Benn and the Euston Manifesto

alexhilton Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:19:21 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook






tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Benn and the Euston Manifesto | 72 comments (72 topical)

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#1)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:46:15 AM GMT

It's no wonder he's struggling to get the nominations if this is the calibre of his arguments. To compare the illegal occupation of Iraq and systematic theft of its oil resources to the postwar reconstuction of Germany is frankly laughable.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#2)

by JamesM on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:39:29 AM GMT

This is an excellent clip and reassures me that Hilary Benn would make a fine Foreign Secretary.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#7)

by JR on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:32:41 PM GMT

I agree James, I think Hilary should be Foreign Secretary (and I'm not being sarcastic here either).


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#3)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:41:29 AM GMT

JamesM - you have a fine line in irony


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#4)

by JamesM on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:46:00 AM GMT

I'm being entirely serious. I would have preferred John Reid at the Foreign Office but Mr Benn's remarks on this video clip are very much to my liking.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#5)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:49:48 AM GMT

In that case I take it you are about to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Get well soon.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#6)

by JamesM on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:52:55 AM GMT

That is exactly the response I was expecting and, coming from someone who thinks it sufficient to denounce Hilary Benn's views as "laughable", I am flattered beyond measure.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#8)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:59:47 PM GMT

What good is an empty formal democratic structure, an impotent and highly dependent puppet government and a police force riddled with infiltrators to the Iraqi people? the entire infrastructure of the country is shot to pieces, it's left on the brink of civil war, people are worried to leave their own houses. But don't worry - niece liberal interventionists like Hilary can slap themselves on the back.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#9)

by Glass House on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:42:05 PM GMT

There are a lot of things wrong in Iraq but your blase dismissal of the legitimacy of their first ever elected government (elected on a good turnout) is horrifying to me. Why do you dismiss their democracy as "an empty formal democratic structure"? By referring to their elected government as a "puppet government", you are showing a remarkable disrespect for the democratic choices of the Iraqi people.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#16)

by jkitleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:51:27 PM GMT

I think it is slightly the puppet of Muslim leaders, not politicians, as we saw with the mass resignation of Cabinet members a couple of weeks ago. There were also mass Sunni boycotts in the elections, so not that democratic


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#19)

by Glass House on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:17:28 PM GMT

If people choose not to participate, that does not make the election undemocratic. It is only undemocratic if people are unable to participate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#10)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:55:57 PM GMT

My criticism of the Iraqi government are anything but blase. The elections had a relatively high turnout because they were effectively functioning as sectarian headcounts. And what about the right of the Iraqi people to choose not to endure an ongoing brutal military occupation, or to keep control of their own oil and energy resources? Do you really think that was on offer in those elections? For as long the Iraqi people are subjugated and turned trapped in a wholly dysfunctional client state for Halliburton and all the rest, there will be no genuine democracy.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#14)

by Glass House on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:01:21 PM GMT

What are you talking about? Their democratically elected government can demand all of those things and choose not to do so. If the Iraqi people feel as strongly about those things as you clearly do, they can kick the current lot out at the next election and install candidates/parties that promise to do so.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#17)

by jkitleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:52:56 PM GMT

the people don't contol anything, the 'religous' leader do.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#18)

by jkitleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:53:30 PM GMT

'religous' leaders, was what i meant to say


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#20)

by Glass House on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:19:07 PM GMT

Based on what?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#11)

by Captain Spaulding on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:07:52 PM GMT

A good clip. Hilary is one of the strongest proponents of "liberal interventionism" in the government. Many activists don't appear to realise this, and mistakenly see him as a foreign policy left winger (possibly they confuse his views with Benn Senior).


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#12)

by David Boothroyd on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:15:15 PM GMT

Hilary Benn's clear and unambiguous views on foreign policy, and the confident way in which he expresses them, are what drives many people to support him, including me.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#13)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:48:56 PM GMT

Views like those expressed are why Britain is now at increased risk of terrorist attack; why the Middle East remains a quagmire consuming the lives of our armed forces; why Labour's membership is catastrophically falling; and why we are all set to lose the next election. Good going.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#15)

by Glass House on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:07:00 PM GMT

"Views like those expressed are why Britain is now at increased risk of terrorist attack"

Are you saying that foreign policy should be dictated solely by what keeps us safe in the short term?

