Morven
15th September 2006, 12:01
Hello,
In advance of our meeting tomorrow I thought I would post this text, which will form the basis of our presentation. The meeting is advertised in the events forum.
For communism!
Morven for WR
War in the Middle East: what alternative to capitalist barbarism?
Despite the seemingly ceaseless work of the ‘international community’ the problems of the Middle East remain unresolved and the region continues to dominate international affairs. With the failure of the various initiatives of the ‘peace loving’ democracies, the intervention of the UN, the road map to peace and Jesse Jackson’s ‘independent’ mission to name three, the region, from Afghanistan to Palestine, has become a quagmire of bloodshed and misery. The death and destruction caused by the latest air and missile attacks on Lebanon and Israel, which include 1393 dead and economic damage of an estimated £2.6 billion, is only the latest ‘bloody checklist’ in a region, which is collapsing into sectarian and nationalist conflict at an alarming rate.
This most strategically important of areas has been an arena for imperialist adventures for decades. During the world wars Britain and its allies played a leading role, first in toppling the then disintegrating Ottoman empire, which had been supported by Germany and then later when they again confronted German imperialism and its allies in the region during the 1940s. Unfortunately for Britain following the war American influence was able to overtake that of the European powers in the region. The Suez crisis of 1956 confirming that America was now top dog in the area with Britain and France reduced to second rate powers. A situation, which still exists today - clearly illustrated in a recent article in The Economist, Suez “marked the humiliating end of imperial influence for two European countries, Britain and France [&] made unambiguous, even to the most nostalgic blimps, America’s supremacy over its Western allies” (cited in 4). This, unsurprisingly given the period, led to a confrontation between the blocs with both America and Russia using the ‘Arab-Israeli’ conflict to further their own interests. Since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989 America has continued to exert its influence over the region and this has caused the bloody chaos that we see today, with the region becoming the “principal theatre of the - war of each against all”(1)
Consequently the recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon is just the latest skirmish caused by these ongoing imperialist manoeuvres, which alongside newer ‘initiatives’ like the ‘war on terror’ launched by the US following the attack on the World Trade Centre in September 2001, include all the imperialist powers big or small, and is therefore a clear illustration of the stalemate that exists today in the Middle East.
With the victory in Palestine of HAMAS, “itself [as we state in the current issue of WR] a response to the intransigence of the Israeli government which has ‘radicalised’ a large part of the Palestinian population” (1), and the outbreak of violence between HAMAS & Fatah, Israel withdrew from Gaza not to ‘promote’ peace but in order to retain its control over the more valuable West Bank. In an attempt to break this impasse Israel, defending its actions as a response to the kidnapping of two soldiers by Hizbollah, attacked Lebanon hoping to curb the growing influence of the Iranian backed group who through their border incursions pose a threat to Israeli security. Whilst at the same time demanding that the Lebanese state disarm Hizbollah, as if they could! And making threatening noises towards Syria and Iran in an attempt to draw them into the conflict.
Now, after weeks of bombing, the destruction of homes in both Israel and Lebanon and the deaths of hundreds of civilians the situation remains the same, the Israeli soldiers remain in the custody of Hizbollah with negotiations for their release only just beginning. Rather than weakening Hizbollah’s influence in Lebanon the Israeli offensive has given them a new legitimacy in the region. Israel on the other hand has suffered in the eyes of the ‘international community’ from its failure to prevent the death of civilians from ‘collateral damage’ (most notably in Qana) but more importantly it has suffered militarily, the Israeli army no longer looks like the invincible force it once did.
The war being impossible without the agreement of Washington means that the failure of Israel to realise its ambitions in the Lebanon also causes serious problems for American imperialism. On top of its disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, Israel’s ‘defeat’ is another step towards the weakening of America’s global leadership. The Middle East is central to America’s plan of encircling Europe and its failure to achieve this provides potential opportunities to its competitors, the other main imperialist powers.
