spinbadz own

From Christopher Hitchens today in Slate:


"Islam, which was once a civilizing and creative force in many societies, is now undergoing a civil war. One faction in this civil war is explicitly totalitarian and wedded to a cult of death...

"Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed.

"George Bush ...- and the U.S. armed forces - have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries.

"Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL."

***************

Update (Fri, 28 July 2006): The world according to Christopher Hitchens

"Christopher Hitchens' new book, Love Poverty and War, is launched in Brazil this week. Last week he gave an interview to Veja, Brazil's equivalent of Time or Newsweek.

"He came out with some great stuff, as follows":

Veja - What is the meaning of the new Israeli offensive in Lebanon?

Hitchens - When the creation of an Israeli state in the Middle East was being discussed, one of the dissenting voices came from within Judaism itself. These radicals considered that a state of this kind in Palestine would be an injustice to the Arab population. In general terms this is my point of view: Israel, from the beginning, was a mistake. I don't believe that Jerusalem can redeem the historical suffering of the Jews. To me, Israel is not the end of the Diaspora, it is part of it. I have nothing in common, however, with those who consider the Jews a plague, a conspirator race with designs on world government. If I were forced to choose between Israel and the Lebanese terrorists of Hezbollah, clearly I would be on the side of Israel. Hezbollah is the enemy of civilisation. I cannot stay neutral but I participate with reluctance, and with a tragic sense that this situation could have been avoided.

V- Do you agree with the EU's position that Israel is using excessive force?

H - They say the same thing every time Israel uses force. They have lost all authority to say this. Yes, Israel uses excessive force but I am not impressed when I hear Vladimir Putin, with his authoritarian credentials, make this accusation. There is my criticism of Israel and there is theirs. They are not the same thing.

V - You have long insisted that the comparison between the Vietnam War and the current conflict in Iraq makes no sense. Why should My Lai be different to Haditha?

H - There are various reasons. Vietnam was not subject to international sanctions. It didn't invade other countries, did not have WMDs, didn't shelter terrorists and didn't promote genocide. Saddam's Iraq committed all these crimes. In Vietnam, the USA was continuing a French colonial war against a communist-led nationalist movement. For the US forces in Vietnam actions such as we have seen in Haditha, which resulted in the deaths of many civilians, were routine because the entire population was considered hostile. In Iraq the only popular army is on our side - the revolutionary Kurds. Those who are against us are not an army of national liberation, as were the Vietcong, but members of Al Quaeda and the fascist remnants of the Ba'ath Party. The Vietnamese are still my comrades and I have no desire to insult them. I reject the slightest comparison between them and and Saddam's assassins. I think it's a disgrace that the left makes this comparison.

V - But the WMDs weren't found.

H - And I'd like to know where they were taken. As a matter of fact this isn't actually true; some were found. Last month 500 shells were found containing gas that attacks the central nervous system. Today we also know that, in February of 2003, Saddam's representatives met in Damascus with envoys from Kim Jong Il to discuss the purchase of North Korean missiles.

V - If it was justifiable to topple a dictatorship like Saddam's, shouldn't the USA do the same in Cuba, Sudan or North Korea?

H - In the majority of these countries, no UN resolutions were broken. In the case of the Darfur genocide in Sudan, it is said that it's too late to stop it, it appears that it has already been completed. Unfortunately, in this case they decided to follow Kofi Annan's strategy, with predictable results. This is what happens when UN diplomacy is applied in countries that have no respect for international law.

V - The UN is too lenient with transgressing countries?

H - After the way the UN conducted itself in Ruanda, Bosnia and Darfur, it is impossible to support the idea that the UN is the international court that decides when force should be used. We would be in a far more dangerous world than we have today. The UN today admits that there was a criminal conspiracy in the oil for food programme in Iraq. This iniciative enriched the UN bureaucrats and the Saddam regime, leaving the Iraqui people with nothing. One side effect of regime change in Iraq; the UN was obliged to admit its own corruption and inefficiency. Even opponents of the war agree with this.

V - Some critics of the war argue that the American presence in Iraq reinforces jihad ideology, that it is a crusade between the West and Islam.

H- This is a very lazy way of thinking. One cartoon in a Copenhagen newspaper was enough to inflame opinion about a crusade, of a cultural confrontation between East and West. A novel by a friend of mine, published in London in 1988 - Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses - was denounced as the work of the Israeli secret police, who had written the book for him as a weapon against the Islamic faith. Anything we do could result in such a reaction. In Iraq, on the other hand, today we can see millions of muslims voting for the first time, many of them for religious parties. Pilgrimages to Shia holy sites, banned for twenty years, have been re-established thanks to the US army. Are the Kurdish Sunnis in Iraq or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan somehow less muslim than Al Quaeda? Moreover, I am certain that the forces of Al Quaeda in Iraq will be defeated.

