[RCIT] Down with France’s Colonial War in Mali!

[RKOB]

Down with France’s Colonial War in Mali! Solidarity with the Resistance! Let’s transform Mail into another Afghanistan for imperialism!
Fight for a workers government based on the peasants and poor! For socialist revolution in North Africa and the Middle East!
Resolution by the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 19.1.2013, www.thecommunists.net (http://www.thecommunists.net)


1. French imperialism has started a new war in Mali – one of its former colonies in Western Africa. Since 10.1.2013 the “socialist” government of François Hollande has ordered its army to bombard the North of Mali and deployed 750 soldiers. The French intervention force should increase soon to 2.500 soldiers. British imperialism has already announced its readiness to support the French troops with its air force and the US will assist them too with its murderous drones. It is very likely that the imperialist European Union will also support this war in one way or another too. In addition, the bloc of Western African states, ECOWAS, plans to send 3.300 soldiers. Together with the Mali government’s army they want to crush the Tuareg and Islamist rebels and re-conquer the North of the country.
2. Let us speak out the truth: This is no “humanitarian” war – this is a reactionary colonial war! The real goal of French imperialism and its allies is to strengthen its control over Mali and the Western African region and to suppress the revolution which is sweeping through North Africa.
3. Mali and most of its 14.5 million people are living in extreme poverty which is mainly the result of imperialism’s control over the world economy and the super-exploitation by the multinational corporations. However, monopoly capital and imperialist power are greedy for the rich raw materials of Mali. The country is Africa's third largest gold producer. It is also believed to be filled with oil and gas as well as uranium and phosphate.
4. The Uprising of the Tuareg people in the North of Mali who are fighting for their own state Azawad has added another rebellion to the wave of revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. Socialists support the struggle of the Tuareg people for national self-determination. We combine the support for the Tuaregs national liberation struggle with the perspective of a “Socialist Azawad”.
5. Both in Mali as well as in the Tuareg areas, the way forward for the workers and peasants is to take power and to expropriate the multinational corporations (like AngloGold) and local capitalists without compensation. For the control of all natural resources by the workers, expel the multinationals and their greedy managers! For massive wage rise for the miners!
6. The RCIT opposes bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces like the Islamist Ansar al Din, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and MUJAO (Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa) as well as the bourgeois nationalist MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) and the FLNA (National Front for the Liberation of Azawad). The workers, peasants and poor in Mali need to organize independently in action councils (like the Soviets in Russia in 1917) and armed militias to fight for their own interests. The recent heroic workers struggle in Marikana in South Africa as well as the bold struggle of the armed workers and peasants in Syria fighting against the jackal Assad are inspiring examples how we need to fight.
7. The French colonial war has again exposed the true reactionary character of the main forces of the French left. The Communist Party (PCF) – a constituent party of the reformist European Left Party as well as of the Front de Gauche in France – expressed in their public statements until now that they “share the goals of the Mali government to defeat the Jihadist terrorists in the North”. These social-democratised Stalinists are cynically worried that the French intervention “might risk a war”, so they “request that the French authorities respond to questions posed by heavy military intervention” (Statement from 12.1.). In other words, they are true social-imperialists which implicitly support the war goals of its ruling class. The NPA adopts the classic centrist line of social-pacifism. They verbally “denounce this imperialist military intervention decided by Holland”. (Statement from 11.1.) However, they fail to support the rebels, i.e. those who are actually fighting against this imperialist intervention, not do they call for the defeat of the French army.
8. The RCIT calls the international workers movement to mobilize against the imperialist intervention in Mali! We call for the defeat of the imperialist troops and the allied Mali government army! In the tradition of the Communist International in Lenin’s time and Trotsky’s Fourth International we support the military struggle of the colonial people against the imperialist forces and their allies without supporting in any way the politics of the Islamists and bourgeois nationalists. Let’s transform Mail into another Afghanistan for imperialism!
9. We call the international workers movement – especially in France – to mobilize for protest actions against the colonial war in order to undermine the government’s war efforts. For demonstrations and strikes against the imperialist war! Transport workers: refuse to do any work which supports the French military efforts!
10. The activists of the Revolution in North Africa and the Middle East must see the struggle against the imperialist intervention in Mali as part of their struggle. The workers and popular struggles in Tunisia against the Ennahda government and in Egypt against president Mursi, the heroic Palestinian resistance against the colonial settler state Israel, the heroic Revolution of the Syrian workers and peasants against the murderous Assad regime – they must be combined with the anti-imperialist resistance in Mali to a single wave of permanent revolution leading to working class power and the establishment of a Socialist Federation of Workers and Peasant Republics in North Africa and the Middle East. To succeed in this task we need to build new revolutionary workers parties and a new World Party of Socialist Revolution – the Fifth Workers International.