The situation also raises some important questions for the British bourgeoisie. Some commentators are suggesting that there are parallels between the Suez crisis of 1956 and the situation British imperialism finds itself today. As we have shown, since WWII Britain has had to get used to being a second rate power but it still wishes to pursue its own imperialist interests. Unfortunately to achieve these interests it has had to enter into alliances with other major powers most notably with the US. Blair has been criticised for slavishly following US policy on the Middle East and failing to call for an early ceasefire but realistically what choice did he have? Particularly when whatever alternative policy Cameron or whoever else proposes “only serves to emphasise the further loss of position experienced by British imperialism” (4). The example of French attempts to pursue an independent foreign policy are a good illustration of what happens when you try and ‘go it alone’ – you get pushed aside! Whatever the outcome of the leadership battle in the Labour Party, there seems little chance that the position the British bourgeoisie currently finds itself in will change in any meaningful way, what is more likely, is that we will see a move towards a new crisis for British imperialism.
Unfortunately we do not have time here to develop on the cynicism of the other great powers that hide behind calls for peace in their offices at the UN, waiting for the right time to pounce and exploit the situation. Suffice to say that the Chinese, French and Russia bourgeoisie to name three, have as much blood on their hands as their American and British counterparts.
So, what is the alternative to capitalist barbarism? Firstly, we have to be clear that the alternative to barbarism doesn’t lie, despite what the ‘capitalist left’ tells us, in the hands of the gangsters of HAMAS, Hizbollah or any of the other nationalist or religious gangs active in the region. These groups play, and have played historically, a central role in the imperialist manoeuvres which blight the area. Rather than fighting imperialism as they claim, “they are caught up in the logic of imperialism, whether striking out on their own or lining up directly with existing capitalist states. Their aims - whether the establishment of new national states or the dream of a pan - Middle East Islamic Caliphate - can only come about through imperialist war; and their methods - which always involve the indiscriminate massacre of the civilian population - are precisely those of the states they claim to be opposing” (2). During the recent fighting each side used some very dubious reasoning to justify the bloodshed (the most obvious example being Israel’s bombing of UN personnel - they were in the wrong place at the wrong time!). But whatever the reasoning nationalism was central to every justification for the violence.
In the case of Hizbollah it doesn’t need to wait for ‘victory’ before becoming part of the state, as the role it plays in Lebanon is already outside the purely political and military sphere. It already “fulfils basic state functions, alongside the ‘official’ state, with a basic welfare network of schools, hospitals, clinics and various development projects. The Lebanese ruling class is dependent on its contribution which, in turn, is supported by Iran and Syria” (3).
Nor does the alternative to barbarism lie in the ‘peace’ movement. George Galloway, a leading light in the British ‘anti-war’ movement, was one of the first to give his support to Hizbollah openly stating that he glorifies the Hizbollah national resistance movement. The recent anti-war demonstration in London (5th August) organised by the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) was a clear example of how this movement, and these events, endorse nationalism and war, encouraging workers to support one imperialism over another. These are pro war not anti war demonstrations. Throughout the demonstration marchers chanted, ‘we are all Hizbollah’, and this identification with the ‘freedom fighters’ of Hizbollah and HAMAS was reinforced by the speakers at the rally held at the end of the demonstration - one speaker demanding that, “yellow bellied Arab leaders get off their knees - a clear demand for the escalation of the war to draw in other countries and engulf the region” (3). For groups like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) dying as a patriot is okay just as long as you’re on the right side. But solidarity with the ‘resistance’ will neither prevent war, the history of the Middle East since the First World War makes this clear, nor will using the call of solidarity to draw other Arab nations in the area into the struggle improve the lives of the exploited and dispossessed, it will merely exacerbate the situation and increase the illusions that many in the region have in the nationalist gangs that they are the only way to fight imperialism.
These illusions in the resistance are made clear in a statement from a Lebanese activist who was quoted by the SWP “as saying that Hizbollah and HAMAS in Palestine, are the only models of resistance we still have, the only ones that work” (3). Unsurprisingly these illusions find an echo amongst activists and leftists internationally. One only has to read some of recent posts on online discussion forums like Revleft (www.revolutionaryleft.com) and to a lesser extent Libcom (www.libcom.org) to experience the weight of this poisonous ideology. When proletarian positions are defended all sorts of excuses are used to defend these gangs – at least they are ‘doing something’ to defend their communities against imperialism, all you do is ‘talk theoretically’ about what is happening in the region these groups are there, therefore their statements can be trusted, these groups contain members who are working class therefore their struggle is part of the struggle of the working class and so on and so on – but once again whatever the reasoning nationalism is central to every justification for supporting the violence of these gangsters!