"why the Middle East remains a quagmire consuming the lives of our armed forces"

There is one Country in the Middle East where are army are losing their lives - not the whole Middle East. Terrible as the situation in Iraq is, try and have some perspective.

"why Labour's membership is catastrophically falling"

Only partially true.

"and why we are all set to lose the next election"

If Iraq is going to lose us the next election, why did we win the 2005 election?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#21)

by oratorhunt on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:08:45 AM GMT

"Try and have some persepctive" - It's not only Iraq itself that has been completely destabilised by this adventure. Turkey fears that out of the disintegration of Iraq will emerge a Kurdish state and this is likely to renew conflicts in the North. The situation in Iran is still highly volatile and a enlarged Shia state in the South cannot be ruled out. Pakistan is seeing continuing anti-Musharraf riots, Afghanistan is pretty much run by drug-running warlords...How's that for perspective? As to the earlier post from the utopian who thought the Iraqi people could simply 'choose' to vote for radically anti-imperialst politicians who would have the power to force the US out- what can i say? Quite apart from the fact the US was 'overseeing' elligibility criteria, what gives you the idea that they would abide by democratic decisions which contravened the interest of US capital? They didn't with Allende in Chile. And they don't seem too concerned with democratic rights in 'allied' states such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. And as for the last election, can I remind you that Labour lost a significant chunk of its parliamentary representation in 2005. it only hung on due to its huge majority and the fact it was being challenged by an unregenerate reactionary Tory campaign. What would lose us the next election is not just the deteriorating situation in Iraq (which as General Sir Richard Dannatt said, is being exaccerbated by our very presence), but the failure of government to acknowledge its catastrophic mistakes and reach the obvious conclusions: that the whole enterprise has been a fiasco from start to finish, and Labour must see the unrestrained western imperialism offers no sort of global security whatsoever.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#22)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:33:11 AM GMT

"Turkey fears that out of the disintegration of Iraq will emerge a Kurdish state and this is likely to renew conflicts in the North." That is nothing new. Kurdish seperatists were active in Turkey long before the Iraq invasion. "The situation in Iran is still highly volatile" Again, nothing new. Iran has been funding terrorism, trying to destroy Israel and trying to develop nuclear weapons for years. Long before the Iraq war. "Pakistan is seeing continuing anti-Musharraf riots" AGAIN, nothing new. There was talk of Musharraf being overthrown even before 9/11. "Afghanistan is pretty much run by drug-running warlords" Simply untrue - the north is doing pretty well (I read that it was close to China's rate of economic growth). The South is another matter - but that's no different than before the invasion. "Quite apart from the fact the US was 'overseeing' elligibility criteria, what gives you the idea that they would abide by democratic decisions which contravened the interest of US capital? They didn't with Allende in Chile." If you've got any evidence that the US interfered in the elections, other than you're anti-American "they've done it before" stuff, than please present it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#23)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:34:28 AM GMT

"Turkey fears that out of the disintegration of Iraq will emerge a Kurdish state and this is likely to renew conflicts in the North."

That is nothing new. Kurdish seperatists were active in Turkey long before the Iraq invasion.

"The situation in Iran is still highly volatile"

Again, nothing new. Iran has been funding terrorism, trying to destroy Israel and trying to develop nuclear weapons for years. Long before the Iraq war.

"Pakistan is seeing continuing anti-Musharraf riots"

AGAIN, nothing new. There was talk of Musharraf being overthrown even before 9/11.

"Afghanistan is pretty much run by drug-running warlords"

Simply untrue - the north is doing pretty well (I read that it was close to China's rate of economic growth). The South is another matter - but that's no different than before the invasion.

"Quite apart from the fact the US was 'overseeing' elligibility criteria, what gives you the idea that they would abide by democratic decisions which contravened the interest of US capital? They didn't with Allende in Chile."

