Maryam
Namazie: You wrote the Manifesto
of the Third Camp against US Militarism and Islamic
Terrorism, which many people are now supporting.
Why did you feel the need to write it?
Hamid
Taqvaee: If you have a look at the political
situation of our era, it seems that there are
mainly two forces that actually determine everything
in the political arena in the Middle East, the
west and even the world. These two forces are
the USA and its allies on the one hand and Islamic
terrorism on the other. But the fact is that it
is not only these two. What we are saying is that
neither of these two forces actually represents
people. Even people living in Islamist societies,
and I can say especially those people, are not
represented by political Islam, or by Islamic
governments such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Third Camp addresses that force which represents
the majority of people of the world - a majority
which has no interest in the war between these
two poles of Islamic and US-led terrorism. They
reap no benefits from their war.
In
the conflict between the two in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Lebanon, Palestine, it is people who are actually
sacrificed. People have no reason to take part
in this. But the question is what do they do?
Must they stay home, witness the carnage that
is unfolding before their eyes and do nothing?
Of course not. The Third Camp enables people to
make a stand against both poles of terrorism in
our era. Since people are losing everything in
this confrontation, we must establish and organise
a third movement. The third camp is a movement
not an organization; it is a movement against
political Islam and US militarism.
Maryam
Namazie: It's not yet well known but
one gets the sense that it is crucial…
Hamid Taqvaee: Yes, it is not well known
and that is why one of our main aims is to introduce
the movement to as many people as we can. I believe
public opinion on the whole is with us. If they
come to know about what we are saying, if they
were able to find out our goals and purpose, I
think they would join us. In Iran, and countries
like it, I can say with confidence that more than
90 percent of the people are with us and that
we are representing them. They are with us against
Islamic terrorism; they are against US militarism.
I think we can say that about today's Iraq and
other Middle Eastern societies that have been
at the frontlines of the conflict. In Europe,
too, people know what is going on after September
11, Madrid, London, Bali. Even in western countries,
where people are faced with massive media propaganda,
I believe that most people if they knew about
us, if they heard what we say and represent, they
would join us. They would join the third camp
movement. As I said, I think the third camp represents
a majority of people in any given country. They
just need to know that such a force and movement
exists, and that it is active. They would join
as soon as we were able to reach them.
Maryam
Namazie: I think that is one of the
things that we are witnessing. When you talk to
activists who are reaching out to people, they
say that a lot of them feel a sense of relief
that there is this human alternative and they
don't have to choose between bad and worse.
Hamid
Taqvaee: Exactly.
Maryam
Namazie: There has been an immense
amount of support for the Third Camp, but also
some criticism. It would be good if you could
address some of them here. Some are saying that
it is wrong to gather opposition to both US militarism
and political Islam since one can't deal with
both at the same time and also because they say,
both are not equally important. Groups like the
Stop the War Coalition believe that the main issue
is Empire or US imperialism.
Hamid
Taqvaee: This is not new. As far as I remember,
since the start of my political life, I have heard
this sort of position from anti-imperialist activists.
They ask "What is the main problem?"
but never ask for whom and in what context. They
imply that there is one main problem for every
single person in our era. And they always say
that the main problem is imperialism. During the
Cold War, there were two different groups. One
of them would say that the main enemy or the main
problem was the Soviet empire; the other would
say it was the US and western empire and they
had ongoing discussions with each other. Now that
the US is the only superpower, everything has
become even more simplified for them. Now we have
only one empire to address!
But
let's think of this from the point of view of
women in the world, for example. In Islamist societies,
or for women who are considered Muslim, what is
the main problem? The empire or political Islam?
For women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq,
Algeria, and even Muslim women in Scandinavia,
Europe, and the US, what is their main problem?
Their problem is that political Islam forces them
to wear the hijab, prevents girls from playing
with boys, and even allows 9 year old to 'marry',
which is nothing more than legalising child sexual
abuse. Political Islam is a massive movement and
from their point of view, from the point of view
of millions and millions of women, the main problem
is not the empire or US imperialism.
Maryam
Namazie: But in countries like Iraq,
for example, it is US imperialism that has wreaked
havoc….
