In Britain last year a group of citizens signed a document known as the Euston Manifesto. The purpose of the document was to show that there were those on the UK left, both liberals and progressives, who supported the struggle for democracy and against tyranny. “We are democrats and progressives,” it opened. “We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment.” The signers were particularly concerned with the alliances set up in the British anti-war movement with “illiberal theocrats” and defenders of suicide bombings.

Anti-Americanism was also damaging, the authors wrote: “We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic “anti-imperialism” and/or hostility to the current U.S. administration.” The authors concluded that “the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fight against tyranny and oppression are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to.”

This week a group in the U.S. announced it has created an American statement in support of Euston. The document in its entirety is visible on www.eustonmanifesto.org, but we reprint excerpts, and names of some of the signers, below. The American statement says that Cold War communism ought to be viewed in contradistinction to jihadism in respect to its attitude toward human life, an argument with which some might disagree.The signers are both unhappy with some of the Bush administration’s actions and divided on the merits of the Iraq War. They assert the importance of liberal democracy and deplore anti-Americanism to an extent that seems worth noting.

We are signers or supporters in the United States of the Euston Manifesto and its reassertion of liberal values. Our views range from those of centrists and independents to liberals of varying hues on to the democratic left. We include supporters of the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 as well as people who opposed this war from the beginning. However, we all welcome and are heartened by the decision of the writers of the Euston Manifesto in Britain to reassert and reinvigorate liberal values in the present context. Now we confront the issue of how to respond to radical Islamism. Some of us view this ideology and its political results as the third major form of totalitarian ideology of the last century, after fascism and Nazism, on the one hand, and Communism, on the other. Others regard it as having a history in the Arab and Islamic world that eludes the label of totalitarianism. We all agree however that it fosters dictatorship, terror, anti-Semitism and sexism of a most retrograde kind. We reject its subordination of politics to the dictates of religious fundamentalists as well as its contempt for the role of individual autonomy and rationality in politics, a rejection not seen on this scale in world politics since the 1940s. We understand that the United States must continue to take the lead with our allies in confronting this danger.

Our views in foreign policy are rooted in the traditions of Franklin Roosevelt as well as Harry Truman, who battled dictatorships of the right as well as the left respectively. For their generation, the key questions of international politics concerned totalitarianism in Europe and Asia. They led the country in war to defeat fascism, Nazism, and Imperial Japan and then founded the institutions that led to the peaceful victory in the Cold War over Communism. The key moral and political challenge in foreign affairs in our time stems from radical Islamism and the jihadist terrorism it has unleashed. We favor a liberalism that is as passionate about the struggle against Islamic extremism as it has been about its political, social, economic and cultural agenda at home. We reject the now ossified and unproductive political polarization of American politics rooted as it is in the conflicts of the 1960s, not the first decade of this century. We are frustrated in the choice between conservative governance that thwarts much needed reforms at home, on the one hand, and a liberalism which has great difficulty accepting the projection of American power abroad, on the other. The long era of Republican ascendancy may very well be coming to an end. If and when it does, we seek a renewed and reinvigorated American liberalism, one that is up to the task of fighting and winning the struggle of free and democratic societies against Islamic extremism and the terror it produces.

Even though we may differ on the proper response, we view the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran with alarm. Such a state with these weapons would be a grave danger for the Middle East, Europe and the United States. It would increase the danger that such weapons might wind up in the hands of radical Islamist terrorist groups immune to the calculations of nuclear deterrence. In contrast to the Communists during the Cold War, who wanted to change, not depart from this world, the cult of death and martyrdom of the terrorists inspired by Islamic fundamentalism raises deeply troubling questions about the prospects for peace and security in the future. We take very seriously and find utterly repugnant the threats of Iran’s political leaders to “wipe out” the state of Israel. We will not remain silent in the face of these genocidal threats to implement what would amount to a second Holocaust.We note as well that the vast majority of victims of the jihadist fanaticism have been other Muslims. Yet the passions of too many liberals here and abroad, even in the aftermath of terrorist attacks all over the world, remain more focused on the misdeeds and errors of our own government in Iraq than on the terrorist outrages by Islamic extremists. Anger at the Bush administration, however justified, should not trump opposition to all aspects of jihadism.

We stress that the efforts of liberal and free societies to defeat the radical Islamists is not a clash of civilizations, just as the war against Nazism, Italian Fascism and Imperial Japan was not a war against the totality of the cultures and history of Germany, Italy and Japan. Each of these societies had multiple traditions other than those of dictatorship and aggression. Fundamentalist Islamists do not speak for Muslims as a whole. Yet we soberly observe that, as Arab liberals and Muslim moderates have pointed out, democratic values and critical reflection on religious belief that have long been part of Western modernity remain comparatively weak in the Arab and Muslim world.…The signers of this statement include supporters of the decision to go to war in Iraq and others who opposed this decision from the beginning. Despite our agreement about many things in this manifesto, our differences on this issue remain. Our group includes signatories who view the war as a failure and a diversion from the struggle against radical Islamists. They therefore advocate an American withdrawal at the earliest possible time, especially in light of Sunni-Shia sectarian violence enveloping that country. However others amongst us point to the fragile beginnings of democracy after dictatorship and think success there is still possible and essential. In their view an American exit before stability and security are established would be a disaster for international and national security and would be seen in many parts of the world as a victory for radical islamists and unreconstructed Baathists.

We realize that the path to a new and reinvigorated liberalism in foreign policy will be difficult. The political habits of the post-Vietnam era are hard to break. Yet we think that the terror unleashed by the radical Islamists has begun to refocus some liberal minds.We have authored this statement and urge other like-minded citizens to join us in the hopes that this rethinking will become clearer and more vigorous as a result of debate and discussion we hope to stimulate. We believe liberals have important contributions to make in the struggle against the Islamic extremists. Indeed, we believe that this struggle’s successful outcome depends in part on our engagement on the basis of deeply held values and traditions.

Authors:

Jeffrey Herf
University of Maryland

Russell Berman
Stanford University

Thomas Cushman
Wellesley College

Richard Just
the New Republic

Robert Lieber
Georgetown University

Andrei Markovits
University of Michigan

Fred Siegel
Cooper Union College

Signers:

Ronald Asmus
Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S.

Daniel Bell
Harvard University

David Bell
Johns Hopkins University

Sheri Berman
Barnard College

William Chace
Emory University

Arthur Eckstein
University of Maryland

Cynthia Fuchs Epstein
CUNY Graduate Center

Gerald Feldman
University of California, Berkeley

Saul Friedlander
UCLA

Daniel Goldhagen
Harvard University

Liah Greenfield
Boston University

Alonzo Hamby
Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

Jeffrey Herf
University of Maryland

Mark Kramer
JFK School of Government, Harvard University

Walter Laqueur
Washington, DC

Joan Lowenstein
Ann Arbor City Council

Will Marshall
Progressive Policy Institute
Democratic Leadership Council

Steven Miner
Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

Stephen Morris
Johns Hopkins University

Keith Olson
University of Maryland

Stanley Payne
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Martin Peretz
the New Republic

Ronald Radosh
CUNY

Walter Reich
GWU

Steven Smith
Yale Univsersity

Vladimir Tismaneanu
University of Maryland

Gerhard Weinberg
University of North Carolina

Leon Wieseltier
the New Republic