* Down with France’s colonial war in Mali!
* For the defeat of the imperialist troops and the allied Mali government army!
* For the military victory of the rebels against the French/government troops!
* For the right of national self-determination of the Tuareg people in the North of Mali including the right to form their own state!
* No political support for Islamism and bourgeois nationalism!
* Break with imperialism – for the expropriation of AngloGold without compensation! For nationalization of the mines and all natural resources under control of the working class! For massive wage rise of the miners! For a joint fight with the miners of Lonmin against the imperialists and for workers control!
* For international solidarity against the imperialist intervention! For anti-war actions by the French and European workers movement!
* For a workers and peasant government in Mali! For expropriation of the multinational corporations and the local capitalists without any compensation! For socialist revolution in Mali and the whole of North Africa and the Middle East!

[RKOB]

Report from the RKOB (Austrian section of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency), 26.1.2013, www.thecommunists.net (http://www.thecommunists.net)



On 25th January, a number of activists protested in Vienna (Austria) in front of the French embassy against the imperialist invasion in Mali. The platform of the united front rally was the slogan “France and EU: Hands off Mali!”. The activists – unimpressed by the minus degree temperature – chanted slogans like “France, EU – Hands off Mali!” and “Long live international solidarity!”

The rally was called by the RKOB (Austrian section of the RCIT) and supported by several other organizations like the GKK (Austrian section of CoReP), Kommunistische Initiative, Revolutionärer Aufbau, Initiative für den Aufbau einer revolutionary-kommunistischen Partei und die Antiimperialistische Koordination. The rally was also attended by representatives of the media.

Johannes Wiener, National Secretary of the RKOB, stated in his speech that France’s war in Mali is a “colonial war”. He pointed out that France did already intervene militarily 60 times in Africa. He referred to the fact that the imperialist powers did already wage a number of colonial wars in the past and this is just another reactionary, unjust war in the name of “humanitarian interests”.

Michael Pröbsting, International Secretary of the RCIT and convener of the rally, expressed in his speech the consistent anti-imperialist position of communists. He stated that while we have politically nothing in common with Islamism or petty-bourgeois nationalism, we are not neutral in this war. We stand for the defeat of the imperialist intruders and for the victory of the rebels who fight the French and their allied armies.

Pictures of the Rally and Videos of the speeches of Johannes Wiener and Michael Pröbsting can be viewed at the RCIT website at http://www.thecommunists.net/multimedia-1/mali-rally-25-1-videos-and-pictures

[Mather]

* For the military victory of the rebels against the French/government troops!


* No political support for Islamism and bourgeois nationalism!

These two positions contradict each other.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

These two positions contradict each other.

I don't think all of the rebels are members of the Islamist group; if I recall correctly, there's a decently size Berber nationalist group as well, among others.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think all of the rebels are members of the Islamist group; if I recall correctly, there's a decently size Berber nationalist group as well, among others.

The article also states an opposition to such groups:


6. The RCIT opposes bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces like the Islamist Ansar al Din, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and MUJAO (Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa) as well as the bourgeois nationalist MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) and the FLNA (National Front for the Liberation of Azawad).

So I guess it supports national liberation struggle in theory, but opposes the groups in which this struggle finds expression, or something.

[Thirsty Crow]

The article also states an opposition to such groups:



So I guess it supports national liberation struggle in theory, but opposes the groups in which this struggle finds expression, or something.
Yes, the article is completely self-contradictory since there are no "rebels" to speak of apart from the two camps: the Islamists and and the Berber nationalists.

[Aurora]

Theirs is the typical Trotskyist position of supporting the military struggle against imperialist subjugation of colonial or semi-colonial countries without providing political support to the non-communist groups which participate in the struggle.

France is an imperialist country, Mali is not, our duty is to support the defeat of French imperialism, in this way we show our support for the Malian people ruling their own country and a defeat of imperialism benefits French workers by weakening confidence in their state.

[Thirsty Crow]

Theirs is the typical Trotskyist position of supporting the military struggle against imperialist subjugation of colonial or semi-colonial countries without providing political support to the non-communist groups which participate in the struggle.

France is an imperialist country, Mali is not, our duty is to support the defeat of French imperialism, in this way we show our support for the Malian people ruling their own country and a defeat of imperialism benefits French workers by weakening confidence in their state.
Of course, matters are more complicated than this.