Hamid
Taqvaee: OK, but what about Iran? For 27 years,
not only women, but a majority of the population
have had no rights. In any sense of the word,
the Islamic Republic of Iran is an every-day terrorism
ruling Iran. In Iraq, too, Islamic sects are fighting
each other and slaughtering children. Sunnis killing
Shiites and vice versa. In Iraq, both the US and
its allied forces as well as Islamic groups are
killing left, right and centre in the name of
democracy or resistance! It doesn't matter what
they call it! They are killing people everyday.
People,
civilians, who have no interest and no participation
in the resistance, get slaughtered. We don't have
resistance as such in Iraq. We have different
Islamic and nationalist factions and the occupying
forces of the US and Britain fighting each other.
That is the situation in Iraq.
Maryam
Namazie: Darren
Cogavin has written a piece in the Blanket
criticising Anthony McIntyre's article in the
same publication in defence of the Third Camp.
He says that one of the most basic tenets of consistent
democracy is solidarity with mass-based rebellions
against occupation, national oppression and colonial
rule when they actually occur.
Hamid
Taqvaee: Again with the mass-based something!
Mass-based what? Hitler relied on the masses.
Initially in Iran, Khomeini had the masses with
him. So what? Masses can go wrong and most of
the time - when there is no left or progressive
force present - they do. It happens all the time,
everywhere. Masses go and vote for Bush in America
and regret it after a few months. It happens everywhere.
So don't talk about 'the masses,' 'what the masses
say' and 'what the masses don't say'. That is
one point. The other point, even in this context,
is that there are no masses behind Islamic forces
in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. That is a big
lie. Like the mass media, it categorises all people
living in the Middle East as automatically supporting
political Islam because of where they were born.
This is a big lie. It's as if to say you are with
Tony Blair because you were born in Britain since
he is your prime minister! This is the same nonsense
they spew about the Iranian people. There are
no 'masses' behind political Islam, even in Iraq,
in my opinion. The masses in Iraq want peace;
they want a normal life; they want to get rid
of all of the forces - Islamist and western -
that are making life intolerable. They want to
get rid of all of them so they can get on with
their day-to-day life, go to school, have hospitals,
have electricity, running water… That's their
main problem not resistance against the empire
or the democracy that the empire wants to give
them. They are defending life. So we have to have
a force representing life in Iraq and in fact
the masses are with that force. If there is not
such a force there, we have to go and create it
and organise it - a force defending life against
both those poles and fighting against both of
them. Going back to old terminology and Cold War
logic won't get us anywhere. Speaking of what
the masses want doesn't help. You don't determine
politics by what people say but by what they really
need. What they really want. Even if they don't
know it. Even if nobody represents them. You have
to find out what it actually is - it's not subjective
but objective. And you have to go out and be the
voice of the people. And represent what they want
and need and organise them around that and create
a political force against the so-called "resistance"
and forces for "democracy". None of
the two poles represent people in Iran, in Iraq,
or elsewhere in the world. They merely represent
different camps of the ruling classes.
Maryam
Namazie: Let's leave the masses out
of it for now; the same writer says that the biggest
obstacle to US domination in Iraq and the Middle
East is the armed resistance without which US
imperialism might well be preparing for a full
scale invasion of Iran. So basically he says the
manifesto contradicts itself because it is actually
this very political Islamic resistance that has
stopped the US from entering Iran.
Hamid
Taqvaee: With this logic, one could say, 'if
there was no US forces in Iraq, Islamic forces
would make the country much worse than what we
have in Iran today. Women in Iraq would be in
a much worse situation if they had a regime like
Iran's.' The problem with this writer is that
he doesn't see both poles in the conflict. Automatically,
he thinks that whoever resists the US is good.
Is pro-people. That's wrong. This sort of logic
has never worked throughout history and it doesn't
work here either. It is not the case that because
the US is against the people, therefore, whoever
resists the US is with the people. The same logic
would be the reverse in Iran. The Islamic Republic
is against the people based on what it has done
for the past 27 years ruling Iran, and the US
is against the Islamic Republic of Iran so the
US is with the people of Iran. That's wrong! That
sort of logic won't get us anywhere. It depends
what point of view you are looking at it from.
If you look at it from the point of view of only
opposing the Islamic Republic in Iran then you
will conclude that the US is pro the people. And
if you think of it in terms of only opposing the
forces that are occupying Iraq, you will come
to the conclusion that Moqtada al-Sadr or Islamists
in Iraq are with the people. Either way, this
is incorrect.
The
point is that you don't have to choose between
these two poles. We have to go and create a third
camp against both. That's the whole point.