If you've got any evidence that the US interfered in the elections, other than you're anti-American "they've done it before" stuff, than please present it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#34)

by jkitleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:10:46 PM GMT

a spitting image sketch comes to mind. Reporter: Mr Reagan, what will America do if Mr. Kinnock is elected PM? Reagan: Well we as Americans will respond as we always do to a democratically elected government. We'll send in the CIA, round up all the socialists, and execute them inside a football stadium. America has been intervening in other countries elections for years.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#35)

by jkitleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:12:01 PM GMT

why did it come out like that?. in the sketch, Reagan didn't say America had been intervening in elections for years.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#24)

by oratorhunt on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:50:50 AM GMT

I never said that the invasion of Iraq was the sole origin of tensions in the region, But it has aggravated them very significantly, and in a way which means that the militant islamic forces (a movement which was in part funded, armed and trained by the US when it was supporting Mujahadeen forces against the Soviets in Afghanistan) are able to recruit more heavily, and puts us at significantly increased regions. As for US 'interference' - the point is not that there was intereference with how people cast their ballot. But the original foundation of the whole economic and governmental infrastructure was not something to over which the merely formal process of voting had any control over. If people wanted to express the complete rejection of this infrastructure in favour of a re-drawing the whole geo-political structure of the nation, the 'democratic' veneer would have been shoved to one-side as being overtaken by 'extremists'. Evidence? What about the democratic election of Hamas in Palestine.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#25)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:17:51 AM GMT

It's hardly a surprise that totalitarian political-religious fundamentalists, when confronted, are about to up their recruitment when attacked - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't confront them.

I imagine that the Nazi's found it easier to recruit to the army after the UK and France declared war on Germany, but that didn't make it wrong to do so.

I'm not sure what your other point is - you seem to be saying that the Iraqi people DID freely elect their own government but that, if the US hadn't liked their choice, they would have overthrown it. Is that right?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#26)

by oratorhunt on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:44:41 AM GMT

The point is, if your enemy is managing to radicalise young people by saying "Look at the infidel killing, torturing and oppressing your muslim brothers and sisters" then illegally invading and repressing muslim countries doesn't seem like a good way of convincing them otherwise! As to the Iraqi elections, people were 'free' to excercise the limited options on a ballot paper, but completely lack the freedom to fully determine the instituions and conditions under which they are governed. It's not sufficient in my view to withdraw the troops (though this should happen as a precondition for allowing something positive to come out of this whole mess). The Iraqi people also need greater ownership and control of their own economy - free from the pernicious interests of multinational profiteers - to really determine their own fate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#27)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:34:37 PM GMT

"The point is, if your enemy is managing to radicalise young people by saying "Look at the infidel killing, torturing and oppressing your muslim brothers and sisters" then illegally invading and repressing muslim countries doesn't seem like a good way of convincing them otherwise!"

The reason these youths are ripe for radicalisation in the first place is because they live under oppresive, corrupt regimes and have nothing better to do with their lives. That's why we should do everything we can to remove those regimes and establish democracy.

"As to the Iraqi elections, people were 'free' to excercise the limited options on a ballot paper, but completely lack the freedom to fully determine the instituions and conditions under which they are governed."

Why do you put 'free' with apostraphies like that? You are trying to undermine the legitimacy of the vote - I suspect because you didn't like the outcome. You should have more respect for the choices of the Iraqis you profess to support.

They were completely free to vote for whoever they likes - including candidates who wanted to, as you say, give them "greater ownership and control of their own economy".


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#36)

by jkitleft on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:20:44 PM GMT

It's because Islam doesn't have a figure of unity. I spoke to someone who consider themselves a very religous Muslim yesterday. She said that people who believe in fundamentalism, or who wear the veil, or preachers who say that it is ok for wives to be beaten, or to hate gays and Jews, do not know anything about the Koran. She is right. Because all organised religions have people on the fringes who don't know anything about their own religion, and use their own cultures and beliefs to force people to believe that the opinions and culture of Imams, Vicars/Presits/ Rabbis, are the opinions of Islam, Christianity, Judaism. This is a random post, but i'm saying it into context of so called 'Radical Islam' which is a term i don't like, because we didn't call IRA terrorists 'Catholic extremists'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#28)

by oratorhunt on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:39:15 PM GMT