But there is an alternative, a phenomenon that can oppose the slide towards war and barbarism, which has become capitalism’s way of life, the international struggle of the working class. Over the last few years we have seen, alongside the emergence of a new generation of ‘undefeated’ workers, a slow, tentative but very real return to combativity by the working class internationally, which has had the issue of solidarity at the heart of all of its struggles. Despite the problems in the region the class struggle hasn’t disappeared.
There have been large demonstrations in Tel Aviv and Haifa against the rising cost of living and the state’s policy of spending more on arms than social welfare and the failure of the war is likely to provoke further outbursts like these. In the Palestinian territories, “Palestinian civil servants [have been] demanding the payment of overdue wages from the Hamas government. Around 3,000 marched [on the 30th August] in Ramallah, while in Gaza City over 300 unemployed workers demanding jobs and unpaid welfare fought riot police and attempted to storm the parliamentary building, breaching the gates before police fired live warning shots… [Unsurprisingly HAMAS] condemned the strike as an attempt to destabilise the government and called for teachers to scab, saying anger should instead be directed against Israel ‘which imposes the siege on our people’. HAMAS claim the strike has ‘no relation to national interests’ and is being co-ordinated by the Fatah party ‘that has no ties with employees’ many union leaders are Fatah members. However, despite these party-political manoeuvres the grievances are very real; with unemployment running at around 30% and around 25% of the workforce affected by the current withholding of wages, over half of the workforce is surviving on very little income. The UN estimates 80% of the population lives in ‘poverty’”. (www.libcom.org/news, 31.8.06 cited in WR 297). This has been followed by further strikes. Again, the continuation of war will only worsen the situation
Even if these struggles are exploited by one faction or another, actions like these are important because they, however briefly, breach national unity, which “serves to stifle class struggle on both sides of the conflict” (1) In periods like this the task of revolutionaries is to swim against the tide, and state clearly that despite what the left says “the only opposition to imperialism is the resistance of the working class against exploitation, because this alone can grow into an open struggle against the capitalist system, a struggle to replace this dying system of profit and war with a society geared towards human need. Because the exploited everywhere have the same interests, the class struggle is international and has no interest in allying with one state against another. Its methods are directly opposed to the aggravation of hatred between ethnic or national groups, because it needs to rally together the proletarians of all nations in a common fight against capital and the state” (2). This is why we welcome leaflets from Internationalists like the EKS in Turkey, who despite the weight of nationalism in their own country are able to raise a proletarian voice and provide a class perspective on the conflict.
To misquote Marx, it isn’t what the class is or was but what it could be and the small expressions of struggle in the region show what the working class in the Middle East could be, united in a common struggle against the state and national unity. They also show that the working class in the region, like the working class the world over, is undefeated. The situation in the Middle East “[may have made the] class struggle very difficult, but it still exists – in [the] demonstrations of unemployed Palestinian workers against the Palestinian authorities, in [the] strikes by Israeli public sector workers against the government’s austerity budgets. But the most likely source of a breach in the wall of war and hatred in the Middle East lies outside the region – in the growing struggle of the workers in the central capitalist countries. The best example of class solidarity we can give to the populations suffering the direct horrors of imperialist war in the Middle East is to develop the struggle that has already been launched by the workers-to-be in the French schools and universities, by the metal workers of Vigo in Spain, the postal workers of Belfast or the airport workers of London” (2). The slogan of the workers movement is now more valid than ever: workers of all countries unite!
WR - 15th September 2006
Notes
1) War in the Middle East: what alternative to capitalist barbarism - WR 297.
2) ICC Statement on the Middle East - IR 126.
3) Conflict in Gaza, Israel, Lebanon: the ‘peace movement’ is a war movement - WR 297.
4) Suez 1965: Britain forced to accept its subordinate role – WR 297.
