Fascism: A Word Not To Be Thrown Lightly

The following is a piece written by Sergio Romano, an Italian historian, who knows what fascism means, and what it does not. Mr. Bush should know better than to use the word so lightly... or maybe he just doesn't...

Corriere Della Sera, Italy
Lesson for Bush: Saddam is a Fascist, the Islamists are not
By Sergio Romano*
Translation Provided By Nur-al-Cubicle [Nur-al-Cubicle Blog]
August 12, 2006

Today, the word, fascist, has lost its original meaning and simply signifies a certain violence, intolerance and perhaps even a scoundrel. Many of those who use the term have only a vague notion of its meaning, but have understood that it's an insult and therefore good for verbal attacks by political figures. But when the President of the United States says that his country is at war with "Islamo Fascists," even though his declarations are often imprecise, we should suppose that he knows from whence he speaks.

George W. Bush is not the first to use the expression. An American leftist intellectual recently used the term, "Muslim Totalitarianism" and just before the thwarted London bombings, British Minister of the Interior John Reid warned his audience of threats from those who could be termed, fascist. Does Islamo-Fascism therefore exist? And if it does, who are its ideologues, its prominent leaders, and what are its political formations?

Suspicions began to be raised when European diplomats and intelligence agents reported to their governments in the 1930s, that intellectuals and military men of certain Muslim countries expressed a definite interest in and admiration for the fascist regimes [Germany and Italy]. One of the first to realize that such sympathies could be turned into a useful political trump card was [former Italian dictator] Benito Mussolini. From that moment, Fascist Italy began sending out feelers to anti-British and anti-French nationalists in North Africa and in the Levant [countries bordering the eastern Mediterranean], with particular attention to Palestine. An Arab language radio station, Radio Bari, was created. Contacts were made with Habib Bourguiba , founder of the Tunisian nationalist movement, Neo Destur, derived from a prior group called Destur [the word means liberty or constitution], which was more moderate and conciliatory.

When Mussolini went to Libya in 1937, the Colonial Governor, Italo Balbo , arranged an extraordinary welcoming pageant in Bugara, outside Tripoli, where 2000 horsemen saluted him with war hymns and drumrolls. One horseman, Iussuf Kerbisc, rode out of formation and presented Mussolini with A sword of solid gold. At this moment, reverberating next to our own hearts, he told Mussolini, are the hearts of all Muslims of the Mediterranean who, full of admiration and hope, see in you a great Man of State guiding our destiny with a steady hand.
Contacts with Arab nationalists increased during the war, when Italy and Germany hoped to foment an Arab revolt in British Empire's backyard, similar to that led by T. E. Lawrence and Faisal , son of the Hashemite Sharif of Mecca, against the Ottoman Empire in 1916. The principal pawns of this policy were an Iraqi man of state, Rashid Alì al-Gaylani , and the Grand Muftì di Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini .

As Manfredo Martelli recounts in his book, Arab Nationalism and the Policies of Mussolini [I nazionalisti arabi e la politica di Mussolini, Edizioni Settimo Sigillo, 2003], that Rashid Alì al-Gaylani came to power in Baghdad with a coup d'état at the beginning of 1941 and declared war on Great Britain with modest assistance from Axis aviation. It lasted until the end of May, when British troops entered Baghdad and forced him into exile in Iran. He fled to Iran together with the Mufti of Jerusalem, who avoided arrest by the Iranian police and crossed into Turkey (says Martelli), in possession an Italian passport, with dyed hair and a shaved beard. When he finally arrived in Rome on October 10, 1941, he was received by Mussolini in the presence of [Foreign Minister] Galeazzo Ciano . The conversation took place in French, and Mussolini told him that he would spare no effort to assist the Arabs "politically and spiritually." They also spoke of Jewish aspirations for Palestine.

The fascist leader (who, during the 1930s had supported the Zionist Movement against Britain) reassured him. If the Jews want their own state they'll have to build Tel Aviv in America. They are our enemies and there will be no room in Europe for them. From Rome, the Mufti went to Berlin, where he remained until the end of the year. He also made a trip to Bosnia to urge Muslims in the region to collaborate with the Axis; thus, the Handzar Division, comprised of SS who wore distinctive headgear - a red fez - was conceived of.

