Douglas Murray Discussion
Posted by Matt Juden on October 16th, 2007
Thank you so much to everyone who made Douglas Murray’s talk to Clare Politics and CUCA tonight such a huge success by their attendance and their questions. Mr Murray spoke to an absolutely packed Bennett Room about what it was to be a neoconservative in his sense. His talk was brief but wide-ranging including consideration of issues of practical foreign and domestic policy as well as a defence of the ideological root of neoconservatism.
The extensive question and answer session that followed Mr Murray’s talk was extremely enjoyable. Everyone is encouraged to continue that discussion in the comment section to this blog post.
The video of Douglas’ talk will be available in the archive as soon as it has been processed.
Filed under: speaker discussion on October 16th, 2007
First, congratulations to Matt and the team for such a great first evening. Quite possibly our largest attendance ever and impressive how many people were still chatting about the talk at lunch today.
My biggest problem with what Douglas said was the one-size-fits-all confidence in military intervention. Even if we accept his premise that liberal democracy and human rights are universal goods and should be spread, it’s not at all clear that military force is always the best means to achieve it. I think most of us feel intuitively that at least some interventions are justified on moral grounds (the one-that-never-happened in Rwanda, perhaps?), but to extrapolate that whenever we can intervene, we should seems gung-ho.
It’s funny: some time ago a now-much-maligned politician suggested that “the most pressing foreign policy problem we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should get actively involved in other people’s conflicts”. Eight years on, and despite all his efforts and experimentation, it still is.
Once again, well done to the new Clare Politics team for an extremely well run evening.
I agree with your observation, Matt, that Murray certainly seemed inclined to promote drastic action wherever he felt that liberal democracy was in danger and he put no cap on the cost that this or any other country should pay to extend that right. I wonder if he is being as philanthropic as he claims. Whilst Murray was unclear about the extent to which military intervention should be used he was even muddier in his treatment of other issues. Interesting as some of his ideas were, following some elucidation in the bar, they were presented badly and without structure. What we wanted was 1.Neocon: what is it? 2. An attack on Cultural relativism 3. The use of 1 and 2 in the real world. etc.
I mean only to widen your point. Murray was mostly unclear to the point of being irrefutable, full stop.
It was Tony Blair who, in 1999, proposed a new international doctrine guided by a mix of values and interests. “If weâ€, said the then Prime Minister, “can establish and spread the values of liberty, the rule of law, human rights and an open society then that is in our national interests too. The spread of our values makes us safer.â€
This “doctrine of the international community”, heralded by the likes of Douglas Murray and his band of merry neo-cons, is a recipe for disaster. The international political system is designed in a way that seeks to prevent a conflict of values. That was the intent of the United Nations when it was founded in 1945; its charter remains intact today. Values belong to domestic jurisdiction. The irony of Blair’s “safer world” and Murray’s faith in “liberal democracy” is that both invite, rather than contain, international conflict.
If there is a lesson to be learned from the rise of neo-conservatism, it is precisely that all fundamentalism must be avoided. And that, although Douglas Murray has missed the point, extends to democratic fundamentalism too. That is, of course, if we actually desire to avoid fulfilling Huntingdon’s prophecy of a century defined by a “clash of civilisations”…
Well done to the Clare Politics team for a thought-provoking evening. There were several arguments that Douglas Murray advanced which I would like to address in this forum.
Firstly, Murray raises the issues of honour killing and female genital mutilation as examples of conduct in other cultures and societies that was wholly incompatible with our values in the United Kingdom. I am certain that no-one would suggest that these actions should not be punishable by our law were it to occur within our shores. However, the fact that he used such extreme examples to support his suggestion that multiculturalism was harmful to British society is troubling. You simply cannot form a credible case by cherry-picking examples of worst conduct in one culture and contrasting it to a rose-tinted perspective of another. I am firmly of the opinion that multiculturalism adds to the very fabric of the society and contributes to its constant evolution and progress. Speaking as a Scotsman of Asian descent, the fact that Scotland has embraced and welcomed its immigrants has led to a stronger and more diverse community. A recent study has shown that these immigrant communities now feel a closer bond and loyalty to Scotland than the indigenous population for that very reason.