In advance of our meeting tomorrow I thought I would post this text, which will form the basis of our presentation. The meeting is advertised in the events forum.
For communism!
Morven for WR
War in the Middle East: what alternative to capitalist barbarism?
Despite the seemingly ceaseless work of the ‘international community’ the problems of the Middle East remain unresolved and the region continues to dominate international affairs. With the failure of the various initiatives of the ‘peace loving’ democracies, the intervention of the UN, the road map to peace and Jesse Jackson’s ‘independent’ mission to name three, the region, from Afghanistan to Palestine, has become a quagmire of bloodshed and misery. The death and destruction caused by the latest air and missile attacks on Lebanon and Israel, which include 1393 dead and economic damage of an estimated £2.6 billion, is only the latest ‘bloody checklist’ in a region, which is collapsing into sectarian and nationalist conflict at an alarming rate.
This most strategically important of areas has been an arena for imperialist adventures for decades. During the world wars Britain and its allies played a leading role, first in toppling the then disintegrating Ottoman empire, which had been supported by Germany and then later when they again confronted German imperialism and its allies in the region during the 1940s. Unfortunately for Britain following the war American influence was able to overtake that of the European powers in the region. The Suez crisis of 1956 confirming that America was now top dog in the area with Britain and France reduced to second rate powers. A situation, which still exists today - clearly illustrated in a recent article in The Economist, Suez “marked the humiliating end of imperial influence for two European countries, Britain and France [&] made unambiguous, even to the most nostalgic blimps, America’s supremacy over its Western allies” (cited in 4). This, unsurprisingly given the period, led to a confrontation between the blocs with both America and Russia using the ‘Arab-Israeli’ conflict to further their own interests. Since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989 America has continued to exert its influence over the region and this has caused the bloody chaos that we see today, with the region becoming the “principal theatre of the - war of each against all”(1)
Consequently the recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon is just the latest skirmish caused by these ongoing imperialist manoeuvres, which alongside newer ‘initiatives’ like the ‘war on terror’ launched by the US following the attack on the World Trade Centre in September 2001, include all the imperialist powers big or small, and is therefore a clear illustration of the stalemate that exists today in the Middle East.
With the victory in Palestine of HAMAS, “itself [as we state in the current issue of WR] a response to the intransigence of the Israeli government which has ‘radicalised’ a large part of the Palestinian population” (1), and the outbreak of violence between HAMAS & Fatah, Israel withdrew from Gaza not to ‘promote’ peace but in order to retain its control over the more valuable West Bank. In an attempt to break this impasse Israel, defending its actions as a response to the kidnapping of two soldiers by Hizbollah, attacked Lebanon hoping to curb the growing influence of the Iranian backed group who through their border incursions pose a threat to Israeli security. Whilst at the same time demanding that the Lebanese state disarm Hizbollah, as if they could! And making threatening noises towards Syria and Iran in an attempt to draw them into the conflict.
Now, after weeks of bombing, the destruction of homes in both Israel and Lebanon and the deaths of hundreds of civilians the situation remains the same, the Israeli soldiers remain in the custody of Hizbollah with negotiations for their release only just beginning. Rather than weakening Hizbollah’s influence in Lebanon the Israeli offensive has given them a new legitimacy in the region. Israel on the other hand has suffered in the eyes of the ‘international community’ from its failure to prevent the death of civilians from ‘collateral damage’ (most notably in Qana) but more importantly it has suffered militarily, the Israeli army no longer looks like the invincible force it once did.
The war being impossible without the agreement of Washington means that the failure of Israel to realise its ambitions in the Lebanon also causes serious problems for American imperialism. On top of its disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, Israel’s ‘defeat’ is another step towards the weakening of America’s global leadership. The Middle East is central to America’s plan of encircling Europe and its failure to achieve this provides potential opportunities to its competitors, the other main imperialist powers.
