[Debate] George Monbiot – See No Evil

peter waterman peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com
Tue May 22 17:20:07 BST 2012 

Yoshie:

I have no idea how you manage to turn my thoughts upside down. I would have
thought that you had no problem with Gadafi-style 'revolutionary justice'
as long as he was in power and producing (decreasing amounts of)
anti-imperialist rhetoric.

You only got excited about justice in Libya when Gadafi was overthrown.

I do not dismiss your present attitudes toward and information about the
post-Gadafi regime. I am deeply troubled by these.

What do you propose we should do about both such matters? I mean, how do
you propose the Left should take a consistent approach towards the crimes
of both types of regime?

PeterW

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi <
critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:

> You mean you prefer "revolutionary justice," Libyan-rebel style, to
> the ongoing imperialist show trial that makes you go through tedious
> motions?
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM, peter waterman
> <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nope, Yoshie, I don't think the Manichean Left learned that.
> >
> > I recall Raji Palme Dutt (eminence grise of the CPGB at that time)
> calling
> > Stalin's crimes 'spots on the sun'. But others still appeal to Lenin or
> > Trotsky against Stalin, or to the early period of Soviet power against
> the
> > later years. Even Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb, in the 1930s, wrote a
> > massive book, 'Soviet Union: A New Civilisation?', later removing the ?.
> >
> > Personally, I would have thought the evidence of the crimes of Ratko
> Mladic
> > to have been overwhelmingly demonstrated by his own words and
> appearences,
> > by independent journalists and other media even before Srebernica.
> However,
> > I will be interested to follow the trial.
> >
> > You give the strong impression of 1) not believing in his guilt and 2)
> not
> > inclined to anyway accept a guilty finding by a bourgeois or imperialist
> > court that tries massacres of figures from the East or the South, whilst
> not
> > even considering those from the West.
> >
> > Unfortunately, for those I have called the Manichean Left, contradictions
> > exist within each of these entities. Thus, it was President Carter who
> made
> > 'human rights' a major part of inter-state discourse, policy and action -
> > with admitedly contradictory implications - not the Left (unless one is
> to
> > include Amnesty International as part of this).
> >
> > As a Leftist of the Manichean Communist tradition, I thus once defended
> > Soviet nuclear weapons as 'the people's bomb', rather than seeing that
> the
> > Soviet Union was reproducing rather than surpassing the nuclear war
> strategy
> > of the US (which started the nuclear arms race by the mass murder of
> > Japanese (therefore non-white) civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> >
> > E. P. Thompson was a British Communist labour historian who quit the CPGB
> > after Khruschev's 'Secret Speech' and the Soviet crushing of the
> Hungarian
> > uprising, 1956-7. He then became a major figure in the peace and
> > human-rights movements. Although I did not leave the CP until the
> following
> > crisis (Soviet invasion of Communist Czechoslovakia, 1968), I would
> consider
> > him as a significant representative of what I am proposing to call the
> > 'Emancipatory Left'.
> >
> > I am not sure whether you would agree.
> >
> > PeterW
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi
> > <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe the traditional Left learned a lesson from the evil of
> >> Stalinism: don't accept what the prosecution says just because the
> >> prosecution is more powerful than the defendant and his or her
> >> lawyers, especially when the judiciary and media not independent of
> >> the executive power and when the verdict of "Guilty" is politically
> >> predetermined.
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:22 AM, peter waterman
> >> <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > As a sometime critic of Monbiot, I am with him on this one.
> >> >
> >> > The traditional Left has always preferred genocides (or mass murders)
> to
