Resonans 2010-07-29

"Ten years later..." Part two

Björn Hedlund speaking with Tariq Ali

Part two. 

Since we are speaking about the Swedish press I want to ask you something related to that. One of the biggest daily newspapers recently started a campaign where you can buy ‘a yellow band' to show your support for the Swedish troops in Afghanistan. What are the affects of things like this you think?

What they are doing is furthering the provincialization of Europe. Globalization has made Europe and Scandinavia more provincial, particularly Sweden. Sweden had a very fine internationalist record in the 60s and 70s. A good record on the Vietnam question, on fighting the Apartheid regime in South Africa, showing support for liberation movements and also committing exiles to come to your country.

Newspapers that promote yellow ribbon day are giving in to the worst form of chauvinism. Why don't they have a green ribbon day for every Iraqi and Afghan that is being killed? You know they do not have it because they promote the idea that European lives are more important then other human beings. That is an idea that goes very deep into European culture. The fact that they are doing this is an indication of how bad things have become. It relates to this notion that we are in Afghanistan to do good... Why did you not "do good" before the Americans asked you too do it? And if the Americans pulled out tomorrow, will you stay on? Or, would you follow them out? So, it is just a cynical operation, and the fact that it is supported by most, if not all, mainstream political parties is a notion of how deep the rott is! It is not that I particularly want to pick out Sweden; Britain is exactly the same if not worse.

In Britain we have a situation where 63% of the population is for the withdrawal of the British troops. 63%! And in the middle of an election none of this is reflected in the mainstream parties. So what is taking place is that they debase democracy itself. Democracy is becoming weaker and weaker in my opinion.

You have written before about the break down of the hegemony of Social democracy. You also said that it deserves to be broken, what do you mean by this?

Yes it needs to be broken; it represented nothing except itself and financial interests! What is the difference between the traditional Social Democratic parties and outright conservative parties? You know in most of Europe countries they have behaved in the same fashion. Alright, in Spain there are important cultural differences, but in most European countries there are no differences at all. The collapse of communism in the late 80s and 90s was also the collapse of social democracy. Social democracy was an important force during the Cold War because it could push through social reforms, it could use the state in and beneficial way and at the same time support democratic rights and democratic principles. The minute communism collapsed Social democracy was redundant as far as capitalism was concerned. They were very happy to become redundant; they completely changed their politics and their policies. In countries like Sweden you have an ironic situation where the Social democrats are much more in favor of privatization and taking the traditional social rights away from the workers, then even the major conservative party. I mean, why did the major conservative party rebrand itself to the new workers party? How come it defined the welfare state in a much sharper way then the social democrats? So I think it is time for the social democrats bow out gracefully, find the dust wind and go into it! Because they play no role really. I mean why should people vote for them? It is like politics have become like football. I support my football club, and you support your football club. You know there is no big difference; it is just your team. And as the century gets older young people will say, well I am changing football clubs.

Can you relate this to the election of President Obama and what you are saying about the State apparatus? I wonder what affect the Obama administration will have on imperialist project and capitalism in general.

It is a continuation. Obama is continuing all Bush's policies; there is no big difference. He is just a more intelligent operator. He sort of masks the truth by using nice sounding phrases. Bush just spells it out flat: This is what we are doing, this is how we are doing it and if you do not like it: Fuck off! Obama does not say that, he says we need to convince you, we need to work with you. Come on our brothers, come with us, and let's occupy another country and send more troops! It will be in all of our interests! In Afghanistan and Pakistan Obamas policies are much worse then Bush's. In one year Obama has been in power there have been more attacks killing innocent civilians then under the five years of Bush.

When Obama eyes were moist when a woman was killed in the streets of Teheran, it was showed in the media of Europe endlessly, that same day the U.S military killed fifty women in Pakistan. Was it even reported? Maybe just one line somewhere.

So some human lives are important while others are not. This depends on how they can be used and instrumentalized. I think illusions of Obama are disappearing rapidly now.

You are talking about images from war. The images from Abu Ghraib and things like that, what affect can it have on the public opinion in the Western Hemisphere?

In Europe, people see them and they say they do not like them. "This were a few bad people and at least we caught" is what many people think, and then they feel very happy about it. Then you think this things have ended, they have not ended! You only saw a tiny proportion of it. They did not show women being raped. There were some images of women being gang raped. They were not shown for example.

Is this always the case, that they are seen as anomies? The war itself is seen as just so to speak, but this represents a failure or a small mistake?

Yeah, exactly! It is one the ways they see them, and the other way they see them relates to the atmosphere of civilizational superiority and islamophobia. Then when they see them being killed they feel, well so what they are only Muslims! Like in the 30s and 40s, well they are killing them but they are only Jews. Most of France went along with that. Germans went along with that. No one was particularly bothered about it. In Scandinavia Jews were deported. Sweden gave asylum to some. It is the same mentality now, "they are only Muslims"...

End part two.