The situation also raises some important questions for the British bourgeoisie. Some commentators are suggesting that there are parallels between the Suez crisis of 1956 and the situation British imperialism finds itself today. As we have shown, since WWII Britain has had to get used to being a second rate power but it still wishes to pursue its own imperialist interests. Unfortunately to achieve these interests it has had to enter into alliances with other major powers most notably with the US. Blair has been criticised for slavishly following US policy on the Middle East and failing to call for an early ceasefire but realistically what choice did he have? Particularly when whatever alternative policy Cameron or whoever else proposes “only serves to emphasise the further loss of position experienced by British imperialism” (4). The example of French attempts to pursue an independent foreign policy are a good illustration of what happens when you try and ‘go it alone’ – you get pushed aside! Whatever the outcome of the leadership battle in the Labour Party, there seems little chance that the position the British bourgeoisie currently finds itself in will change in any meaningful way, what is more likely, is that we will see a move towards a new crisis for British imperialism.
Unfortunately we do not have time here to develop on the cynicism of the other great powers that hide behind calls for peace in their offices at the UN, waiting for the right time to pounce and exploit the situation. Suffice to say that the Chinese, French and Russia bourgeoisie to name three, have as much blood on their hands as their American and British counterparts.
So, what is the alternative to capitalist barbarism? Firstly, we have to be clear that the alternative to barbarism doesn’t lie, despite what the ‘capitalist left’ tells us, in the hands of the gangsters of HAMAS, Hizbollah or any of the other nationalist or religious gangs active in the region. These groups play, and have played historically, a central role in the imperialist manoeuvres which blight the area. Rather than fighting imperialism as they claim, “they are caught up in the logic of imperialism, whether striking out on their own or lining up directly with existing capitalist states. Their aims - whether the establishment of new national states or the dream of a pan - Middle East Islamic Caliphate - can only come about through imperialist war; and their methods - which always involve the indiscriminate massacre of the civilian population - are precisely those of the states they claim to be opposing” (2). During the recent fighting each side used some very dubious reasoning to justify the bloodshed (the most obvious example being Israel’s bombing of UN personnel - they were in the wrong place at the wrong time!). But whatever the reasoning nationalism was central to every justification for the violence.
In the case of Hizbollah it doesn’t need to wait for ‘victory’ before becoming part of the state, as the role it plays in Lebanon is already outside the purely political and military sphere. It already “fulfils basic state functions, alongside the ‘official’ state, with a basic welfare network of schools, hospitals, clinics and various development projects. The Lebanese ruling class is dependent on its contribution which, in turn, is supported by Iran and Syria” (3).
Nor does the alternative to barbarism lie in the ‘peace’ movement. George Galloway, a leading light in the British ‘anti-war’ movement, was one of the first to give his support to Hizbollah openly stating that he glorifies the Hizbollah national resistance movement. The recent anti-war demonstration in London (5th August) organised by the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) was a clear example of how this movement, and these events, endorse nationalism and war, encouraging workers to support one imperialism over another. These are pro war not anti war demonstrations. Throughout the demonstration marchers chanted, ‘we are all Hizbollah’, and this identification with the ‘freedom fighters’ of Hizbollah and HAMAS was reinforced by the speakers at the rally held at the end of the demonstration - one speaker demanding that, “yellow bellied Arab leaders get off their knees - a clear demand for the escalation of the war to draw in other countries and engulf the region” (3). For groups like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) dying as a patriot is okay just as long as you’re on the right side. But solidarity with the ‘resistance’ will neither prevent war, the history of the Middle East since the First World War makes this clear, nor will using the call of solidarity to draw other Arab nations in the area into the struggle improve the lives of the exploited and dispossessed, it will merely exacerbate the situation and increase the illusions that many in the region have in the nationalist gangs that they are the only way to fight imperialism.
These illusions in the resistance are made clear in a statement from a Lebanese activist who was quoted by the SWP “as saying that Hizbollah and HAMAS in Palestine, are the only models of resistance we still have, the only ones that work” (3). Unsurprisingly these illusions find an echo amongst activists and leftists internationally. One only has to read some of recent posts on online discussion forums like Revleft (www.revolutionaryleft.com) and to a lesser extent Libcom (www.libcom.org) to experience the weight of this poisonous ideology. When proletarian positions are defended all sorts of excuses are used to defend these gangs – at least they are ‘doing something’ to defend their communities against imperialism, all you do is ‘talk theoretically’ about what is happening in the region these groups are there, therefore their statements can be trusted, these groups contain members who are working class therefore their struggle is part of the struggle of the working class and so on and so on – but once again whatever the reasoning nationalism is central to every justification for supporting the violence of these gangsters!
