Getting on with what has to be done

by Scoop Shachtman, 29 April 2008

“The challenges of national reconciliation, reconstruction and development after decades of dictatorship and war are massive. I was impressed, however, by the seriousness and commitment of the Government of Iraq to address these challenges with a view to ending the suffering and achieving a tangible improvement in the lives of the Iraqi people. This is a long-term endeavour that requires the sustained support of the international community.”

Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe

Whereas John Quiggin is recycling Mahathir Mohamad’s ranting about war crimes. Mahathir Mohamad is a man who opposed the universal declaration of human rights as an oppressive Western project.

Comments

  1. hakmao

    Tuesday 29 April 2008 at 7:03

    human rights as an oppressive Western project–because it makes killing Jews seem wrong.

    MM is an anti-Chinese racist, who for more than 20 years was PM of an apartheid state, the constitution of which codifies the pre-eminence of ‘native’ Malays. He also framed a political rival with accusations of non-existent ’sodomy’. But his rants about Jews, of whom the numbers are vanishingly small in South East Asia, are classic:

    But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.

    They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power.

  2. Bob-B

    Tuesday 29 April 2008 at 10:48

    I suspect that those on the left who opposed the removal of Saddam recognize deep down that it was a little odd for left wingers to be arguing for the continuation of a fascist dictatorship. The result is that they feel the need to say over and over again that it was a very very bad thing. This leaves them with no time to consider what ought to happen in Iraq now to maximize its chances of becoming a reasonably liberal, reasonably democratic state. Al they can think about is how very very wrong the removal of Saddam was.

  3. hakmao

    Tuesday 29 April 2008 at 11:06

    In fact the almost complete absence of Jews from South East Asia is further proof that they are not needed for antisemitism to flourish. When I challenged the antisemitic bile spewing from a Singaporean Christian in 1990s–on the basis of what experience were her remarks made? She admitted she had never knowingly met or even seen a Jew, but if people want to kill Jews so much, there must be a good reason.

  4. dave

    Tuesday 29 April 2008 at 11:09

    Among certain elements of the embittered bourgeoisie—as well as those functioning as their traditional intellectuals in the universities and NGOs—”war criminal” is now pretty much interchangeable with the idea of “someone who disagrees with me”, and “illegal war” means not much more than “I disagreed with the war”.

    I started reading the introduction to “The Case of Comrade Tulayev” the other day (I’ve read the novel before, but I usually skip book introductions), and I was reminded of how most of the Stalinist left and their fellow travellers were unable/unwilling to distinguish Serge’s position—it being slightly more nuanced than their own—from that of the social democrats, and so they lazily labelled him a “warmonger” for his exposure of Soviet totalitarianism—then as now!
    “History repeats the old conceits/ the glib replies, the same defeats.”

  5. Scoop Shachtman

    Tuesday 29 April 2008 at 16:49

    ”war criminal” is now pretty much interchangeable with the idea of “someone who disagrees with me”, and “illegal war” means not much more than “I disagreed with the war”.?

    Spot on.

    Hence their failure to call for Clinton to be called for account for his “illegal” war against Serbia.