"The reason these youths are ripe for radicalisation in the first place is because they live under oppresive, corrupt regimes" What? Like the 7/7 bombers born in Dewsbury! I don't dispute the fact that the voters were unconstrained in their choice of candidates on the ballot paper. But this choice was in place, only after an occupation for which they gave no assent, and in the context of an ongoing imperialist 'reconstruction' which is dependent upon the goodwill of the US. Do I take it that you believe that Hamas have a democratic mandate to represent the Palestinian people. After all, people voted for them.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#29)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:04:01 PM GMT

"I don't dispute the fact that the voters were unconstrained in their choice of candidates on the ballot paper. But this choice was in place, only after an occupation for which they gave no assent, and in the context of an ongoing imperialist 'reconstruction' which is dependent upon the goodwill of the US." Are you saying that all elections held under occupation are illegitimate? The first post-war elections in West Germany (held under allied occupation - which Germans "gave no assent") Elections of the Palestinian Authority held under Israeli occupation? Were the representatives elected under those two occupations illegitimate? And as for "Do I take it that you believe that Hamas have a democratic mandate to represent the Palestinian people. After all, people voted for them." - Yes, of course I recognise that Hamas has a democratic mandate to represent the Palestinians.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#30)

by oratorhunt on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:01:49 PM GMT

The circumstances of both Germany and Palestine are (for different reasons) completely unlike those of Iraq. Germany was a vanquished aggressor nation - Iraq had for 10 years offered no discernible threat to any outside power. Whilst of course Palestine is under Israeli occupation, the elections to the present Authority are clearly not under their jurisdiction. If America is so keen on abiding by elections why did they remove the democratically elected Mossadeq in Iran?


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#31)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:15:54 PM GMT

"Whilst of course Palestine is under Israeli occupation, the elections to the present Authority are clearly not under their jurisdiction"

And do you think that the Iraqi elections were held under American jurisdiction?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#32)

by oratorhunt on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:20:49 PM GMT

Indirectly, yes. The Iraqi Governing Council which had the jurisdiction "was established by and served under the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)". ie. puppets of puppets, responsible for the election of yet more puppets.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#33)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:08:24 PM GMT

I think your getting muddled between the election of members to the constitutional convention and the subsequent election held under that constitution.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#37)

by Glass House on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:26:26 PM GMT

You're completely wrong - elections didn't happen under the Iraqi Governing Council as you suggest.

Elections for the constitutional convention happened under the Iraqi Interim Government (which had FULL sovereignty recognised by the US and the UN). After the Constitutional Convention elections, sovereignty passed to the Iraqi Transitional government (which was made up of those elected to the constitutional election).

Then, once the ITG had written the constitution, elections were held to elect representatives to the new government (under the constitution written by Iraqis)

If you read around the subject, NO elections were held under US sovereignty or jurisdiction. And the most recent elections were held under the sovereignty of the ELECTED Iraqi constitutional convention delegates.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#38)

by oratorhunt on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:11:57 AM GMT

I didn't say the elections happened under the IGC. However that body was set up to begin the planning and orchestration of the process leading upto a situation under which elections could take place. It was spectacularly and demonstrably inept and without even a modicum of popular support, so they had to create the "Interim Government" - which also completely lacked any democratic mandate - in order to hold jurisdiction apparently 'independently' from the US occupying forces. The fact the "interim government" was recognised by the UN means nothing at all in the context of the deeply embarassed UN frantically trying to reassert any kind of influence whatsoever by dovetailing the US, which would have had its own way in any case.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#39)

by Glass House on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:11:07 PM GMT

But the Constitutional Convention elections were the FIRST EVER elections held in Iraq. OF COURSE they were arranged by unelected individuals. How else would you do it? The first elections of any democracy are, by definition, arranged by unelected people.

You seem unable to get your head around the fact that the latest elections (i.e. the Assembly elections) were held under the jurisdiction, rules, constitution and sovereignty of the ELECTED Iraqi Constitutional Convention. Therefore, on what basis do you question the legitimacy of those results?

