The Lion and the Unicorn is a new, smart-looking blog which aims ‘to help fill a void in the UK blogosphere for a mainstream democratic left perspective’. Its author is Daniel (no second name given, or none that I could find). Go take a look. I welcome Daniel to the blogosphere, in a way appropriate to the medium, by engaging with his inaugural post – ‘Iraq… still’.
For, citing a post of my own as an example, Daniel expresses some puzzlement at the level of interest in Iraq there still is amongst left-wing bloggers. I’m puzzled by his puzzlement. First, this was a major issue which divided world opinion, and it still does. Second, the ultimate outcome in Iraq is of great importance – for the people of Iraq themselves, for the region, and for the world. Third – and speaking now just for myself – Iraq, or at any rate the post-9/11 world, is 50% or more of the reason why I started blogging and why I continue to do so, though it may not remain this way forever. Given how little support there has been for the pro-war, pro-liberation viewpoint on the left, and given the volume of (as we perceive it) wrong-headed argument and posturing against the war those of us holding this viewpoint encounter every single day in the publications we read and in the social spaces in which we move, blogging against that has been one way of trying to make a difference.
Daniel also asks a question about the focus of some of the anti-dictatorship concern:
[I]t is curious that the countries which most concern the ‘pro-intervention’ lefties are also frequently those that are strategically important for the West. I’ve read plenty of – quite just – criticism of Iran and Zimbabwe, for example. Far less about Indonesia, China or Uzbekistan.
I think this is unworthy. I start by – again – speaking for myself. I have an interest in Zimbabwe because it’s where I come from. The suggestion that the strategic interests of the West influence me at all in this regard I just flatly reject. But generalizing now: does anyone need any other reason for being bothered about what’s going on in Zimbabwe than how bad what’s going on is? You can say ‘But why Zimbabwe? What about x?’ But if Zimbabwe is a bad enough case of human suffering and injustice, why not? No one can do everything. Anyone who speaks or acts against any wrong is selective – inevitably. Why contribute to Oxfam? What about the Red Cross? Why the Red Cross? What about Amnesty International? Why, Daniel, post about this particular emphasis which you see as a ‘curious’, when there must be many other such?
Anyway, welcome to The Lion and the Unicorn. I’m adding it to my sidebar.