Maryam
Namazie: He goes on to say that the
third camp is social chauvinist and "has
chosen to position themselves against the growing
movement challenging US imperialism arms in hand
at a time when revolutionary Marxism is most urgently
needed."
Hamid
Taqvaee: Revolutionary Marxism defends itself
and defends the people. If there is a force that
we can refer to as "revolutionary Marxism",
why doesn't this force go and create and organise
its own movement? Why do we as Marxists have to
support somebody else all the time? In the Cold
War, why did we have to support the Soviet Union
vis-à-vis the USA? And why now, do we have
to support Islamists against the USA. And every
time, we have a big enemy - the empire or whatever
they call it - and we have to support those who
are seen to be against it. Why shouldn't others
support us? Why are we not creating our own movement
with our own political aims and goals and calling
on everybody to come and support us!
There
are Islamists against the USA. Fair enough. I
accept that. We are against the USA as well. Why
shouldn't Islamists have a discussion among themselves
about supporting Marxists? And actually when Marxism
was more fashionable in the 60's, we did have
this sort of thing. There were so many religious
groups that called themselves 'Marxist'. Now it
is the opposite. Now some Marxists call themselves
'Muslim' and that is the main problem of the anti-US
movement. The upper hand in this movement is with
the Islamists, unfortunately. And Marxists like
the one you are quoting, always think Marxists
have to go join a big front and support somebody
else against the US. If today, it is Sheikh Nasrullah
or Hizbullah, then we must all go and support
them. At the time of Khomeini, they supported
Khomeini. But then you think of it from the point
of view of ordinary people. People in the streets.
Public opinion all over the world. They don't
buy this sort of logic because it has nothing
to do with their real lives. They don't go by
terminology and abstract concepts of 'who is the
main empire of this era?' They don't think that
way. They simply think about what benefits them;
what's for them and what's against them. And the
people of Iran who have been living under the
yoke of Islamic rule know what Islam is. It doesn't
matter whether you tell them that Islam is against
the US. It it not their criteria. What is important,
and really matters is not the Islamic Republic-US
relationship, but the relationship of both of
these poles with the people. That's the way we
Marxists should judge and criticise different
political movements, parties, and governments.
So again referring even to Marxists as a political
group or party or movement and then demanding
that we as Marxists go and support political Islam
or Islamic forces is just ridiculous.
Maryam
Namazie: The author goes on to say
that the manifesto 'recycles the odious garbage
of Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations,
directing liberals outside the ranks of the 'Irrelevant
Left' to enlist in the crusade for western secular
and enlightenment values against savage, fanatical
Islam.'
Hamid
Taqvaee: Why must the achievements of humanity,
secularism, defending human beings, humanity,
civil society and so on belong to the west or
to the east or... They belong to the human race.
They are the results of thousands of years of
human history. They are latest achievements in
politics, sociology, and science. The same way
that everybody uses the latest achievements of
technology, for example, everybody uses a TV,
cars, and planes. In the same way we have social
and political achievements that belong to human
beings. One of them is secularism; another is
civil society; another universal values. They
are defended in any country all over the world.
So they don't belong to any one culture at all.
Saying they do has to do with relativism. People
like the author think that culture is a relative
thing. So to them we have Islamic culture, western
culture, eastern culture, and when we are defending
the achievements of human beings, the achievements
of science, technology, sociology they just put
us in one of those categories. They say: 'you
are defending western culture'. In reality, east
or west is irrelevant. Human beings, humanity,
the human race has the same values everywhere
in the world. We believe that secularism, having
a civil society is a good value and it is good
for everybody. Everybody benefits from it; it
doesn't matter whether you were born in Iran or
in France. Civil society is one of the latest
achievements of human history. It doesn't belong
to any culture and we don't divide cultures in
this way. We believe and support the culture that
defends humanity and human beings and oppose the
culture which is against them. If you think about
it, you will see that a culture which is against
human beings belongs to a class which rules across
the world. They have different versions: the Islamic
culture defends the ruling class in Iran, the
Islamic Republic of Iran belongs to that eastern
culture and the culture of Mr. Rumsfeld and Bush
belongs to the ruling class in the USA and it
is in the category of western culture.
The
above is an edited transcript of Maryam Namazie's
interview with Hamid Taqvaee on Third Camp TV
on August 29, 2006. The programme can be viewed
on www.thirdcamp.com.
