The Euston Manifesto

Evidence that not all of the left are just knee-jerk, emotionalist,
illogical, authoritarian, anti everything that is successful and/or
powerful for the sake of it merchants. Here follows the full text of
The Euston Manifesto.

Website,
http://eustonmanifesto.org

Launch speeches,
http://www.littleatoms.com/sounds/eustonmanifestolaunch.mp3

----

Wednesday, 29 March 2006

A. Preamble

We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political
alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we
set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist
Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic
commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we
aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that
remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately
shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves
making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.

The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency
through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our
perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented
elsewhere - in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary
political life.

The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of
intent. It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource
for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several
foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a
progressive realignment.

B. Statement of principles

1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures -
freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of
legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state
and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of
good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist
democracies have taken hold.

2) No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand",
reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy
- regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to
do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal
voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such
political forces.

3) Human rights for all.
We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal
Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and
political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are
equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless
of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much
self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser
(though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to
home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments,
more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We
reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these
basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

4) Equality.
We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress
in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is
achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of
various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of
diverse sexual orientations - as well as towards broader social and
economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there
are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best
economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests
of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of
those interests. Democratic trade unions are the bedrock organizations
for the defence of workers' interests and are one of the most important
forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian
internationalism. Labour rights are human rights. The universal
adoption of the International Labour Organization Conventions - now
routinely ignored by governments across the globe - is a priority for
us. We are committed to the defence of the rights of children, and to
protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of
institutionalized abuse.

5) Development for freedom.
We stand for global economic development-as-freedom and against
structural economic oppression and environmental degradation. The
current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed
to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the
developed world and their associates in developing countries. The
benefits of large-scale development through the expansion of global
trade ought to be distributed as widely as possible in order to serve
the social and economic interests of workers, farmers and consumers in
all countries. Globalization must mean global social integration and a
commitment to social justice. We support radical reform of the major
institutions of global economic governance (World Trade Organization,
International Monetary Fund, World Bank) to achieve these goals, and we
support fair trade, more aid, debt cancellation and the campaign to
Make Poverty History. Development can bring growth in life-expectancy
and in the enjoyment of life, easing burdensome labour and shortening
the working day. It can bring freedom to youth, possibilities of
exploration to those of middle years, and security to old age. It
enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel, and helps make
strangers into friends. Global development must be pursued in a manner
consistent with environmentally sustainable growth.

6) Opposing anti-Americanism.
We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so
much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case
of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and
failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed
world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It
is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and
lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples
have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book
and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed
progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and
authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against
either the country or its people.

7) For a two-state solution.
We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples
to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution.
There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and
interests of one of the sides to the dispute.

8) Against racism.
For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every
form of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of
the far Right; tribal and inter-ethnic racism; racism against people
from Muslim countries and those descended from them, particularly under
cover of the War on Terror. The recent resurgence of another, very old
form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left
and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the
Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice
against the Jewish people behind the formula of "anti-Zionism". We
oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.

9) United against terror.
We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of
civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes
of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done
in a cause that is just. Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is
widespread today. It threatens democratic values and the lives and
freedoms of people in many countries. This does not justify prejudice
against Muslims, who are its main victims, and amongst whom are to be
found some of its most courageous opponents. But, like all terrorism,
it is a menace that has to be fought, and not excused.

10) A new internationalism.
We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of
international law - in the interests of global democratization and
global development. Humanitarian intervention, when necessary, is not a
matter of disregarding sovereignty, but of lodging this properly within
the "common life" of all peoples. If in some minimal sense a state
protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder
and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of
life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself
violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty
is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of
intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been
crossed, there is a "responsibility to protect".

11) A critical openness.
Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over
the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in
the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the
excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately
set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we
reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject,
similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and
individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or
excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and
forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and
conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening
democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.

12) Historical truth.
In connecting to the original humanistic impulses of the movement for
human progress, we emphasize the duty which genuine democrats must have
to respect for the historical truth. Not only fascists,
Holocaust-deniers and the like have tried to obscure the historical
record. One of the tragedies of the Left is that its own reputation was
massively compromised in this regard by the international Communist
movement, and some have still not learned that lesson. Political
honesty and straightforwardness are a primary obligation for us.

13) Freedom of ideas.
We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than
ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints
against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at
liberty to criticize ideas - even whole bodies of ideas - to which
others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion:
particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does
not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged
to be wanting.

14) Open source.
As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of
encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open
development of software and other creative works and oppose the
patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the
retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial
interests of corporate copyright holders. The open source model is
collective and competitive, collaborative and meritocratic. It is not a
theoretical ideal, but a tested reality that has created common goods
whose power and robustness have been proved over decades. Indeed, the
best collegiate ideals of the scientific research community that gave
rise to open source collaboration have served human progress for
centuries.

15) A precious heritage.
We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the
subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the
great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth
century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of
happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us
all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial
transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - by the
pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood
and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left
behind. We are partisans of these values. But we are not zealots. For
we embrace also the values of free enquiry, open dialogue and creative
doubt, of care in judgement and a sense of the intractabilities of the
world. We stand against all claims to a total - unquestionable or
unquestioning - truth.

C. Elaborations

We defend liberal and pluralist democracies against all who make light
of the differences between them and totalitarian and other tyrannical
regimes. But these democracies have their own deficits and
shortcomings. The battle for the development of more democratic
institutions and procedures, for further empowering those without
influence, without a voice or with few political resources, is a
permanent part of the agenda of the Left.

