Posted on 05/15/2006 2:33:43 PM PDT by dead
The new division in politics hinges on differing views of Islamic fundamentalism, writes Gerard Henderson.
WHAT a turnout of leftist luvvies. The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, was in London last weekend. The highest profile member of the Fidel Castro fan club was greeted with acclaim by many members of the British left, including the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, the actor Vanessa Redgrave and the playwright Harold Pinter along with members of the Labour Friends of Venezuela. This group doubles up as Labour opponents of Britain's social democratic Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
It so happens that Castro persecutes Cuban intellectuals and homosexuals alike. You might expect that the likes of Livingstone, Pinter and Redgrave and left-wing Labour MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn would be embarrassed associating with the Castro-lover Chavez. But, no.
They dislike Blair and George Bush so much that all are too willing to make a commitment to a Latin American left-winger who has described the US President as an "arsehole" and depicted the British Prime Minister as "the main ally of Hitler".
It is of no concern to the British left that their latest hero supports a communist dictator or that he wants to use Venezuelan oil reserves to strike against such Western democracies as Britain and the US. To some, at least, alienation is thicker than blood.
The opinion polls reveal the obvious: Bush and Blair are in political difficulties. However, both will be gone by the end of 2008, the former due to a constitutional limit on the term of office, the latter following a decision, announced over a year ago, to retire before the next British election. It is certainly possible the Republican will be replaced in the White House by a Democrat and that the New Labour Government will be followed at No. 10 by a Conservative one.
Neither would be likely to engender much long-term excitement among the left since there is a growing bipartisan attitude about the need to combat international terrorism and any rogue nations which foment it.
Following al-Qaeda's attack on the US on September 11, 2001, the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002, and the suicide assault on the London transport system on July 7 last year, a new division is occurring in many Western democracies.
There are those who really believe that the world changed some five years ago and that Islamic radicals, who proclaim they want to destroy Western democracies and some Muslim governments alike, should be taken seriously. And then there are those who believe no real threat exists and that al-Qaeda and its numerous franchises are not genuine revolutionaries but, rather, are merely reacting to understandable grievances caused by Western societies. In other words, it is all or substantially our fault, mea culpa and all that.
It is by no means certain how Western leaders will respond to the new great divide in their societies which mirrors the essential debate during the time of the Cold War. Then there were those who said communist totalitarianism was not a threat to the West and that Bolshevik revolutionaries should not be taken seriously. And there were those who opposed communism because it was a genuine threat to Western societies and because it persecuted its people. It is a matter of historical record that a clear majority of voters in the West supported the latter approach - a strategy which eventually succeeded.
Prophesy is a fool's preoccupation. Yet the evidence suggests the terrorism-is-a-genuine-threat view is prevailing among voters in large parts of the West. At the moment the Republican John McCain and the Democrat Hillary Clinton appear to be the frontrunners to contest the US presidential election in November 2008. Both are tough on terrorism and neither favours an immediate pullout of US forces from Iraq.
In Britain, a key line of the new Conservative leader, David Cameron, is to maintain the Blair Government has not been strong enough on terrorism. This critique has intensified following the publication last week of the report on the July 7 bombings by the bipartisan Intelligence and Security Committee. In Australia, the Labor Party broadly supports the Howard Government's stance on national security.
Events in Europe suggest a not dissimilar development. Take Denmark. Its conservative leader, Anders Rasmussen, refused to apologise for the decision of Jyllands-Posten to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The position was that Denmark is a democracy which practises freedom of expression. Opinion polls show support for Rasmussen has increased in recent months.
On May 5, he was reported in The Washington Times as declaring the cartoons controversy had strengthened Denmark's resolve to maintain military forces in Iraq in support of the UN-sanctioned Iraqi Government. Rasmussen says Denmark is determined "to assist countries that are in the midst of very difficult social transformations".
In Sweden, the social democratic foreign affairs minister, Laila Freivalds, was forced to resign after attempting to shut down a website which ran the cartoons. It is notable that some of the most outspoken critics of Islamic revolutionaries are Muslim women, including the Syrian-born American writer Wafa Sultan, the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Canadian author Irshad Manji and the Iranian lawyer Shirin Ebadi.
In Australia the issue of integration is being addressed as well as in any Western democracy. The Howard Government's policy was spelt out by the parliamentary secretary Andrew Robb in an address to the Sydney Institute on April 27 - and seems to enjoy the general support of the Opposition frontbencher Tony Burke.
As in most Western democracies, the focus Down Under is on the big picture. Compared to which the antics of a Chavez and his Castro-loving supporters are a sideshow.
Gerard Henderson is executive director of the Sydney Institute.
Interesting article. And I think he's right, that no matter how much we all complain and get worked up about other things, the determination to defeat terrorism remains a constant.
On the Australian political scale the SMH is decidedly on the Left. It is their equivalent to the New York Times and yet they produce an editorial like this. (Perhaps this is a guest article, we don't know) It probably shows how centrist/sane the Australian Left is, internationally.
Now will the American MSMs take notice of this piece?
Ha! That's a joke, right? And, BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our good friends the Australians, who've been by our side in every conflict for the past hundred years. We're very fortunate to have such steadfast friends and staunch allies. Pres. Bush is entertaining John Howard at the White House now, and I'm sure he'll convey all our thanks to Australia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.