But there is an alternative, a phenomenon that can oppose the slide towards war and barbarism, which has become capitalism’s way of life, the international struggle of the working class. Over the last few years we have seen, alongside the emergence of a new generation of ‘undefeated’ workers, a slow, tentative but very real return to combativity by the working class internationally, which has had the issue of solidarity at the heart of all of its struggles. Despite the problems in the region the class struggle hasn’t disappeared.
There have been large demonstrations in Tel Aviv and Haifa against the rising cost of living and the state’s policy of spending more on arms than social welfare and the failure of the war is likely to provoke further outbursts like these. In the Palestinian territories, “Palestinian civil servants [have been] demanding the payment of overdue wages from the Hamas government. Around 3,000 marched [on the 30th August] in Ramallah, while in Gaza City over 300 unemployed workers demanding jobs and unpaid welfare fought riot police and attempted to storm the parliamentary building, breaching the gates before police fired live warning shots… [Unsurprisingly HAMAS] condemned the strike as an attempt to destabilise the government and called for teachers to scab, saying anger should instead be directed against Israel ‘which imposes the siege on our people’. HAMAS claim the strike has ‘no relation to national interests’ and is being co-ordinated by the Fatah party ‘that has no ties with employees’ many union leaders are Fatah members. However, despite these party-political manoeuvres the grievances are very real; with unemployment running at around 30% and around 25% of the workforce affected by the current withholding of wages, over half of the workforce is surviving on very little income. The UN estimates 80% of the population lives in ‘poverty’”. (www.libcom.org/news, 31.8.06 cited in WR 297). This has been followed by further strikes. Again, the continuation of war will only worsen the situation
Even if these struggles are exploited by one faction or another, actions like these are important because they, however briefly, breach national unity, which “serves to stifle class struggle on both sides of the conflict” (1) In periods like this the task of revolutionaries is to swim against the tide, and state clearly that despite what the left says “the only opposition to imperialism is the resistance of the working class against exploitation, because this alone can grow into an open struggle against the capitalist system, a struggle to replace this dying system of profit and war with a society geared towards human need. Because the exploited everywhere have the same interests, the class struggle is international and has no interest in allying with one state against another. Its methods are directly opposed to the aggravation of hatred between ethnic or national groups, because it needs to rally together the proletarians of all nations in a common fight against capital and the state” (2). This is why we welcome leaflets from Internationalists like the EKS in Turkey, who despite the weight of nationalism in their own country are able to raise a proletarian voice and provide a class perspective on the conflict.
To misquote Marx, it isn’t what the class is or was but what it could be and the small expressions of struggle in the region show what the working class in the Middle East could be, united in a common struggle against the state and national unity. They also show that the working class in the region, like the working class the world over, is undefeated. The situation in the Middle East “[may have made the] class struggle very difficult, but it still exists – in [the] demonstrations of unemployed Palestinian workers against the Palestinian authorities, in [the] strikes by Israeli public sector workers against the government’s austerity budgets. But the most likely source of a breach in the wall of war and hatred in the Middle East lies outside the region – in the growing struggle of the workers in the central capitalist countries. The best example of class solidarity we can give to the populations suffering the direct horrors of imperialist war in the Middle East is to develop the struggle that has already been launched by the workers-to-be in the French schools and universities, by the metal workers of Vigo in Spain, the postal workers of Belfast or the airport workers of London” (2). The slogan of the workers movement is now more valid than ever: workers of all countries unite!
WR - 15th September 2006
Notes
1) War in the Middle East: what alternative to capitalist barbarism - WR 297.
2) ICC Statement on the Middle East - IR 126.
3) Conflict in Gaza, Israel, Lebanon: the ‘peace movement’ is a war movement - WR 297.
4) Suez 1965: Britain forced to accept its subordinate role – WR 297.