Al-Gaylani and al-Husseini were not the only friends of the Axis in the Middle East. At the end of 1941, as the Africa Korps advanced toward Alexandria, a group of Egyptian officers gathered intelligence for Rommel's General Staff on the movement of British troops. One of their leaders was Anwar al-Sadat , who became President of Egypt following the death of Nasser . Several crossed over the lines to join Axis troops only to reappear next to Nasser during the 1952 [Egyptian] revolution. Jean Lacouture , in his 1971 biography of Nasser, recounted that during those days, while the Germans and the British were fighting the Battle of al-Alamein , there were demonstrations in Cairo and in Alexandria. The crowd chanted the praises of Rommel and mangled Mussolini's name calling him Mussa Nili, the Moses of the Nile.

But none of these personalities could be considered truly fascist. They were nationalists seeking assistance from the enemies of Great Britain because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It is certainly true that the nationalist and socialist regimes created in several European countries in the 1920s and 1930s appeared to many Arab and Muslim leaders as appropriate for their needs. The unquestioned authority of the leader, a single party, the role of the armed forces and the bureaucracy, the unbridled use of the police and secret services and the control of society and of the press appeared to be the right ingredients for a nascent state in which the masses were illiterate and the tree of democracy struggled to enroot itself. But not all authoritarian regimes can be considered fascist or communist.

The movement most resembling fascism among those groups which appeared in the Middle East during the 1900s was a movement founded in Syria in 1940. Its founder, Michel Aflaq , was a Syrian Christian. He had studied at the Sorbonne in the 1930s, had participated in the battles between Left and Right in the streets of Paris and had absorbed an intoxicating mix of political literature, from Mazzini to Lenin . He was anti-colonial, pan-Arab, proud of the Arab past but resolutely secular and socialist. When he returned home, he founded the Ba'ath Party [Resurgence or renaissance, in Arabic] and one of his first actions was to join the al-Gaylani revolt against Great Britain in 1941. Aflaq died in 1989, probably in Baghdad, as the guest of a man who had much admired him and who drew on his teachings to organize the Iraqi state. That man was Saddam Hussein.

It was he who created the Party, Saddam Hussein told an interviewer in 1980. How could I possibly forget what Michel Aflaq did for me? If it were not for him, I would never have come to this position. Iraq was therefore the Middle East's most fascist regime in the last few decades. Saddam used the Ba'ath Party to militarize the society, to set up a cult of personality modeled from that of Il Duce and Der Führer, to put the bureaucracy in uniform and to emphasize public works. At the same time, he was a nationalist and, in his own way, a socialist. This was the height of fascism in the Arab world.

But it would be very difficult for me to identify fascism in religiously inspired movements from the Muslim Brotherhood to those that following the Iranian Revolution, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the First Gulf War in 1991. Between the Ba'ath and religious fanaticism, even against a common enemy, there is an unbridgeable divide. Unlike his predecessors, George Bush seems to have forgotten that the greatest enemy of Khomeini's Iran was Saddam Hussein, and that during the long war between the two countries, from 1980 to 1988, the United States supported the fascists against the Islamists.

*Sergio Romano was born in 1929 in Vicenza and earned a law degree from the State University of Milan. Joining the Italian diplomatic service in 1954, Romano served as representative to NATO and ambassador to Moscow during the crucial "perestroika" years. He retired in 1989. He has taught history at the Universities of Florence, Paria, Sassari, Berkeley and Harvard. He holds honorary doctoral degrees from Etudes Politiques of Paris, the University of Macerata and the Institute of Universal History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His most famous published works are Giolitti, the style of power; Gentile, the philosophy of power, Russia in the Balance (il Mulino 1989), and The Decline of the USSR as a World Power and Its Consequences

Israel and the Principle of Proportionality

Today I was faced with a situation where I was expected to express my views on the legality of Israel's actions in Lebanon in terms of the international legal concept of proportionality. I was in an academic setting being questioned by a scholar with a clear pro-Israel stance. She challenged me to express a legal argument "free from personal bias." Despite the fact that her stance was anything but impersonally guided, I took her advice to heart and found great ease in expressing the illegality of Israel's atrocities in Lebanon from a "purely" academic perspective. I shall leave aside, for the moment, the preposterous belief that any legal view may be detached from a political bias, with the Supreme Court being a case in point.

On the question of what proportionality (in bello) in terms of international law means, there has been much confusion in the media and amongst the talking heads especially with respect to Israel's latest actions in both Gaza and Lebanon. Proportionality in international law does not refer to a situation where one side is constrained by the amount of force its enemy may or may not possess. In other words, because Hezbollah is limited in its weaponry does not mean that Israel must use the same level of force.

