A Manifesto for Moralization and Militarization

Since its initial publication in April, the Euston Manifesto has instigated endless internet debate. Written by a collection of pro-war leftists, the manifesto calls for "Democracy", "Human rights for all" and "No apology for tyranny" amongst other things. While the manifesto makes a claim to a grand historical vision ("We propose here a fresh political alignment"), the document never transcends a very contemporary set of political debates. For instance, it takes positions for a two state-solution and against anti-Americanism (and bizarrely, as one commentator points out, for open source software). This is simply humanitarian intevention couched as a revolutionary project (any similarities to the neo-cons strictly coincidental of course).

Among the strongest critiques of the manifesto is this provocative account by Brendan O'Neill from the Guardian's 'comment is free' blog. In it he attempts to establish the centrality of the Bosnia War in the thinking of both the Euston group and Al-Qaeda. His observations are intriguing; both leftists and Islamists were marginalized at home, and attempted to use Bosnia to define an international landscape of good and evil (of course, they were both on the same side back then) against which they could reestablish some political legitimacy. But both groups also found refuge in this new landscape; it enabled them to escape from the pressures of providing for a domestic constituency, and eventually led to a deeper separation than ever.

No doubt, parts of O'Neill's historical account is exaggerated for the sake of the polemic. But he introduces some entirely valid arguments about the role the international sphere came to play in the politics of the post-Cold War era. The Euston Manifesto might sound like a high-minded defense of democracy but their singular focus on the international immediately undermines such a claim.