> >> > be
> >> > committed by the traditional Right.
> >> >
> >> > I remained shocked but silent and inactive on the Srebenica massacre,
> as
> >> > on
> >> > the decades-long repression, imprisonment and tortures carried out by
> >> > Gadafi. I could go on...
> >> >
> >> > Particularly in the USA the Left (or parts of it) is so obsessed with
> >> > its
> >> > own Evil Empire that it cannot recognise, or concern itself with,
> evils
> >> > that
> >> > may not be imperial. I have been twice deeply shocked by the approval
> or
> >> > sympathy or understanding demonstrated by two sophisticated and
> >> > well-published US Leftists for Sendero Luminoso (the Shining Path
> Maoist
> >> > guerilla movement in Peru). One of them continued his fascination with
> >> > them
> >> > even after I told him of their assasination of Maria-Elena Moyano -
> >> > elected
> >> > leader of the women's movement and Deputy Mayor of Villa El Salvador
> >> > (then
> >> > the Soweto of Lima). The other's criticism was limited to saying that
> >> > they
> >> > had done the guerilla strategy in Latin America a bad turn - in other
> >> > words
> >> > that they had been a little too violent or radical.
> >> >
> >> > I am therefore disappointed but hardly shocked to hear that Michael
> >> > Albert
> >> > refused to publish something which took major issue with Herman and
> >> > Peterson
> >> > book. (So all credit to the Australian Green Left for putting this
> >> > matter up
> >> > for debate).
> >> >
> >> > The issue, however, is not one for the US Left or the Australian Left,
> >> > it is
> >> > for the Left. Or at least with the Manichean Left - that part which
> sees
> >> > the
> >> > world in terms of binary oppositions, marked as either Virtuous or
> >> > Vicious.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed, I have long wondered whether we do not need to say Farewell to
> >> > the
> >> > Left, covered with the blood and mud of two centuries (and I here
> >> > include
> >> > imperialist/militarist Social-Democrats alongside the
> >> > Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Etc-ists). Or at least to qualify Left in the light
> of
> >> > this
> >> > history. I would suggest 'Emancipatory' as this qualifier today, which
> >> > would
> >> > include those in the past who, like Monbiot now, are prepared to be
> >> > attacked
> >> > as supporting the line of Washington. In earlier times they were
> called
> >> > 'Rootless Cosmopolitans' (Stalin) or 'Running Dogs of US Imperialism'
> >> > (Mao).
> >> >
> >> > I do not unconditionally agree with Monbiot that the trials in The
> Hague
> >> > make the world a better place. This because, so far, they have all
> been
> >> > of
> >> > 'lesser breeds without the law' (Bosnia and Serbia being considered as
> >> > only
> >> > on the ex-Communist periphery of Western Civilisation). But like
> >> > Monbiot, I
> >> > want to see Bush and Blair on trial for mass murders far more
> extensive
> >> > than
> >> > those carried out by Radic. Those trials would certainly make the
> world
> >> > a
> >> > better and safer place.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:02 PM, glparramatta
> >> > <glparramatta at greenleft.org.au> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/see-no-evil/
> >> >>
> >> >> The African left has loudly reject this denialist nonsense from
> Edward
> >> >> Herman and David Peterson
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>  See No Evil
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>    May 21, 2012
> >> >>
> >> >> How did genocide denial become a doctrine of the internationalist
> left?
> >> >>
> >> >> By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 22nd May 2012.
> >> >>
> >> >> The term genocide conjures up attempts to kill an entire people: the
> >> >> German slaughter of the Jews or the Herero, the Turkish slaughter of
> >> >> the
> >> >> Armenians, the near-extermination of the Native Americans. But the
> >> >> identity of the crime does not depend on its scale or success:
> genocide
> >> >> means “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
> >> >> national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”(1)
> >> >>
> >> >> Though, in 1995, the women and children of Srebrenica were first
> >> >> removed
> >> >> from the killing grounds by Bosnian Serb troops, though the 8,000 men
