In his 2010 treatise, ‘The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism’, French philosopher Pascal Bruckner mused on the way Europeans’ judgement of contemporary global issues is clouded by a perpetual self-loathing. Historical ‘original sins’ such as slavery or colonialism, Bruckner argued, have led us to focus on the negative aspects of our own past while neglecting to challenge foreign tyrannical regimes through a kind of subconscious guilt-ridden narcissism.
I was reminded of Bruckner’s work when reading the media reaction to evidence that the Assad regime has used sarin against the Syrian opposition. A number of opinion writers were willing to give the regime the benefit of the doubt: based on historical precedent and the evidence presented, they argued, it is unlikely that chemical weapons have been used.
Our own public servants got no such let-off. Commentators were quick to dismiss the government’s position while revisiting previous errors and making unrealistic demands for early public disclosure of sources. Many in the media either ignored the evidence or greeted it with a collective raised eyebrow, even as a cautious Obama administration backed the limited findings.
Investigations into chemical weapon use are ongoing and the sceptics may yet be proved right, but the focus on the perceived unreliability of British officials rather than a potential war crime could have been lifted straight from Bruckner’s thesis. He would immediately recognise the narcissistic obsession with UK intelligence capabilities at the expense of a discussion of atrocities on the ground. We British now have a more modern ‘original sin’: the Iraq war.
What else can explain the absence of progressive voices on Syria? The refugee count is in the millions; the atrocities are well documented. And yet few call for intervention on moral grounds. There are no mass demonstrations on Whitehall demanding action. Do we have a ‘responsibility to protect’? Not in this case. Iraq has sullied the name of progressive intervention such that few are now willing to make the case for robust defence of our values overseas, even when war crimes are unfolding in front of our eyes.
We all know that building international consensus around intervention would be difficult given American reservations and Russia’s blocking stance, while successfully halting the bloodshed would be even tougher given realities on the ground. We are also fatigued by a long, tough campaign in Afghanistan and constrained by a falling military budget. But that is not to say the moral case for intervention in Syria is absent. Just because something is difficult does not mean it is the wrong thing to do.
It will be interesting over the coming weeks to see how the progressive debate develops if Assad is eventually proven to have used chemical weapons. I hope that few succumb to the guilt Bruckner identified and find ways to play down or cast doubt on the regime’s actions by focusing on our own middle east track record. The Iraq war, for better or worse, is in the past, and British progressive foreign policy should not be held hostage by it. Civilian victims of the war in Syria should not suffer for our guilt.
—————————————————————————–
Greg Falconer is a political risk consultant and Progress contributor. He tweets at @gregfalconer
—————————————————————————–
Agreed. There are few things on the British Left which has invoked so much hopelessness as Syria. The voices of progress, humanity and international brotherhood have been muted. The massacres, crimes against humanity including slaughter of women and children as well as the bombing by Assad’s army of his own civilians in their homes is a vile episode in our post-modern age. We on the Left have lost touch with our humanity and indeed it has been people like Foreign Secretary William Hague who have sought to keep this civil war on the international agenda. Syria shows the Left looking the other way in denial.
More nonsense from Progress regarding Syria. So far we have had “arm the rebels” some of which are as vile as Assad. Now it is all about chemical weapons and Britain’s “guilt” regarding Iraq. Do remind me, what were Labour doing when Saddam was murdering thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons? At the end of the day only Russia, China and America can resolve this conflict and so what guilt am I supposed to share? Is there a magic number of dead civilians that suddenly should make me more concerned? Does a genocide only exist if white people die, or am I missing out on some collective guilt in respect of several African nations? As for Assad, I may have missed the complaints when he killed about 10,000 Brotherhood supporters who may, or may not, have been organising a coup. Or it was not thought to be interest enough when it happened.