I also note you've gone back to referring to the individuals elected by the Iraqi people as "elected puppets" in post #32 ""puppets of puppets, responsible for the election of yet more puppets. "). Why do you treat the legitimacy of the choices of the Iraqi people with such contempt? Do you regard Hamas (similarly elected under occupation) as "Israeli puppets"?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#40)

by oratorhunt on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:31:20 PM GMT

But the arrangements for the Interim government and the consitution convention (which, as you well know, was not 'elected' on the basis of the universal franchise) were not just impartial observers - they were put in place and empowered to act at the best of the occupying powers. My argument is not that representation bears no relation to the votes cast. My argument that the whole infrastructure (administration, fiscal structures, rule of - ahem -'law' etc.)upon which the elected institutions are obliged to operate are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the occupying forces. This is the very thing in dispute! The fact that the majority participated in the elections, in no way legitimises this prior attack on the right of people not to have - at any stage - a US machine gun pointed at them as they walk down their own street!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#41)

by Glass House on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:14:03 AM GMT

"My argument that the whole infrastructure (administration, fiscal structures, rule of - ahem -'law' etc.)upon which the elected institutions are obliged to operate are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the occupying forces."

How are they "indissolubly bound up with the presence of the occupying forces"? The Iraqi government can ask them to leave at any time. And the administration, fiscal structures, rule of law can be changed at any time by the Iraqi representatives.

Why are you having such a hard time with this? You're really grasping at straws here! The first UK elections were arranged by unelected officials. The first US elections were arranged by unelected officials. Does this make the current governments illegitimate?

I'll ask AGAIN...why do you accept the legitimacy of the Hamas government, similarly elected under occupation, but not the Iraqi government. Could it be because you can't bring yourself to accept that the Iraqis "chose wrong" by not electing a rabidly anti-American government?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#42)

by oratorhunt on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:47:26 AM GMT

"The Iraqi government can ask them to leave at any time. And the administration, fiscal structures, rule of law can be changed at any time by the Iraqi representatives". Oh tell us another one. My sides are aching! As if... Ans on the question of the birth of real democracy in England - I think you'll find that the universal franchise was forced out of those who had jurisdiction over the electoral process by decades of mass struggle by the working class movement. Real democracy won't come to Iraq until and unless mass secular movements prepared to resist US imperialism arise. The difference between elections to the Palestinian authority and the Iraqi government, is that in the former case elections are seen as an opportunity to elect (in Hamas) representatives who will STRUGGLE AGAINST the Israeli occupying forces. This is because the emergence of the authority has its roots in a popular uprising - the Intifada. By contrast, the Iraqi government follows in the aftermath of 'shock and awe', Abu Ghraib and all the rest of it. It's very existence speaks of an imposition of illegal foreign intervention. Of course people then wanted to press the claim for their own ethnic group to get the best deal possible in the redrawing of the map. But it in no way legitimises the very context in which that choice has to be made.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#43)

by Glass House on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:21:21 PM GMT

You seem to be saying that you will not accept the legitimacy of an Iraqi government that doesn't agree to your demands - to 'resist' American occupation. It's like a Marxist version of the Devine right of Kings.

Legitimacy comes from the ballot box. The Iraqi people participated in free elections and their choice, despite your best efforts, cannot by contextualised out of existance.

I have to say that I'm gobsmacked by your contempt for democracy!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#44)

by oratorhunt on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:57:59 AM GMT

Contempt only for the sham insitutions established to perpetuate imperialism and exploitation. All such institutions take for granted the whole symbolic space constructed according to the priorities of the occupier. The respective options do not allow the fundamental co-ordinates of the situation to be radically re-imagined. As Alain Badiou puts it "...electoral numbers are appropriate when what is at stake is merely the perpetuation of the passive calculus of interests and the maintenance of the homogeneous. But it is clearly inadequate when it is a question of acting, founding, or when in the heat of an event."


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#45)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:40:17 AM GMT

Are you proposing a form of government other than democracy should be used in Iraq to better allow the "situation to be radically re-imagined."?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#46)

by oratorhunt on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:22:51 PM GMT

I think that the term 'democracy' can cover a multitude of sins. Rober Mugabe no doubt describes his Zimbabwe as 'democratic'. I believe that any genuine democracy must be made on the basis free from financial blackmail, administrative interference, and sheer physical presence of powerful imperialist interests.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#47)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:26:14 PM GMT

Are you going to answer the question?