> >> >> and boys they killed were a small proportion of the Bosnian Muslim
> >> >> population, it meets the definition. So the trial of Ratko Mladic,
> the
> >> >> troops’ commander, which began last week, matters. Whatever one
> thinks
> >> >> of the even-handedness of international law, and though it remains
> true
> >> >> that men who commissioned or caused the killing of greater numbers of
> >> >> people (George Bush and Tony Blair for example(2)) have not been
> >> >> brought
> >> >> to justice and are unlikely to be, every prosecution of this kind
> makes
> >> >> the world a better place.
> >> >>
> >> >> So attempts to downplay or dismiss this crime matter too, especially
> >> >> when they emerge from the unlikely setting of the internationalist
> >> >> left.
> >> >> I’m using this column to pursue a battle which might be hopeless and
> >> >> which many of you might regard as obscure. Perhaps I have become
> >> >> obsessed, but it seems to me to be necessary. Tacitly on trial beside
> >> >> Mladic in the Hague is a set of ideas: in my view the left’s most
> >> >> disturbing case of denial and doublethink since the widespread
> refusal
> >> >> to accept that Stalin had engineered a famine in the Ukraine.
> >> >>
> >> >> I first raised this issue a year ago, whenI sharply criticised a book
> >> >> <http://www.monbiot.com/2011/06/13/naming-the-genocide-deniers/> by
> two
> >> >> luminaries of the left, Edward Herman and David Peterson. The
> Politics
> >> >> of Genocide seeks to downplay or dismiss both the massacre of
> Bosniaks
> >> >> at Srebrenica in 1995 and the genocide of Tutsis committed by Hutu
> >> >> militias in Rwanda in 1994(3). Their claims are extraordinary: that
> the
> >> >> cause of death of the “vast majority” of the Bosniaks at Srebrenica
> >> >> remains “undetermined”(4); that rather than 800,000 or more Tutsis
> >> >> being
> >> >> killed by Hutu militias in Rwanda, “the great majority of deaths were
> >> >> Hutu, with some estimates as high as two million”(5), while members
> of
> >> >> the Hutus’ Interahamwe militia were the “actual victims” of
> >> >> genocide(6).
> >> >>
> >> >> What has changed since then is that the movement to which I thought I
> >> >> belonged has closed ranks: against attempts to challenge this
> >> >> revisionism, against the facts, in effect against the victims of
> these
> >> >> genocides. My attempts to pursue this question number among the most
> >> >> dispiriting experiences of my working life.
> >> >>
> >> >> After I covered the issue last year, Herman and Peterson wrote a long
> >> >> denunciation on the Znet site(7). I believe in testing every
> >> >> proposition, so I set out to discover whether, as they insisted, I
> was
> >> >> wrong. I consulted four of the world’s leading genocide scholars:
> >> >> Martin
> >> >> Shaw, Adam Jones, Linda Melvern and Marko Attila Hoare. I asked them
> >> >> each to write a brief response to the claims the two men made on
> Znet.
> >> >> Their statements, which I have also posted on my website, are
> >> >> devastating(8,9,10,11). They accuse Herman and Peterson of
> obsfucating,
> >> >> distorting and misrepresenting the evidence, and of engaging in
> >> >> genocide
> >> >> denial.
> >> >>
> >> >> For Edward Herman and David Peterson to be right, the entire canon of
> >> >> serious scholarship, human rights investigations, exhumations and
> >> >> witness statements would have to be wrong. Extraordinary claims
> require
> >> >> extraordinary evidence. But they offer little but the recycled claims
> >> >> of
> >> >> genocidaires and genocide deniers, mashed up with their own
> >> >> misrepresentations.
> >> >>
> >> >> But this discovery did not disturb me as much as the responses of
> their
> >> >> supporters. I wrote to Michael Albert, the publisher of Znet, asking
> >> >> whether he might publish Martin Shaw’s review of Herman and
> Peterson’s
> >> >> book (originally published in the the Journal of Genocide
> Research(12))
> >> >> as a counterweight to their article. He flatly refused, then went on
> to
> >> >> accuse me of a long list of heinous beliefs.
> >> >>
> >> >> I wrote to Noam Chomsky, a hero of mine, who provided the forward to
> >> >> Herman and Peterson’s book, asking whether he had read it and whether
> >> >> he