V - Your evaluation of the achievements so far in Iraq does not ignore the shameful side of the invasion, for example, the torture at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, which was recently condemned by the Supreme Court.

H - I have written on all these matters. When you decide to go to war, for whatever reason, it is important to bear in mind that incidents like Abu Ghraib or Haditha can happen. what is necessary in thse cases is that the armed forces charge and convict those responsible. This is what happened in Abu Ghraib, where the abuses were not discovered by a journlist, but by the Department of Defense. I believe this is also the case in Haditha. The perpetrators will be subject to the law and this is the big difference between the USA and her enemies.

V - You have stated that you no longer believe in socialism, so what is left for its adherents to defend?

H - Good question, and I believe that many people cling to outmoded ideas because they have no answer to it. They don't understand how they can continue in opposition if there is no longer any socialism to defend. Neither was it easy, I must admit, for me to abandon this doctrine, but in no way does this mean that radicalism is at an end. We still have many important tasks, and the greatest of these is the defeat of the newest form of totalitarianism, theocracy. Those who call themselves radicals, militants, must redefine the debate around a secular society, an enlightened aspiration, and must fight theocratic dictatorships. the fact that I have distanced myself from the traditional left does not signify abstention from political solidarity, or even revolutionaty solidarity. We are not in a cul-de-sac.

V - So your ideal, or utopia, would be an entirely secular society?

H - Yes. My next book, which has been completed but not yet edited, will be called God Is Not Great. The title openly contradicts a known principle of the muslim faith, but it is not just a criticism of Islam. It is against any belief in God. I believe that today, he who would call himself a radical must support and broadcast scientific discovery in areas like cosmology and genetics for two reasons. The first is to combat racism. We have already had a moral abolition of racism, and genetic discoveries have delivered its scientific defeat. The second is that these discoveries diminish the power of the church.

V - There are those who argue that mankind cannot live without faith, that moral education cannot be sustained on a purely secular basis.

H - The use of an illusion is irrelevant in the understanding of its moral content. There are millions throughout the world who live an ethical life without believing in God. Furthermore, I don't believe that one can point to any single country in which people behave better because they believe in God. On the contrary, we can pick out countries where people behave worse because of a belief in God.

V - Would you include the USA among those countries where religion provokes such behaviour?

H- Without a shadow of a doubt. I can give examples. People who, today wish to prevent children from learning about new discoveries in evolutionary biology, which will make them incapable of functioning in the modern world, are christians. In all churches we find people who state that AIDS is bad, but not as bad as contraception. American anti AIDS programmes in Africa are based on these ideals, and will lead millions to a horrible death.

V- In your book, Letters to a Young Contrarian, you express resentment that you are only seen as the man who attacked Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Why?

H - What irritates me is when they describe me as always looking for something to attack. My books about Orwell, Jefferson and Paine prove that I can write about people I admire. But I am still proud to have exposed Mother Teresa as a fraud and a fanatical fundamentalist. The Church, following this, decided to declare that an Indian woman's recovery from cancer was caused by a medal owned by Mother Teresa. This is not how cancer is cured. We have statements by doctors, and even the woman's husband that it was medical treatment that cured her. The Church, however, considers it a miracle cure. This is an irresponsible lie that encourages Indians to seek charlatans in place of doctors.

V - In the introduction to Love Poverty and War, you state that the literary essays collected in it are the ones tht have given you the greatest pleasure. Have you considered the possibility of retiring from politics and writng solely about literature?

H - In 2000, I began to read and take notes from Proust's À la Recherche du Temps Perdu. My plan was a definitive return to literature. I finished my reading on September 9th, 2001. Two days laters I realised that I would have to return to writing about politics. This endorses what I always say; you can try to run away from politics, but it always catches up with you.

V - But to a certain extent, the writers you describe in your book isolated themselves from public life in order to finish their works, no?

H - In 1977, when I met Jorge Luis Borges in Buenos Aires, this was his position. He declared himself disinterested in politics, but happy that Argentina was governed by the military and not politicians. But even he, old, blind and a semi recluse, was forced to make public statements on subjects such as the disappeared and the Falklands War. My previous collection of essays, Unacknowledged Legislation, is dedicated to this theme; the role of writers in the public sphere. In ancient Athens, a word arose to describe those who did not wish to participate in public life, idiota. Only later did the word become an insult, but I have always believed that anyone who wishes to remove homself from public life is, de facto, an idiot, sometimes an admirable one.


*********************