Secondly, Murray also appeared to suggest that it is the divine right of the West to impose its values on other cultures that are incompatible with its societal model and thus by design pose a threat to the West. Whilst I agree that there is a duty to intervene in instances like Kosovo and to some extent, Iraq, where genocide occurs, this must be a last resort. If I were to turn Murray’s argument on its head though, do these people also have the right to impose their values and societal models on us? After all, is right and wrong not just a question of subjectivity? What we might consider to be “right†can be another person’s “wrongâ€. And if so, will the end result of this “clash†be that only one model will survive, and in reaching that end result, how much needless suffering has humanity to endure? What I am trying to argue is that the world is not as black and white as Murray would suggest, and I am surprised that a commentator of his calibre is either unable or, perhaps more likely, unwilling to see the hypocrisy in what he argues.
I agree with Calum that Murray ought to have spent more time bashing cultural relativism. Because two of the above four posts are basically cultural-relativist and, frankly, you guys need bashing.
“After all, is right and wrong not just a question of subjectivity? What we might consider to be “right†can be another person’s “wrongâ€.”
Yah. And yet, I think the kind of thing going on in Iran today is pretty damn wrong, and the fact that other people disagree isn’t going to make me go quiet. In this respect, I seem to be diametrically opposed to most liberals.
I am well aware that if my personality was transplanted into the body of a citizen of Tehran, my life would be Hell. And I’m not even gay, atheist or a woman.
I think Jonathan’s right. All impositions are not equal. Very crudely:
Suppose you impose a “Western” value on a people - let’s say the right of women not to undergo genital mutilation. Let’s take the worst case scenario, that not a single woman values that freedom; indeed, they all find it detrimental to their well-being. Surely all they need do is voluntarily give it up. How can the imposition of freedom make them worse off?
Perhaps, for good reasons of cultural relativism, I’m incapable of understanding the benefits of genital mutilation. But doesn’t that make the free choice of the women involved - women who cannot be accused of blithely assuming that Western values are good for all - all the more important?
I think one underlying assumption behind neo-conservatism, or rather, interventionism, is that US, or any single country (or group of countries), has the military ability to impose its own political agenda on another country of its choice. US is indeed the single most powerful nation in terms of economic and military prowess, but its inability to win (the meaning of this word is up to individual interpretation) the war in Iraq clearly demonstrates its own limitation. It may be able to topple the dictatorship in Iran, but what about North Korea, Burma, Cuba, or Syria? And is it realistic to believe that once all these “rogue countries†are removed, the world will be in eternal peace (and universal democracy)? More likely than not, there will be new points of conflicts, and there will be new enemies of the States. Is US then prepared to get rid of every single one of them? Does it have enough money and soldiers to achieve such an ambitious goal? I think not. To borrow an example from Biology: the prospect of living with a malignant tumour is bad enough, but the imprudent attempt to remove it may trigger metastasis and cause it to spread faster. Sometimes we just have to live with it.
The world needs the military might of US to maintain its order and stability. As a potent force to ensure balance of power and an advocate for greater justice and democracy, US has enjoyed enormous respect and support from majority of the global population. This reputation is hard-earned. Therefore, US should exercise maturity and restrain when flexing its military muscle, and always put military intervention as the very last resort. When it does intervene, it should make sure it has got it right and can/will win the fight. One botched action is enough to destroy public confidence, and the subsequent reluctance to intervene may bring a greater catastrophe. Rwanda came after “Black Hawk Down†in Somali; Iran or North Korea may be what comes after Iraq. “Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth.†– Moral from The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
In Western ideology, democracy is regarded as the ideal for humanity. I do not object to the notion of promoting greater democracy around the world. However, promotion through incentives and encouragement is different from promotion through coercion and violence (or, if you please, “military interventionâ€). It is regrettable that I see at least some similarities between the ideology of Mr. Murray and that of radical Islamism. I believe people in many parts of the world are more concerned with bread and butter than with ballot paper. More good can be done if money is spent on promoting better governance, providing humanitarian aids, or combating infectious diseases. Building a hospital in Africa definitely attracts less media attention than bombing one in Baghdad, but when can we start saving a life instead of destroying one? Politicians can enjoy the luxury of standing before cameras and denouncing dictatorship, oppression, or weapon of mass destruction, while our soldiers are sent to a foreign land to face constant threat of death. Probably those who advocate wars should join the army and go to the frontline. Then they can return (if still alive) and educate us the urgency of “promoting†democracy.
