Nothing "Left" to Say

Yesterday evening I attended a Pugwash lecture by Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Ebadi is currently visiting Britain, promoting her autobiography and speaking out against human rights abuses. Ebadi passionately believes that Islam and democracy are in no opposition to each other, and that even gender equality can be reconciled with Quranic principles. Her arguments were compelling, and though undoubtedly some of her eloquence was lost in translation, she is one of the bravest, most inspiring people I have ever had the privilege to listen to. Her visit comes at a time when the situation of women in Iran has been sidelined by the dispute about Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium. Ebadi is highly critical of the West, which she believes is concerned only about its own security and ignores the plight of the Iranian people who suffer from a regime, which claims to advance Islamic principles but, in reality, twists and tweaks the words of the Quran according to what is in its interests. Ebadi strongly warned of military sanctions against Iran. This, in her view, would unite the country behind the current leadership and result in a potentially catastrophic confrontation: ‘We love our country, and we’ll not let it become another Iraq!’ Hearing such words from one of regime’s most outspoken critics was a sobering reminder both of the power of nationalism and the limits of military force. What I found most interesting, though, was Ebadi’s response to the comments made by an anti-war activist, who spoke during the Q&A. The young man criticised Ebadi for raising concerns about Tehran’s oppressive practices at a time when the country was under the threat from military attack. He seemed to argue that, by highlighting the regime's dismal human rights record, Ebadi was providing the ‘warmongers’ in Washington with the rhetorical ammunition needed to make the case for an ‘invasion’ of the country. To me this intervention - however well-intended - seemed to be a sad illustration of how part of the anti-war movement have lost the plot. Never mind the fact that a full-scale military ‘invasion’ of Iran is not something even the most hawkish supporters of a tough line on Iran would wish to contemplate, the very idea that all talk about human rights should be suspended for as long as the nuclear crisis continues strikes me as the least progressive thing I have ever heard from the mouth of someone who probably claims to be a left-wing internationalist. It almost rivals the sense of shame and disgust every decent liberal or left-winger should feel when seeing the (not so gorgeous) George Galloway touring the world’s dictatorships, saluting their leaders for their ‘strength, courage, and indefatigability’. What was Ebadi’s response? It was obvious that she was taken aback by the idea that anyone could argue that the solution to the current crisis was less rather than more democracy. Indeed, leaning over the lectern and pointing her finger at the culprit, she made it clear that this was not the kind of anti-war movement she wanted to be associated with. On the contrary, she said, only by empowering the people of Iran will it be possible to avoid crises like the current one. In her view, there should be no moratorium on democracy and human rights anywhere or at any time – least of all in Iran – precisely because it is the lack of these precious commodities that gives rise to such conflicts in the first place. Embarrassed to receive a telling off from no one less than a Nobel Peace Prize winner, the young man left the event almost immediately. And indeed, once the Left begins to pit peace against human rights, there really is nothing 'left' to say.