There are no imperialist countries. Imperialism is not a set of policies which can be attributed to a particular state. It is the prevailing set of political, diplomatic, and social relations between nation states, and no nation-state nowadays operates outside these confines. That, however, does not mean that huge and real differences should be left out of this picture (differences referred to, I believe, by pointing out that Mali is not imperialist).

And the concrete, on the gound situation is more complex than the framework of the defeat of French imperialism might suggest.

First of all, this neglects the specifically regional power dynamics where the Algerian state plays an important role, in at least three ways: by its relation to the history of Berber rebellions "at home", by its involvement in the "anti-terrorist" alliance, and by its relations of dominance in the region, which includes what some have claimed is the outright creation of these Islamist groups by the Algerian secret service. I thinki it woud be misleading to conclude that the Algerian state functions as mere proxy for French and American interests, but it is obvious that it is involved with these.



France is an imperialist country, Mali is not, our duty is to support the defeat of French imperialism, in this way we show our support for the Malian people ruling their own country and a defeat of imperialism benefits French workers by weakening confidence in their state.
How so? It seems that this presupposes that the Malian people are in fact currently ruling their own country.

Isn't it that, in the obvious non-existence of a movement of the oppressed and exploited (and without a clearly expressed communist critique), a support for an armed action against French intervention really amounts to a tacit support for the status quo? Especially given the fact that it is definitely possible to assert that French intervention is not at odds with: the interests of the Malian state - the crushing of the Berber rebellion - and by that token that it is in alignment with the interest of the Algerian state.

[Mather]

I don't think all of the rebels are members of the Islamist group; if I recall correctly, there's a decently size Berber nationalist group as well, among others.

You are right, there are/were several rebel groups in northern Mali including the secular MNLA and the islamist groups Ansar Dine, MUJAO, Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM. The NLFA initially supported the MNLA but now have seemed to have sided with the Malian central government and the international forces led by France.

However, none of the above rebel groups have anything to offer to the working class of Mali and all the rebel groups (both secular and islamist) represent the class interests of the local bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. Likewise, the Malian central government and French imperialism are hostile to the interests of the working class in Mali and they must not be supported anymore than the rebels.

We should support all efforts by the working class in Mali to organise by themselves and for their own class interests. This means refusing to take sides in all conflicts between the local and international factions of capitalism and imperialism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was reading earlier that the MNLA supports the French intervention as well, although it remains opposed to the Malian state.

[Mather]

So I guess it supports national liberation struggle in theory, but opposes the groups in which this struggle finds expression, or something.


Yes, the article is completely self-contradictory since there are no "rebels" to speak of apart from the two camps: the Islamists and and the Berber nationalists.

The situation in Mali is a good example (amongst many) of why this particular approach to anti-imperialism fails when tested in real life. You cannot offer military support to a state or group and then claim that you do not politically support them. The ability of the islamist groups to impose their brutal version of Sharia law in northern Mali was dependent on their initial military successes. These groups could not achieve their political objectives until they had first achieved their military ones, so any call to offer military support to such groups means that by default you end up supporting their politicial objectives as well.

[Mather]

Theirs is the typical Trotskyist position of supporting the military struggle against imperialist subjugation of colonial or semi-colonial countries without providing political support to the non-communist groups which participate in the struggle.

And it doesn't make sense. The political future of the rebel groups is dependent on their military success. So to support them military is to support an outcome that will allow the rebel groups to achieve their political objectives.

The only side we should be taking in this conflict is that of the working class and their organisations, not those of any other class or faction of imperialism.


France is an imperialist country, Mali is not, our duty is to support the defeat of French imperialism, in this way we show our support for the Malian people ruling their own country and a defeat of imperialism benefits French workers by weakening confidence in their state.

Imperialism is an integral part of capitalism. It is global and imperialism can only be overthrown when capitalism itself is overthrown. All cross-class national attempts to leave the framework of imperialism have failed and have at best brought nothing to the working class or at the very worst, they brought disaster. This can be said of the many national liberation movements and the numerous regimes they created.

The only interests that should concern us are those of the working class in Mali. I don't support France, the government of Mali or the rebels as none of them represent the interests of the working class.

[Mather]

I was reading earlier that the MNLA supports the French intervention as well, although it remains opposed to the Malian state.

The MNLA have already held meetings with French military and diplomatic officials and they are now in some type of collaborative role with the French and Malian government forces who are now deployed in the north. No doubt the French are after their own interests in Mali and the MNLA are now trying to reposition themselves in relation to France and the Malian government.

[Paul Pott]

MNLA's position is a textbook example of an opportunist position.