> >> >> accepted the accounts it contains of the Rwandan genocide and the
> >> >> massacre of Srebrenica. Watching that brilliant mind engage in
> >> >> high-handed dismissal and distraction has been profoundly depressing.
> >> >> While failing to answer my questions, he accused me of following the
> >> >> Washington script (I have posted our correspondence on my
> website(13)).
> >> >>
> >> >> John Pilger, who wrote a glowing endorsement of the book, volunteered
> >> >> this response: “Chef Monbiot is a curiously sad figure. All those
> years
> >> >> of noble green crusading now dashed by his Damascene conversion to
> >> >> nuclear power’s poisonous devastations and his demonstrable need for
> >> >> establishment recognition – a recognition which, ironically, he
> already
> >> >> enjoyed.”(14) The leftwing magazine Counterpunch cited my article as
> >> >> evidence that I am a member of the “thought police”, and that the
> role
> >> >> of the Guardian is “to limit the imaginative horizons of
> readers.”(15)
> >> >>
> >> >> Thus has this infectious idiocy spread though the political community
> >> >> to
> >> >> which I belong. The people I criticise here rightly contend that
> >> >> western
> >> >> governments and much of the western media ignore or excuse atrocities
> >> >> committed by the US and its allies, while magnifying those committed
> by
> >> >> forces deemed hostile. But they then appear to create a mirror image
> of
> >> >> this one-sided narrative, minimising the horrors committed by forces
> >> >> considered hostile to the US and its allies.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps this looks to you like the kind of esoteric infighting to
> which
> >> >> the left too often succumbs, but this seems to me to be important: as
> >> >> important as any other human rights issue. If people who claim to
> care
> >> >> about justice and humanity cannot resist what looks to me like
> blatant
> >> >> genocide denial, we find ourselves in a very dark place.
> >> >>
> >> >> Those of us who seek to judge a case on its merits, rather than
> >> >> according to the identity of the victims and perpetrators, have a
> duty
> >> >> to defend the memory of people being airbrushed by Herman, Peterson
> and
> >> >> their supporters. This does not make us apologists for western power,
> >> >> or
> >> >> establishment flunkies or thought police. It means only that we care
> >> >> about the facts.
> >> >>
> >> >> www.monbiot.com
> >> >>
> >> >> References:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. United Nations, 1948. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
> of
> >> >> the Crime of Genocide
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. http://www.arrestblair.org/
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. Edward S Herman and David Peterson, 2010. The Politics of
> Genocide.
> >> >> Monthly Review Press. New York.
> >> >>
> >> >> 4.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://www.zcommunications.org/george-monbiot-and-the-guardian-on-genocide-denial-and-revisionism-by-edward-s-herman
> >> >>
> >> >> 5. The Politics of Genocide, page 54.
> >> >>
> >> >> 6. The Politics of Genocide, page 58.
> >> >>
> >> >> 7. Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, 4th September 2011. George
> >> >> Monbiot and the Guardian on “Genocide Denial” and “Revisionism”.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://www.zcommunications.org/george-monbiot-and-the-guardian-on-genocide-denial-and-revisionism-by-edward-s-herman
> >> >>
> >> >> 8.
> >> >>
> http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/genocide-denial-expert-assessments/
> >> >>
> >> >> See also the following reviews of Herman and Peterson’s book:
> >> >>
> >> >> 9. Martin Shaw, September 2011. Review of The Politics of Genocide.
> >> >> Journal of Genocide Research, Vol.13, no.3, pp353–387.
> >> >>
> >> >> 10. Gerald Caplan, 17th June 2010. The politics of denialism: The
> >> >> strange case of Rwanda: Review of ‘The Politics of Genocide’.
> Pambazuka
> >> >> Issue 486. http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/65265
> >> >>
> >> >> 11. Adam Jones, 16th November 2010. Denying Rwanda: : A Response to
> >> >> Herman & Peterson.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://jonestream.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/denying-rwanda-response-to-herman.html
