|
|
Statements page 2UE NYC Labor Activists COATSU on American Response Anarchist's (Direct Action Network) United for Justice with Peace(Mass) Nathan Newman Eric Lee Bill Onasch UEElectrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) are devastated by the mind-numbing loss of life caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We share the sense of loss and violation, despair and outrage. We mourn as our nation mourns. The horror visited upon our nation that Tuesday morning should never have happened; it should never happen to another people again, anywhere. Innocent people suffered deaths more horrific than could be imagined in nightmares. Many of the slain were union members, murdered at their place of work and on the job. With profound sorrow, we mourn our fallen brothers and sisters and express our solidarity with the families of the victims. We condemn unreservedly the hidden, unseen, faceless killers who are responsible for this crime against humanity. We demand that the perpetrators be brought to justice. We are resolved not to yield to terror or to terrorists’ designs. Democracy is too precious. We continue with plans for our convention — the highest expression of our union democracy — with renewed commitment to freedom and solidarity. We shall not be stopped by cold-blooded, calculating killers. And we shall not allow our grief and righteous anger to be polluted by hatred and bigotry. We recall with pride that weeks after Pearl Harbor, as UE mobilized to win the war for freedom, our union condemned anti-Japanese racism as fundamentally opposed to that great cause. Today’s war against the terrorism of an evil few must not be confused with attacks on an ethnicity or religion. Verbal slurs and physical assaults against our Arab-American and Islamic neighbors and co-workers must be countered, condemned and stopped. As we mourn and as we rage, we also declare our resistance to efforts to use this tragedy to curtail our civil liberties or to engage in military adventures that can lead only to more carnage and senseless loss of life. Our greatest memorial to our fallen brothers and sisters will be a world of peace, tolerance and understanding, underscored by the solidarity of working people.
NEW YORK CITY LABOR ACTIVISTSSeptember 11 has brought indescribable suffering to New York City's working people. We have lost friends, family members and coworkers of all colors, nationalities and religions-a thousand of them union members. An estimated one hundred thousand New Yorkers will lose their jobs. We condemn this crime against humanity and mourn those who perished. We are proud of the rescuers and the outpouring of labor support for victims' families. We want justice for the dead and safety for the living. And we believe that George Bush's war is not the answer. No one should suffer what we experienced on September 11. Yet war will inevitably harm countless innocent civilians, strengthen American alliances with brutal dictatorships and deepen global poverty-just as the United States and its allies have already inflicted widespread suffering on innocent people in such places as Iraq, Sudan, Israel and the Occupied Territories, the former Yugoslavia and Latin America. War will also take a heavy toll on us. For Americans in uniform-the overwhelming number of whom are workers and people of color-it will be another Vietnam. It will generate further terror in this country against Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, people of color and immigrants, and erode our civil liberties. It will redirect billions to the military and corporate executives, while draining such essential domestic programs as education, health care and the social security trust. War will play into the hands of religious fanatics-from Osama bin Laden to Jerry Falwell-and provoke further terrorism in major urban centers like New York. * * * Therefore, the undersigned New York City metro-area trade unionists believe a just and effective response to September 11 demands: NO WAR. It is wrong to punish any nation or people for the crimes of individuals-peace requires global social and economic justice. JUSTICE, NOT VENGEANCE. An independent international tribunal to impartially investigate, apprehend and try those responsible for the September 11 attack. OPPOSITION TO RACISM-DEFENSE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES. Stop terror, racial profiling and legal restrictions against people of color and immigrants, and defend democratic rights. AID FOR THE NEEDY, NOT THE GREEDY. Government aid for the victims' families and displaced workers-not the wealthy. Rebuild New York City with union labor, union pay, and with special concern for new threats to worker health and safety. Signers (all affiliations listed for identification only)(list in formation) Larry Adams, President, NPMHU Local 300 Barbara Bowen, President, Professional Staff Congress-CUNY/AFT Local 2334 Arthur Cheliotes, President, CWA Local 1180 Michael Letwin, President, Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW Local 2325 Brenda Stokely, President, AFSCME Local 215, DC 1707 Marilyn Albert, RN, SEIU Local 1199 Sylvia Aron, Rehab Committee Co-Chair, NYC CLC & Past President, AAUP, Adelphi Chapter Stanley Aronowitz, University-Wide Officer & Executive