> It is not simply a matter of selective vision, as in highlighting
> the repression of Kurds in Iraq, while failing to do the same with
> regard to that of Kurds in Turkey. There are Kurds, and there are
> Kurds; they are not simply divided by national boundaries that have
> made the creation of Kurdistan an impossibility so far; they are also
> divided _politically_. Human Rights Watch's going after Abdullah
> Ocalan is motivated by more than the simple fact that the PKK's main
> base was in Turkey; HRW hated the PKK's politics, in a good old
> anticommunist fashion. In other words, *with or without Saddam
> Hussein*, not all Kurds are equal in the eyes of HRW and those who
> subscribe to the same or similar politics; they like some Kurds better
> than others, in other words the Kurds who don't mind accepting the
> free market and the US empire.
You're shadow boxing. No one here has criticized the PKK because they "don't mind accepting the free market." The WW is being criticized because it doesn't mind accepting torturers and ethnic cleansers as "patriots" or solid anti-imperialists. I think any self-respecting anti-war movement that's worth a moment's notice should have no discomfort with indicting Saddam Hussein, and a far number of us don't. As for the line that such indictments for human rights abuses are a tool of imperialism, Slavoj Zizek's got a sober response:
*** BS: When you speak of a global organization, are you thinking of some kind of global state, or do you have non-state organizations in mind?
Zizek: I don't have any prejudices here whatever. For example, a lot of left-wingers dismissed talk of universal human rights as just another tool of American imperialism, to exert pressure on Third World countries or other countries America doesn't like, so it can bomb them. But it's not that simple. As we all know, following the same logic, Pinochet was arrested. Even if he was set free, this provoked a tremendous psychological change in Chile. When he left Chile, he was a universally feared, grey eminence. He returned as an old man whom nobody was afraid of. So, instead of dismissing the rules, it's well worth it to play the game. One should at least strategically support the idea of some kind of international court and then try to put it to a more progressive use.
America is already concerned about this. A few months ago, when the Senate was still under Republican control, it adopted a measure prohibiting any international court to have any jurisdiction over American citizens. You know they weren't talking about some Third World anti-imperialist court. They were talking about the Hague court, which is dominated by Western Europeans. The same goes for many of these international agencies. I think we should take it all. If it's outside the domain of state power, OK. But sometimes, even if it's part of state power. I think the left should overcome this primordial fear of state power, that because it's some form of control, it's bad. <http://eserver.org/bs/59/zizek.html> ***
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.