The Euston Manifesto

The Euston Manifesto proposes a fresh political alignment. Their suggestion that their viewpoints are bing under-represented in the mainstream media doesn’t ring true for me: Everyone, of every political persuasion is saying that! Nevertheless, it is an interesting document with sentiments I support.
From Clause 11:

Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the “anti-war” movement with illiberal theocrats)…

After Mark Lynas’ lecture last week, I am convinced that climate change will be just as disatrous for humanity as Stalinism, Maoism, and Nazism. I am also convinced that in a generation, the shame of our inaction on this issue will be comparable to the Left’s shame over communist ‘apologetics’, and European soul-searching over our inaction during the Holocaust.
Global warming is a ‘meta’ issue. It is likely to be a catalyst for many future conflicts, as different countries, groups and ideologies fight for control over scarce resources. Climate Change will emphasise the political divides we see delineated by the Euston Manifesto group. The group makes statements on particular issues (such as Iraq, and Israel/Palestine) so one on global warming, or rather, “a shared responsibility for the earth’s resources”, needs to be in there too. It is the elephant in the room, one that must be ejected before I will sign the manifesto.
Updates: Mike Marqusee has posted an interesting critique of the Euston Manifesto at Comment Is Free; Devil’s Kitchen calls me a hippy… plus further interrogation of the climate change/global warming premise at PooterGeek.

6 Replies to “The Euston Manifesto”

  1. Robert,
    The whole manifesto is uncomfortable with my Anti-Amercanism. Why is that? It is a thought out position.
    Not least to do with their ridiculous anti Kyoto, CO2 is really a good thing polemic, but also the way they treat the rest of us. At least some of the time.
    I know this might seem a bit rabid, but there is no evidence that the USA would have ‘chosen sides’ in WW2 had it not been for Pearl Harbour.
    They are not Gods chosen people, really.
    For the ‘Manifesto’ to imply they are beyond criticism, except in the details, is a bit rich.

  2. I know this might seem a bit rabid, but there is no evidence that the USA would have ‘chosen sides’ in WW2 had it not been for Pearl Harbour.
    What nonsense. The US was actively supplying the British and Russians since the outset of WWII and Barbarossa respectively, and the majority of US politicians were in favour of joining in the war on the allied side. The problem is the US is a democracy, and having been dragged into WWI with little to show for it the public and some politicians were understandably reluctant to get totally drawn into another European war. People forget that the US must make the case to its people for going to war, or signing Kyoto agreements for that matter, and cannot just make decisions wholesale as if they were a tinpot dictatorship.
    If you take the time to look, far from their being no evidence as you claim, there is ample evidence that the US was actively supporting the allies pretty much from the beginning, and they were biding their time to wait for an opportunity to make a clear case to the public that they should go to war, which they did in due course. Had Pearl Harbour not occurred, they would almost certainly have joined in over another or similar incident.

  3. There were plenty of interest groups in the states who wanted to support Germany – without Pearl Harbour the US may never have gathered the momentum to enter the war. But their committment was total when they finally did, so the speculation seems a bit cheap.

  4. Pingback: PooterGeek

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.