Council, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 Harold Bahr, III, Chair, GLTGC, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 Thomas Barton, Shop Steward, AFSCME Local 768, DC 37 Chris Butters, AFSCME Local 1070, DC 37 Hugh English, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 Samuel Farber, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 Pam Galpern, Shop Steward, CWA Local 1101 Gary Goff, Recording Sec'y, AFSCME Local 2627, DC 37 Bill Henning, Vice-President, CWA Local 1180 Lucy Herschel, Delegate, SEIU Local 1199, Legal Aid Chapter Ed Hilbrich, SSA/SEIU Local 693 Carol Hochberg, Vice-President/JRD, ALAA/UAW Local 2325 Norman Hodgett, AFSCME Local 371, DC 37 David Kazanjian, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 Dian Killian, Organizer, Journalism Division, NWU/UAW Local 1981 Lisa Maya Knauer, GSOC/UAW Local 2110 Ray LaForest, Staff Representative, DC 1707, AFSCME Julius Margolin, IATSE Local 52 Florence Morgan, ALAA/UAW 2325 Matt Noyes, Education Coordinator, AUD & NWU/UAW Local 1981 Tony O'Brien, Delegate, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 Paul Peloquin, Delegate, LSSA/UAW 2320 Andy Piascik, Program Coordinator, AUD & NWU/UAW Local 1981 Carol Pittman, Coordinator, Jobs With Justice/NYC Pride at Work, NY Mike Quinn, High School Delegate, UFT Jay Schaffner, Supervisor, National Contracts Dept., AFM Local 802 Jose Schiffino, Organizer, UNITE! Local 169 Soo Kyung Nam, UAW Local 2320 Gibb Surette, Delegate, LSSA/UAW 2320 Sean Sweeney, Director, Cornell Labor Studies Terry Taylor, IBEW Local 827, Black Telephone Workers For Justice Miriam Thompson, PSC-CUNY, AFT Local 2334 Marilyn Vogt-Downey, UFT Kit Wainer, UFT Ron Washington, IBEW Local 827, Black Telephone Workers For Justice Corinne Willinger, PEF JoAnn Wypijenski, TNGNY/CWA
COSATU Statement on American BombingCOSATU condemns attacks against Afghanistan by the US and its allies on the 07 October 2001. While the attacks may appear justifiable and logical, in COSATU's view they add to a vicious cycle of violence. It is worrying that the US has hastened to attack Afghanistan without convincing the world beyond doubt about the culpability of Osama bin Laden and his crew in the deplorable attacks on the US on the 11 September. Preferably, the UN should have taken leadership in resolving the current impasse between the US and Afghanistan. The US track record as a referee and a player, particularly in the Middle East is questionable. Hence the need for an impartial world body such as the UN to play a key role in resolving the current impasse. Unfortunately, the UN has become ineffective in resolving conflicts such as the current one mainly due to the attitude of the US and other dominant countries. When it suits their purpose the dominant countries use the UN and when it does not suit their agenda these countries act outside of the UN. This has discredited the UN and creates conditions for unilateralism and for dominant countries to act with impunity. In the final analysis the attacks may spark further retaliatory attacks and may mobilise support for Osama bin Laden and his group. This will plunge the world in an internecine spiral of violence that the world cannot afford, and ultimately undermine world peace and stability. In COSATU's view, this is a time for cool heads in search of political and not military solutions. At the end of the day it is the ordinary Afghan citizens, like in Iraqi that are going to suffer. This will further worsen the social crisis that has engulfed the country for some time. The humanitarian crisis that is now unfolding in that region compounds a famine that has faced Afghanistan. COSATU believes that the world should seek justice and not vengeance. The perpetrators of the September 11 attacks on the US must be apprehended and placed before a court of justice. In the long run what is needed is a concerted and long-term campaign to combat terrorism not quick fix military strikes. The quick fix solutions have proven ineffective during the gulf war and in other regions where the US preferred military intervention. The effects of the US actions, particularly the negative spillover effects on the economy, will be felt by the rest of the world. If the current attacks worsen the world economic situation, the poor will be the brunt of an economic slowdown. It is for this reason that there is a need for a co-ordinated political action under the auspices of the United Nations. Against this background, COSATU calls on the US and British governments to reconsider their position of military action and seek a political solution under the auspices of the UN. COSATU is encouraged by the South African government decision not to participate in military action and hope that it will maintain this position throughout. The South African government has a duty to mobilise other UN members for a political solution to the current impasse. Further, COSATU would like to urge the Taliban administration in Afghanistan to cooperate with the international community so that those that there is evidence that they participated or engineered the deplorable attacks should stand trial. Until there has been due process, the involvement or otherwise of bin Laden and his group, the accusations amounts to sheer and dangerous