The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies
have developed are marked by deep inequalities of wealth and income and
the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a
scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible
poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people - children in
particular - die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth,
both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life
chances in an arbitrary way.

These things are a standing indictment against the international
community. We on the Left, in keeping with our own traditions, fight
for justice and a decent life for everyone. In keeping with those same
traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of
totalitarian-style tyranny that are on the march again. Both battles
have to be fought simultaneously. One should not be sacrificed for the
other.

We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of
September 11, 2001 were America's deserved comeuppance, or
"understandable" in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from
US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder,
motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing
whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the
military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that
it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the
intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning
(or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful
implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our
view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the
Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation
of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day
on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and
members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq
a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's
infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a
life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for
granted - rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments
over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken
in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi
so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of
situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a
new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the
tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's
energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly
responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful
silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi
"insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have
been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the
Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more
lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values
they profess.

Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews
themselves are on the increase in Europe. "Anti-Zionism" has now
developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are
willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances
with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to
be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was
fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other "polite" and
subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in
international or national politics - remarks of a kind that for more
than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to
make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all
variants of such bigotry.

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at
Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly
condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for
the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in
particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the
historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many
on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those
perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted
about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached
the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an
organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its
invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public
comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the
legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in
the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights
principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years,
and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.

D. Conclusion

It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that
people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist outlook should now
speak clearly. We must define ourselves against those for whom the
entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket
and simplistic "anti-imperialism" and/or hostility to the current US
administration. The values and goals which properly make up that agenda
- the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle
against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples
fighting against tyranny and oppression - are what most enduringly
define the shape of any Left worth belonging to.
Notes for media
Solely for legal reasons this document is ©Norman Geras 2006. It will
be made available under a Creative Commons licence.
The Euston Manifesto Group

Norman Geras, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Manchester University,
normblog;
Damian Counsell, Director, Bioinformatics.Org, PooterGeek;
Alan Johnson, Editor, Democratiya, and Reader in Social Science, Edge
Hill;
Shalom Lappin, Professor of Computational Linguistics, King's College
London;

Jane Ashworth, Director of Engage;
Dave Bennett;
Brian Brivati, Professor of Modern History, Kingston University;
Adrian Cohen, Unite Against Terror;
Nick Cohen, journalist;
Anthony Cox, Black Triangle;
Neil Denny, Little Atoms;
Paul Evans;
Paul Gamble, Engage;
Eve Garrard, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele
University;
Harry Hatchet, Harry's Place;
David Hirsh, Editor of Engage, Lecturer, Sociology, Goldsmiths College;
Dan Johnson, Muscular Liberals;
Hak Mao, [link];
Gary Kent, Director, Labour Friends Of Iraq (signing in a personal
capacity);
Jon Pike, Chair of Engage, Senior Lecturer - Philosophy, Open
University;
Simon Pottinger, Unite Against Terror;
Andrew Regan, Bloggers4Labour founder (signing in a personal capacity);
Alexandra Simonon, Managing Editor, Engage;
Richard Sanderson, Little Atoms;
David T, Harry's Place;
Philip Spencer, Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
Kingston University;
Will @ A General Theory Of Rubbish
Other signers
Jeffrey Alexander, Professor of Sociology at Yale University
Paul Anderson, GAUCHE
Joe Bailey, (Prof.) Head of School of Social Science, Kingston
University
Ophelia Benson, Editor, Butterflies and Wheels
Paul Berman
Pamela Bone, journalist, Melbourne
Robert Borsley, Professor of Linguistics, University of Essex
Michael Brennan, Department of Sociology, Warwick University
Chris Brown, Professor of International Relations, LSE
Julie Burchill, writer
Mitchell Cohen, City University of New York; co-editor of Dissent
Marc Cooper, The Nation
Thomas Cushman, Editor of The Journal of Human Rights
Heather Deegan, Reader in Comparative Politics at Middlesex University
Jon Fasman, writer
Luke Foley
Raimond Gaita, Professor of Philosophy, King's College London
Marko Attila Hoare
Quintin Hoare
Anthony Julius
Oliver Kamm, blogger, journalist and author
Sunder Katwala, General Secretary, Fabian Society (in a personal
capacity)
Jeffrey Ketland, Edinburgh University
Matthew Kramer, Professor of Legal and Political Philosophy, Cambridge
University
Mary Kreutzer, Austrian political scientist, WADI Austria , and editor
of the human rights-journal LIGA
John Lloyd, The Financial Times
Kanan Makiya
John Mann, MP
Jim Nolan, barrister, Sydney
Will Parbury, Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Fylde 2005
Greg Pope MP
Thomas Schmidinger, Assistant Lecturer for Political Science (Vienna
University), WADI Austria
Milton Shain, Director Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research,
University of Cape Town
Hillel Steiner, Professor of Political Philosophy, University of
Manchester
Gisela Stuart MP
George Szirtes, Poet
Michael Walzer, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; co-editor of
Dissent
Bert Ward, Advisory Editor, Democratiya
Morton Weinfeld, Professor of Sociology, McGill University
Jeff Weintraub, University of Pennysylvania
Francis Wheen, journalist and writer
Sami Zubaida, Emeritus Professor of Politics and Sociology, Birkbeck
College, London

.

Loading