[Turinbaar]

For those of you looking for info on the rebel factions, here is a profile of the leader of Ansar Dine, a splinter group from the MNLA and very powerful among the jihadists. Not only does Iyad Ag Ghaly have links to Al Qaeda, but is also a directly product of Col. Ghadaffi's Islamic Legion. He was until recently the de facto boss of timbuktu.

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=32630

[Aurora]

There are no imperialist countries. Imperialism is not a set of policies which can be attributed to a particular state. It is the prevailing set of political, diplomatic, and social relations between nation states, and no nation-state nowadays operates outside these confines.That, however, does not mean that huge and real differences should be left out of this picture (differences referred to, I believe, by pointing out that Mali is not imperialist).
I think our differences here are ones of terminology, i agree that there are 'huge and real differences' between countries and that no country 'operates outside of these confines'. It's precisely them being part of the same capitalist system that leads to the domination of one by another, i call this difference imperialist countries and colonial countries or oppressor and oppressed, France and Mali.


First of all, this neglects the specifically regional power dynamics where the Algerian state plays an important role, in at least three ways: by its relation to the history of Berber rebellions "at home", by its involvement in the "anti-terrorist" alliance, and by its relations of dominance in the region, which includes what some have claimed is the outright creation of these Islamist groups by the Algerian secret service. I thinki it woud be misleading to conclude that the Algerian state functions as mere proxy for French and American interests, but it is obvious that it is involved with these.
I haven't read anything to suggest anything like that. Algeria opposes the Islamists, fought a civil war against the islamists and just recently killed islamist terrorists in the hostage situation.
Algeria completely supports French imperialism in Mali and if it were to interfere would do so in the interests of French and American imperialism.


How so? It seems that this presupposes that the Malian people are in fact currently ruling their own country.
No absolutely not, maybe i could have been clearer , the current government set up by the military coup is completely tied to French imperialism so much so that it asks for and welcomes French soldiers, by calling for a defeat of French imperialism and the Malian army we show support to Malians deciding affairs in their country without reactionary foreign interference and the military deciding state affairs and by not politically supporting the rebels we oppose both the undemocratic and anti-worker politics of the government and the rebels and are able push forward demands for the creation of a workers party, democracy, defence committees of workers and peasants etc.


Isn't it that, in the obvious non-existence of a movement of the oppressed and exploited (and without a clearly expressed communist critique), a support for an armed action against French intervention really amounts to a tacit support for the status quo?
I don't think it's a support for the status quo, if you mean the actual situation on the ground then yes it's unlikely that without a movement of workers and peasants whatever a communist group says is not going to have much effect, but it's important to take a position anyway to show that we always stand on the side that benefits the workers and peasant or oppose further harm.
But it's also a way of organising French workers in solidarity with Malian workers and peasants by opposing their own government.

[Thirsty Crow]

so the algerian state -who you say created the islmist jihadists there,now want them defeated by the french/usa?? not to forget the algerian miltary fought against islamists for how long??There are good indications that the so called Dirty War has seen the DRS either infiltarating the existing Islamist groups up to their highest authority posts or even creating such groups as part of the global war on terror and related regional ambitions fostered by the state, executing a good number of false flag ops.


also , most of the islamists in azawad are from states such as algeria and more so libya .. basically overthrew an indegenous nationalist struggle in azawad(north mali) after a month or so-That is precisely the point since the Algerian state cannot neglect the effects of the Touareg rebellion in relation to Touaregs within Algerian borders.

The article putting forward such a perspective can be found here:

http://newint.org/features/2012/12/01/us-terrorism-sahara/



it would be contradictory also to support the french and etc troops occupation of azawad? Of course.


there is wider story to what's happening in azawad and the larger sahel region than just a few al qaida types..
I agree absolutely.

[Mather]

it would be contradictory also to support the french and etc troops occupation of azawad? there is wider story to what's happening in azawad and the larger sahel region than just a few al qaida types..

I do not support French imperialism or the Malian state either. I would add that it is contradictory for revolutionaries to support any side in wars between different factions of capitalism and imperialism. The only side we should support is that of the working class and their organisations. As for the MNLA, they are a better alternative when compared to the three islamist groups but we should always remember that even secular national liberation type movements such as the MNLA represent the interests of capitalism and not that of the working class.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

They think they can and just take over and oppress the whole place..and yet the get away with it!!

[Q]

These two positions contradict each other.

lol.

I was kinda worried that RCIT would be calling for support for the Islamists when reading the title of this thread. But apparently they have no clue what they're talking about. Ok.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think our differences here are ones of terminology, i agree that there are 'huge and real differences' between countries and that no country 'operates outside of these confines'. It's precisely them being part of the same capitalist system that leads to the domination of one by another, i call this difference imperialist countries and colonial countries or oppressor and oppressed, France and Mali.
I think that the differences are terminological and rhetorical.