Proportionality in the conduct of war means that a state may unilaterally defend itself and/or undertake a reprisal provided the response is proportional to the injury sustained. The injury sustained, according to Israel, is the kidnapping of two of its soldiers. It was only after the commencement of its offensive against Lebanon that Israel expanded this injury to include ending the ability of Hezbollah to launch any further attacks against Israel. Whatever Israel is doing in Lebanon is supposedly in response to that wrong. Thus, proportionality must be evaluated in terms of that expressed wrong.

Fortunately, there is no positive law detailing numbers or ratios of acceptable "collateral damage". However, reasonable people can agree or disagree on what is considered "acceptable" and this level of acceptability is likely to be conditioned by what side of the conflict one sits, in addition to one's value of human life. For me, and for many others, that level has been exceeded in Lebanon. Thus, there are some who would argue that even one innocent civilian death is too many, while others at the other extreme, may draw the line at nuking a village or city if it means weeding out a "terrorist". The important issue here is that the principle does exist and what is in debate is where to draw the line.

However, the laws of war, as enumerated in numerous international conventions such as the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, underline the fact that there are 2 overriding principles which should guide hostilities, namely, proportionality AND discrimination. This latter principle is defined by immunity of non-combatants from being targeted during times of war. This exclusion extends to civilian infrastructure and property.

Thus, when Israel bombs and kills over 1,200 civilians, decimates homes and destroys basic infrastructure needed by the civilian population to survive, in order, according to its own declarations, to root out 50 Hezbollah combatants, Israel may be held to account for contravening the laws of war - both proportionality and discrimination. The applicable terms are war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

The issue of proportionality and Israel's action in both Gaza and Lebanon were recently addressed by the Council on Foreign Relations and I quote:

"What is the doctrine of proportionality? The doctrine originated with the 1907 Hague Conventions, which govern the laws of war, and was later codified in Article 49 of the International Law Commission's 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility (PDF). The doctrine is also referred to indirectly in the 1977 Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of whether states are party to the treaties above, experts say the principle is part of what is known as customary international law. According to the doctrine, a state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered. The response must also be immediate and necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante. That said, experts say the proportionality principle is open to interpretation and depends on the context. "It's always a subjective test," says Michael Newton, associate clinical professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School. "But if someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn their house down."

The Council article goes on to say: "How does the doctrine apply to the current context in Israel? Many legal experts say Israel's response to the recent abductions has not upheld the principle of proportionality and violates international humanitarian law."

Human Rights Watch website contains a discussion of the Israeli action in Lebanon from the perspective of International Humanitarian Law. One interesting issue discussed relates to the so-called humanitarian Israeli practice of dropping leaflets on trapped civilians exhorting them to leave the vicinity (yet not allowing them the means to comply). Quote:

"Do the warnings given to Lebanese civilians in advance of IDF attacks comply with international humanitarian law? The IDF, through leaflets dropped by aircraft, radio broadcasts and recorded messages to telephones, has repeatedly called on civilians in southern Lebanon to evacuate their areas. International humanitarian law requires that warring parties give “effective advance warning” of attacks that may affect the civilian population, so long as circumstances permit. What constitutes an “effective” warning will depend on the circumstances. Such an assessment would take into account the timing of the warning and the ability of the civilians to leave the area. In some cases the IDF are reported to have dropped leaflets giving residents only two hours warning before a threatened attack. Bomb damage to roads and bridges, as well as air attacks on civilian vehicles, would also affect the ability of civilians to flee an expected attack. Civilians who do not evacuate following warnings are still fully protected by international law. Otherwise, warring parties could use warnings to cause forced displacement, threatening civilians with deliberate harm if they did not heed them. So, even after warnings have been given, attacking forces must still take all feasible precautions to avoid loss of civilian life and property. This includes canceling an attack when it becomes apparent that the target is civilian or that the civilian loss would be disproportionate to the expected military gain."

Today Israel demanded from the civilians of Tyre to evacuate the vicinity yet, in the same leaflet, warned against any attempt to leave in vehicles as all moving vehicles would be targeted for bombing. Does Israel assume that the elderly, young, sick and even the healthy are supposed to make a run for it by foot under the rain of Israeli bombardment across rivers, hills, mountains, and otherwise difficult terrain? In the absence of any other logic, this is beginning to look like an extermination campaign.... and that is a conclusion filled with personal bias not due to any political view but rather as a human being!

The terrorizing and killing of innocent civilians is defined as terrorism, perpetrated by terrorists. Israel has placed this label on Hezbollah. However, righting the wrong that Israel claims does not come about by descending to the same level and sinking even further into moral deficit and legal delict. Shame!