The vision of the neo-conservatives for a peaceful and democratic world is noble and shared among almost every party of the political spectrum. However, their means to achieve the end is questionable. Military intervention is sometimes necessary (e.g. in case of Kosovo), but we should not abandon the more “traditional†methods of diplomacy, negotiation, boycotting or economic sanctions. Their effect may not be as easily and quickly visible as a military strike, but their success will be more enduring. Mr. Murray asserted that Europe has lost its instinct to safeguard its peace. We may have lost our instinct to war, but I regard that as a progress of civilisation. And I will never fancy the “instinct†of imaging an enemy when none exists.
Siming Ma: I don’t share your optimism as regards diplomacy and sanctions. Why? Because between the two Iraq wars we subjected Saddam to extraordinary sanctions and relentless diplomacy. He continued to line his pockets while infant mortality skyrocketed. With Iraq, it was always a choice between a terrible option and a terrible option.
I think there is no doubt that the Iraq War has been a disaster. The Coalition should have foreseen the problems, and foreseeing it should have prompted them either to stop the war or to go in with more troops and a better plan. The buck stops with Bush and Blair on that one, and you won’t catch me praising them.
But there are now two camps. One comprises those who think that, now we’re in there, we have to fight the festering terrorism to the bitter end or else betray millions of Iraqis. The other comprises those who would quite like to see the West and its values go back to where they came from. I’m amazed that some people really do want the second option.
Jonathan: Thanks for your comment. I understand that indeed endless sanctions and negotiations had been in vain with regard to Saddam’s Iraq, in the sense that he managed to remain in power for so many years and continued subjecting his people to suffering with impunity. However, in most cases, the West simply denounce the dictator, impose some sanctions, and then sit back and relax. During the ten years between the two Iraq wars, a lot more could have be done to follow up the econimic sanction and prevent Saddam from pursuing WMD. Unfortunately, the question of Iraq was swept aside and forgotten, until after 9/11. Therefore, the futility of diplomacy is to some extent due to the laziness and inaction of US itself. Negotiation requires patience and perseverance, but many leaders lack such qualities.
The other point I want to make is that if you want to use military intervention, please make sure you get everything right before firing the first bullet. You do not invade a country without concrete evidence for the presence of WMD. You do not destroy a city without knowing how to rebuild it. You do not send in your soldiers without thinking about how to bring them home. What is at stake is not only an Iraq war. By getting it wrong this time, US has lost its credibility. When a real crisis emerges and requires swift intervention, the public will be more sceptical and reluctant to support it. That’s probably the lesson we can learn from Rwanda.
In the case of Iran, I still believe negotiation is the only viable solution. Though Iran has been very defiant in the face of international condemnation and UN sanction, it has its own fear and limitation. Developing nuclear weapon is just a way to strengthen its position and to extract more incentives from the West. But between bread and butter and a nuclear war head, I think Iranian people are smart enough to make the choice. If Europe Union are united and determined to stop Iran from getting the bomb, they have many cards at their disposal, in particular economic sanction (not the symbolic type imposed by the UN). When the stake (or the money) involved is high enough, Iran will definitely back down. However, constantly beating the war drum is not helpful. US has threatened to topple Kim Jong Il if North Korea get the bomb. But see what happened? Mr. Kim has got his bomb, and is still sitting comfortably on his throne! People no longer take the threat of US intervention seriously, so it is no surprise that Mr. Ahmadinejad can shout louder and louder. If US decides to invade Iran, the situation will probably be nastier than Iraq.
With regard to your last point on “two camp”, I would like to offer my own opinion as to why some people “would quite like to see the West and its values go back to where they came from”. From the point of view of someone from the West, there may be a sense of superiority in terms of his own values and culture, and probably a desire to spread such values and culture to the rest of the world. But to a person of a non-Western background, he is equally proud of his own heritage and way of life. When Western values are imposed on Iraqi people by force, it will not be surprising that resentment and resistance arise. If Western values include freedom of opinion, of speech, and of choice, and if they are what we truly believe in and take pride of, then we should confer the same freedom to the people from other parts of the world. May I come back to the issue of female genital mutilation. It has been practised in some cultures, and such practice is completely incompatible with Western value system. Of course we can condemn it, protest against it, and pass law to ban it. We can tell people that such practice is utterly wrong and pointless. Nevertheless, we should always try to understand the cultural or historical background behind such practice and look at it from a different point of view. We will probably still disprove of such practice after doing so, but at least we now have a deeper understanding and a stronger argument against it. It is convenient to divide the world into black and white, or good and evil, but such a simplistic view will not be helpful if we are to appreciate the complexity and diversity of humanity.
