needed.

  8. @Biff

    In actuality many Uighur camps in Afghanistan were bombed by the US. Back before Pompeo took the East Turkistan Islam Movement off the terror list. I guess that was in deference to their buddies who they had at Guantanamo who they pumped for hours with US based Uighurs from the World Uighur Congress…

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-targets-chinese-uighur-militants-well-taliban-fighters-afghanistan-n845876

    Look at the amazing spin The Guardian puts on it… I don’t know whether to laugh or cry reading this

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/07/uighur-men-guantanamo

    • Thanks: Biff
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  9. Jones and George Monbiot, the other token leftist at the Guardian with no understanding of how global politics works, can always be relied on to cheerlead the western establishment’s humanitarian claims – and demand that we do too. That is also doubtless the reason they are allowed their solitary slots in the liberal corporate media.

    The nexus of Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Conservatism =

    They can be universally recognized by their mutual insistence that their own continued doctrinal hegemony is the only cure to the previous murderous bankruptcy that they carefully organized.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  10. The ‘Cruise Missile Left’ are as ‘Left’ as Tony Blair. Dreadful specimens like Owen Jones could discern from commonsense and any knowledge of the history of Western elite hate propagandising that stories of ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang are Evil Lies. A little research would confirm it, so Jones, in my opinion, must be a racist ignoramus, or a Sinophobe liar.

  11. @Trial by Wombat

    Edward S. Herman chewed Monbiot up, and spat him out, over the fraudulent ‘genocide’ in Srebrenica. When Herman was safely dead, Monbiot proceeded to libel him nastily. Monbiot’s egotism is very marked.

  12. @Antiwar7

    The lies concerning the Uighurs come almost entirely from Uighur emigres, ie terrorists on the US/Saudi payroll whose killers fighting in Syria have a deserved reputation for vicious butchery, fanatic Sinophobes like Adrian Zenz a German ‘Christian’ fundamentalist anti-socialist fanatic, and the ASPI an ‘Australian’ propaganda sewer funded by the US State Department and MIC corporations like Lockheed, Raytheon etc.All easily discerned, but not one MSM presstitute liar would ever dare produce the evidence-their careers depend entirely on 100% totalitarian Groupthink, and personal moral corruption.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  13. @showmethereal

    Reading the MI6 Daily formerly the Guardian, brings on emesis, generally.

  14. vox4non says:

    The West has not lived up to its ideals. It is all too human to think that we are beyond reproach, we have unfortunately done more grandstanding than any substantial advance in being humanitarian.

    At the same time, by making more enemies than necessary (like Russia and China) especially by the USA, we inadvertently bring them closer. Such a brilliant strategy.

  15. Altai says:

    Come on Johnathan, we all know the outcomes weren’t ‘mistakes’ but the desired outcomes. There is no such thing as a ‘humanitarian’ left-winger who just wants neocon wars to make the world better for the people there.

    The point was to destroy Iraq and Syria as cohesive political entities which could offer resistance to Israeli aggression and control in the Levant. However and whatever that came with was incidental.

  16. martin_2 says:

    Jeremy Corbyn never had a chance in the General Election of 2019. He was never “in sight of power”, but deeply unpopular with traditional Labour voters for reasons entirely unrelated to foreign policy. Only one per cent of the British population read The Guardian, if that. Nothing that Owen Jones wrote in The Guardian would have made the least difference to Corbyn’s success or failure.

  17. xxxeliss says:

    the left is powerless?

  18. ‘the humanitarian left’.. if it looks, walks, talks, and squeals like a rapist – understand you are not dealing with humanitarians.

    My most poignant destruction of the idea that ‘the left’ is anti-war (as compared to the right) is from the 2000 year Discourses on Salt and Iron. Even then it was ‘modernists’ who were for a strong state, for taxes, and for what? For Empire.

    Seems little has changed in the last two millennia!

  19. As a South Eastern Asian, I can assert that none of you know how terrible of Islamic extremists better than me. I use the word “extremists” is not to describe the people from Bangladesh but mean Uighurs from Xinjiang, China.

    The western presses have more interest to wrote (or made up) those hilarious stories in Xinjiang. By depicted Uighurs as innocent victims, the western media achieved the target that decline Chinese reputation. They wouldn’t tell western people long-term trespasses occur in China-Southeast Asia border. Those illegal exit purpose to send those “innocent” terrorists from China into Thailand, Turkey, and they appeared in Syria as ISIS fighters at last.

    Ironically, most Islamic states like entire central Asia, Pakistan, Arab states of the Persian Gulf, even Azerbaijan stand with China. Why did western Christian states believe they have the right to made moralistic critiques of China? One of my hypotheses is the states thought they were “being chosen” , God provided the authority to they do anything to “not freedom” regime(as they did to “pagans” in prior )

    I’m not intend to criticize Christian culture or Christians; except for me, almost all of my family are Christians, plenty of my culture is from Christianity. The transcript of my mother, which call” bible orthography” is created by an American missionary. The spread of Christianity brings a lot of Southeast Asia ethnic groups to the modern era. I just point out how hypocrisy of western liberals, they see god believer as fools, but they just kind of reverse believer, knee to liberal media.

    • Thanks: GomezAdddams
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?