> >> >>
> >> >> 12. Martin Shaw, September 2011. Review of The Politics of Genocide.
> >> >> Journal of Genocide Research, Vol.13, no.3, pp353–387.
> >> >>
> >> >> 13. http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/
> >> >>
> >> >> 14. John Pilger, quoted by David Edwards, 5th August 2011. A ‘Malign
> >> >> Intellectual Subculture’ – George Monbiot Smears Chomsky, Herman,
> >> >> Peterson, Pilger And Media Lens.
> >> >>
> http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=637
> >> >> Also at:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://www.zcommunications.org/a-malign-intellectual-subculture-george-monbiot-smears-chomsky-herman-peterson-pilger-and-media-lens-by-dave-edwards
> >> >>
> >> >> 15. Jonathan Cook, 28th September 2011. A Thought Police for the
> >> >> Internet Age: the Dangerous Cult of the Guardian.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/28/the-dangerous-cult-of-the-guardian/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Debate-list mailing list
> >> >> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >> >> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 1. Contribute to Journal Special on 'New Worker Movements'!
> >> > 2. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman
> >> > 3. EBook 2011, 'Under, Against, Beyond - Essays 1980s-
> >> >    1990s shttp://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/
> >> > 4. WorkingPaper 2012: 'Emancipatory Labour Studies':
> >> > 5. Draft EBook 2012: 'Recovering Internationalism - Essays 2000-10'
> >> > (draft):
> >> >      http://www.scribd.com/doc/82125289/ReCovIntComp-A-2
> >> >      http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129474/ReCovtIntComp-B-2
> >> > 6. Essay 2012: 'The 2nd Coming of the World Federation of Trade
> >> > Unions':
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Debate-list mailing list
> >> > Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >> > http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Yoshie Furuhashi
> >> <http://mrzine.org/>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Debate-list mailing list
> >> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> >> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 1. Contribute to Journal Special on 'New Worker Movements'!
> > 2. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman
> > 3. EBook 2011, 'Under, Against, Beyond - Essays 1980s-
> >    1990s shttp://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/
> > 4. WorkingPaper 2012: 'Emancipatory Labour Studies':
> > 5. Draft EBook 2012: 'Recovering Internationalism - Essays 2000-10'
> (draft):
> >      http://www.scribd.com/doc/82125289/ReCovIntComp-A-2
> >      http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129474/ReCovtIntComp-B-2
> > 6. Essay 2012: 'The 2nd Coming of the World Federation of Trade
> Unions':
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Debate-list mailing list
> > Debate-list at fahamu.org
> > http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Yoshie Furuhashi
> <http://mrzine.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>



-- 
*1.* Contribute to Journal Special on 'New Worker
Movements<http://www.interfacejournal.net/2011/06/call-for-papers-volume-4-issue-2-for-the-global-emancipation-of-labour-new-movements-and-struggles-around-work-workers-and-precarity/>
'!
*2. Blog:* http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman
*3. EBook 2011, 'Under, Against, Beyond - Essays 1980s-
   1990s* s <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>
http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/
*4.* WorkingPaper *2012*: 'Emancipatory Labour
Studies'<http://www.iisg.nl/publications/respap49.pdf>
:
*5.* Draft EBook 2012: 'Recovering Internationalism - Essays 2000-10'
(draft):
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82125289/ReCovIntComp-A-2
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129474/ReCovtIntComp-B-2
*6. *Essay 2012: 'The 2nd Coming of the World Federation of Trade
Unions': <http://www.unionbook.org/profiles/blogs/peter-waterman-the-second-coming-of-the-wftu-updated>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120522/0ba14939/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the Debate-list mailing list