Are you proposing a form of government other than democracy should be used in Iraq to better allow the "situation to be radically re-imagined."?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#48)

by oratorhunt on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:41:35 PM GMT

I would, of course, like to see the Iraqi people enjoy genuinely democratic self-government - what that has to do with elections to the present sham which is tolerated only to the extent that it is useful to the occupying powers, is frankly anyone's guess.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#49)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 04:43:45 PM GMT

Wow. You really are a totalitarian aren't you? Elections are sham unless they give a result you agree with.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#50)

by oratorhunt on Sun May 20, 2007 at 05:53:51 PM GMT

Do you - for one second - believe that the Iraqi people actually WANT their future to be inexorably determined by the exploitative foreign powers who chose to illegally invade. And that is democracy in action? Why if your beloved US is so committed to democracy, does it not care that its allies in both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan don't bother with it?


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#51)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:16:20 PM GMT

How exactly are Iraqi people's futures being "inexorably determined by the exploitative foreign powers who chose to illegally invade."?

It seems to me that Iraqi people's futures are currently being decided by the Iraqi people's elected representatives. You seem to disagree with their choice, but that doesnt make their choice wrong.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#52)

by oratorhunt on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:23:42 PM GMT

Don't be so asburdly naive. When the US realised it couldn't get it's way on a 2nd resolution at the UN, it ignored that 'democratic' body and did what the hell it liked anyway. It has constructed an apparent 'majority' for its own purposes and - should things take a different turn - would happily override the current 'democratic' mandate. What about the mass dead of the fallujah slaughter? How many votes do the dead have?


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#53)

by Glass House on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:46:22 PM GMT

You think that, if the elected Iraqi Parliament told the US to withdraw from Iraq, the US wouldn't?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#54)

by oratorhunt on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:55:55 AM GMT

1) That's a completely hypothetical situation. They presently get all their resources, including money for their own pay, from the US and the multinational interests that follow in its wake. The status of the government is bound up with telling the propaganda lies of the US. 2) IF - in the extremely unlikely eventuality that the Iraqi government consistently turned against its puppet master - the US would simply bypass the elected forum, declare a 'deterioration' in the security situation - the government had been infiltrated by anti-democratic elements, terrorist, fanatics etc. - and they would swiftly move to set up another body they could rely on.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#55)

by Glass House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:07:39 AM GMT

Utterly pathetic.

Why do you accept the legitimacy of free elections that result in a Hamas or (just a guess) Chavez government, but not if, as in Iraq, they result in a government that doesn't share your view of the US>

Your patronising attitude towards the electorates of developing world countries is utterly racist.

You are clearly no democrat.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#56)

by oratorhunt on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:14:48 AM GMT

Ha - you really are a joke. Let's get this right - the outcome of 'democraic' elections held under conditions of US military occupation will be sacrosanct, even though - as you raise yourself - the very same power has ALREADY proved more than happy to attempt an anti- democratic military coup when the outcome is not one they desired (eg. in Venezuela)?!?! Frankly, if you spent even two minutes in Iraq, instead of safely pontificating about it, you'd realise that any talk of democracy whilst military occupation continues is risible in the extreme.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#57)

by Glass House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:49:56 AM GMT

I accept the legitimacy of the Hamas government, the Chavez government and the Iraqi government - they were all democratically elected. I don't try and weasle my way out of a principled stance like you are trying to do.

The ONLY arguements you have put forward as to why the legitimacy of the Iraq government is in questions are:

1. That Iraq is under occupation - and yet you accept the legitimacy of a Hamas government elected under occupation

2. That the Iraq people are somehow under the influence of structures set up by other Iraqis who you consider to be American puppets - which shows a remarkably patronising attitude towards the Iraqi people. I like to assume that Iraqis are intelligent enough to make their own choices - you clearly dont.