Siming, you say “between bread and butter and a nuclear war head, I think Iranian people are smart enough to make the choice”.
I’m sure they are. But there is no sign from Tehran that it’s the people who will be calling the shots any time soon. The question is, who will be the decision maker and can you trust him?
Matt: well, if it is really the case that the people of Iran decide to continue supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad, then we should respect their choice. If there is enough public resentment, he will either lose the next election, or the people will revolt against him. Indeed, we should trust the wisdom of the Iranian people, and let them be the decision maker. Otherwise, if Mr. Bush does not like Mr. Brown, can he then send marines to take over Downing Street because there is no sign from London that it’s the British people who will be calling the shots any time soon (especially given that an autumn election is not called)?
My point was more that the “democracy” in Iran is a sham. No one can run for President unless he is approved by the Council of Guardians. In 1997, they vetoed 234 of the 238 men who put their name forward. It’s not true that if there were enough public resentment, it would end in change. Experience suggests it would end in brutal repression.
Moreover, not even the President is really in charge. That honour goes to a “Supreme Leader“. I agree, however, that your question is the acid test: would Grand Ayatollah Khamenei choose butter or the bomb?
I can live without an autumn election, but when our situation reaches Iranian levels, I’m all for Mr. Bush (or Mrs. Clinton) sending in the Marines.
Matt: I agree with you that there is no true democracy in Iran. They may have elections, but the results are almost always pre-determined. But let’s not forget that in 1979, it was the Iranian people who toppled the Shah and brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. I think it is fair to say that the Islamic Revolution, at least in the beginning, enjoyed enormous public support. Whether that is still the case now is debatable, but I believe if the people have the ability to bring the Iranian Regime to power, they are equally capable of bringing it down. There will be public resentments, protests and demonstrations, and there will be brutal suppressions. Bloodshed is almost inevitable, but wish of the people will eventually prevail. That’s how USSR fell apart, not due to external military intervention, but its internal disagreement. It will take time, but the day will come.
I think Ayatollah Khamenei clearly understands what is going on. He knows that if Iran develops atomic weapon and uses it against Israel, it is the Islamic Republic that will be wiped off the map; US is going to bomb it “back to Stone Age” and no one is going to feel pity for Iran. Despite all the Holocaust denial from Mr. Ahmadinejad, it is often mere rhetoric to shore up support from his power base. Mr. Ahmadinejad has to appear to be defiant in the face of US to get votes from the radical Islamic fraction, but shouting slogans is different from taking actions. I believe even if Iran gets the Bomb (and it appears she is going to get one), it will not be end of the world. After all, North Korea has got hers, and we are still alive. Of course, that is no excuse for complacency, and efforts in avoiding that outcome have to continue. But if US attempts to invade Iran pre-emptively, the marines will be greeted with bombs rather than flowers. Maybe the majority of the Iranians welcome regime change, but this should not be brought about by foreign intervention. A lot of pride and nationalism is at stake, so the story will not end with the departure of Grand Ayatollah.
You compare Iran to the USSR, but the prospect of today’s Iran announcing any kind of Glasnost in the future seems remote. The Iranian regime still has no free elections, still makes pro-democracy protesters disappear, still kills apostates and gays, and still enforces hijab. And that’s just what we know from the news that escapes Iran.
If Iran gets the bomb, one of the world’s worst theocracies will be cemented in power. If we can stop that - why not? And if Iran does get the bomb, would you trust Iran and Israel to negotiate? It was completely unthinkable for the USA and USSR to attack each other - yet still they nearly managed it.
I suspect that, sadly, both carrots and sticks (threats, bullying, surgical strikes) will be needed. I don’t think an invasion is realistic so soon after Iraq.
I think everyone can see Douglas is a neo-CON
He is obviously a racist and a bigot.