That seems to be the thesis that Tarak Barkawi is advancing in an opinion piece at alJazeera today. He effectively paints Archbishop Tutu with the same "murderer" label that many of us would like to see Tony Blair try to argue away at the International Criminal Court.
Barkawi's reasoning is that while Tutu explicitly condemns Blair's war-mongering, Tutu refuses to explicitly condemn capitalism, which has, according to Barkawi, carried a far more onerous human cost than mere war. The overall thrust of the article seems to be that we err in painting Blair a war criminal because his most high-profile detractor at the moment is complicit in even greater crimes.
I'm far from convinced. The history of war by far predates the history of capitalism as we know it. War hurts some capitalists and enriches others. While great fortunes have been amassed through warfare, great fortunes have also been amassed during times of peace.
Where capitalism has become a war-driver, as in contemporary America, there is indeed a close correlation between war and corporate interests. But this is a far from inevitable result. America could break the grip of the profit driven military industrial complex on foreign policy without in any way threatening capitalism per se.
All that's needed is the political will to regulate capitalism, and while that will is certainly lacking in America today, the fact that a variety of capitalist social democracies around the world manage to avoid having their private military contractors write their foreign policy is ample proof of this.
Tony Blair is an opportunistic liar who connived with others in the illegal launch of a war. He has blood on his hands. He belongs in the dock at the ICC, regardless of whether he was one of its founders.
No comments:
Post a Comment