Your completely off topic rant about American foreign policy in other areas of the globe shows you position for what it is: A rather ill-informed and ignorant view that elections are illegitimate if they don't produce an anti-American government. Not everyone in the world is such a totalitarian as you.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#58)

by oratorhunt on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:10:37 PM GMT

A nice line in discussion you've got their - people who don't agree with you are ignorant racist totalitarians. I have every respect for, and faith in, the Iraqi people. Unlike the US, for example, who don't seem to see a problem with obliterating whole cities liek Fallujah and indiscrimately slaughtering civilians including women and children. As I've repeatedly explained, the Palestinian Authority was forced out of the occupiers by an uprising of popular resistance. The Iraqi government is a mere extension of the US occupation. Therefore, one election has a measure of popular sovereignty, whilst the other is the result of coercion and the desperate will to restore any kind of stability - however humiliating and impoverished a society it might produce. Unlike you, and your belief that Iraqi people should exist in a state of permanent child-like subordination to imperialism, i believe they have just as much right as us to determine their future without foreign military powers overseeing them.


Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#59)

by Glass House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:02:45 PM GMT

Ok - so your saying that how democracy comes about is what determines the legitimacy of a government, not democracy itself?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#60)

by oratorhunt on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:45:52 PM GMT

You aren't a democrat. You're an electoral fetishist. There is a difference.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#61)

by Glass House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:55:25 PM GMT

And what is that difference?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#62)

by oratorhunt on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:07:16 PM GMT

An electoral fetishist always assumes that an arithmetical majoirty (what Badiou calls "passive numbers") is an expression of political legitimacy regardless of the broader institutional context: ie. whether the contest is an expression of popular sovereignty or an attempt to camaflouge the erosion of popular sovereignty. A genuine democrat does not make the mistake of believing that the mere fact that an election is held is automatically sufficient to guarantee the presence of legitimate democratic governance.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#63)

by Glass House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:55:27 PM GMT

If the numbers aren't the ultimate arbitrator of governmental legitimacy, what is?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#64)

by oratorhunt on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:53:53 PM GMT

whether the election represents a true reflection of popular sovereignty - in a functioning democratic society electoral outcomes (numbers) are of course the principal indication. But in circumstances in which the legitimacy of the institution itself is called into question, the simple aggregation of votes cannot simply be taken as conferring that legitimacy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#65)

by Glass House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:09:36 PM GMT

"whether the election represents a true reflection of popular sovereignty"

Can you explain what this means?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#66)

by oratorhunt on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:11:00 PM GMT

Gladly - is the election something which allows the people the power a fair and equal say in determining the form by which they govern themselves? Or is the election in question the mode by which their lack of real power is excused and concealed? Democracy should be about the former, not the latter.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#67)

by Glass House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:50:21 PM GMT

I simply don't believe that the latter exists. If the majority want something, they vote for it and it happens. Why would it NOT happen?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#68)

by oratorhunt on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:09:14 PM GMT

right.....What a wonderful world you live in - are the houses made of gingerbread? Presumably, the majority of AIDS victims in Africa don't want affordable drugs - otherwise they'd simply vote for it and it would happen?!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#69)

by Glass House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:16:57 PM GMT

Let's not split hairs...Let me rephrase:

If the majority want something, THAT IT IS WITHIN THEIR GOVERNMENTS POWER TO GIVE/DO, they vote for it and it happens. Why would it NOT happen?"


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#70)

by oratorhunt on Tue May 22, 2007 at 09:37:28 AM GMT

OK - an examplt close to home - every major opinion poll on the subject shows that the majority of British people would support the renationalisation of the railways. Why doesn't it happen?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#71)

by Glass House on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:11:28 AM GMT

How does that affect the legitimacy of a government?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benn and the Euston Manifesto (#72)

by oratorhunt on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:54:39 AM GMT

As a single issue it doesn't. But it does show that even in a functioning liberal democracy powerful vested interests can withstand (for a time at least) the will of the majority. But where the totality of a government's powers are already circumscribed in such a way that the institution has no legitmacy in the first place, it is simply not possible to overhaul the entire character fo governance by voting.


[ Parent ]

Benn and the Euston Manifesto | 72 comments (72 topical)