Rhetorical, in that I think that arguing that some nation-states are "not imperialist", there is a possibility for confusion, that due to their weak position they somehow escape the global dynamics of imperialism. That might be nitpicking, but I think it makes sense.

Terminological, in that you're using the term "colonial" in a metaphorical way without explicitly stating either the reasons or even that you're doing so. Are there any colonies (territories with a population under direct administration by another state) left today? Anyhow, again, this brings up confusion.


I haven't read anything to suggest anything like that. Algeria opposes the Islamists, fought a civil war against the islamists and just recently killed islamist terrorists in the hostage situation.
Algeria completely supports French imperialism in Mali and if it were to interfere would do so in the interests of French and American imperialism.
I posted the article, and I can mention ICT's as well:


Members of AQIM, such as Abu Zayd and Yahya Gawadi and Mokhtar Belmokhtar, are believed to be close collaborators with the Algerian DIS. Even the head of Ansar al Din, Iyyad Ag Gali, and Sultan Wuld Badi, head of Mujao (recently formed organisations inspired by Al Qaeda’s Islamic jihadism and Salafism) are suspected of being in the pay of Algerian Intelligence. As for Gali, his collaboration dates back to the eighties when he worked for an Algerian state agency in Tamarrasett. Leader of the 1990 Tuareg revolt in northern Mali, he facilitated the division between the rebel forces which brought a compromise peace with the government that neutralised the secessionist wave. In May 2006 he cooperated as usual with the DIS to undermine the Tuareg revolt of Kidal, again in northern Mali. Algerian Intelligence records reveal his role in a couple of terrorist attacks where he collaborated with US Intelligence in order to reinforce the image of AQIM. Since 2009 we find him inside AQIM itself, this time with direct responsibility for the lucrative drug trade and kidnapping of Western hostages, as well as a top rank political leader.
The same goes for Sultan Badi. Currently head of the Mujao, in 2009 he was arrested in Mali with other characters of the Polisario Front (national liberation movement of Western Sahara) for drug trafficking. To obtain his release Badi threatened the Bamako government he would reveal the relations between the Algerian secret service and AQIM itself. The threat was effective. In a political initiative taken by Merkel, Bouteflika, President of Algeria, was obliged to hurriedly send a delegate — General Rashid La Alali (not by accident responsible for security with the DIS) — to Mali to resolve the delicate question of the embarrassing links between AQIM, the Algerian government and that of Bamako concerning both the use of terrorism and the involvement of the Mali government itself in drug trafficking. The result was the immediate release of Badi who, presumably, has continued to have links with the DIS right up to recent events.
In this particular case the Bouteflika Government has some interest in establishing “anomalous”[1] relations with the jihadists for two reasons. The first is that infiltrating them is a more successful way to control them, even to the point of commanding their activity, as they have done in some cases. The second is that keeping the terrorist bogeyman in existence allows them to tap the USA and France for arms and finance even at the cost of facing attacks on their oil infrastructure when the relationship with the above mentioned formations gets out of hand.

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2013-01-22/western-imperialism-pulls-the-strings-in-mali


I don't think it's a support for the status quo, if you mean the actual situation on the ground then yes it's unlikely that without a movement of workers and peasants whatever a communist group says is not going to have much effect, but it's important to take a position anyway to show that we always stand on the side that benefits the workers and peasant or oppose further harm.Of course, I agree that it is important to stand in solidarity (although it is essentially an ineffective solidarity, based on common class position) with the dispossessed classes everywhere they happen to live, but another matter is how is this realized.
In my opinion, the great majority of radical organizations position themselves as though they wield significant influence and thus fantasize about the "to do" lists of demands and so on. Which is ridiculous and bordering on a pathetic self-aggrandizement. What is actually needed is clarification and thoroughgoing analysis, which is the same as the famous ruthless criticism argued for by Marx.


But it's also a way of organising French workers in solidarity with Malian workers and peasants by opposing their own government.No, it is nothing like it. It is merely an assumption that such an organizing, proclaimed from above, will magically happen when a group spews forth a set of demands or positions. There is no coherent and concrete account of how this organizing is going to happen. Moreover, this neglects the fact that imperialist wars and military inervention has been changed. At the time when this assumption would make sense, you wouldn't have 6000 (or is it 3000?) French soldiers there, but tens and tens of thousands if not more. Do you understand how this affects radical propaganda and agitation?