speculation. The US government must also swallow its pride and engage the Taliban in direct talks rather than issuing ultimatums. The federation also condemns last night's attack on the mosque in Pretoria. Such attacks are misguided and fuels hatred towards people of different religious faith. The police must swiftly find the perpetrators. COSATU wishes to express its sympathy and solidarity to the Islamic community and appeals for calm and religious tolerance. An Anti-authoritarian Response to the War Efforts[originally circulated on Sept. 21, 2001 to the Direct Action Network (DAN) by Marina Sitrin & Chuck Morse (Marina Sitrin is active with the Direct Action Network and Chuck Morse is active with the Institute for Anarchist Studies. contact: [email protected] ] Dear Comrades, We are living through scary times. Clearly the US Government and its allies believe they have a grand opportunity to realign domestic and international relationships in their interest. This is frightening: major shifts in the political landscape threaten to tear the ground from beneath our feet. However, these glacial shifts in the political scene also offer anti- authoritarians a unique opportunity to obtain a new, more secure footing in our struggle against economic exploitation, political hierarchy, and cultural domination. Political conditions are changing radically and, if we respond correctly, we have the chance to advance our movement to a much higher level. First of all, we must not be cowed by present circumstances, as disturbing as they are. On the contrary: recent events call upon us to exercise political leadership in the best, most principled and visionary sense of the term. This is our challenge, and one that we can meet with an anti-authoritarians vision and politics. We believe it is imperative that anti-authoritarians formulate a coherent response to the war buildup and their role within the growing peace movement. We must not allow our perspective to be subsumed under more prominent but less radical tendencies in the left. Also, the peace movement is presently defining its politics and structures and we have a great opportunity - at this moment - to engage the movement and push it in the most radical direction. This purpose of this letter is to explore the contours of an anti- authoritarian position on recent events. We encourage you to discuss this letter with your friends and comrades and to prepare for broader discussions that we intend to initiate in the near future (we will send more information soon). We want to address three important issues in this letter: structure, politics, and the future. STRUCTURE: We anticipate that the anti-war movement will experience divisions similar to those that beset the peace movement during the Gulf War. In other words, national organizing efforts will be split into two organizations: one will be pacifist and more libertarian in character, and the other will be more militant and Stalinist. Both will be top-down mobilizations, built around well-known "leaders", and awash with a moralism that would turn off even the most open-minded citizens and activists. Thus, we think our immediate challenge is to ensure that the anti-war mobilizations are decentralized and democratic in structure: specifically, that those doing the work make the decisions in these organizations. We recommend the model of assemblies, spokescouncils, or other horizontal networks of small, decentralized groups that are unified around an anti-authoritarian vision of social change. This will assure that those at the base hold decision-making power and thus that the mobilization reflects the political consciousness of the base, which is typically more radical and sane than that held by the leadership. It will still be possible for sectarian groups to infiltrate the base, but much harder for them to seize control. We believe that instituting such a decentralized structure is consistent with a principled commitment to democracy and should be our first act of defense against the party building hacks and the omnipresent "leadership". POLITICS: Decentralized political structures have little significance unless complemented by a decentralized, radically democratic politics. We need to have radically democratic goals as well as methods, anti-authoritarian means and ends. Our response to the war must be concrete, immediately comprehensible, and one that gives political content to our democratic structures. Presently we are aware of two positions on the war: The rightwing position asserts that the US is entitled to take unilateral military action against whomever. This position is not reasoned, just retaliatory, and is thus utterly barbaric. The argument crumbles when faced with questions of social justice. The liberal-left position condones military action against Osama Bin Laden if - and only if - the UN or some pre-existing international legal body decides that such action is required and determines its nature. This appears to be Z Magazine's position, as well as many others. This position is inadequate because it appeals to the political authority of the UN (and/or similar bodies). This is untenable because the UN is an illegitimate political body and thus incapable of determining a just or unjust response to the terror attacks. The UN is illegitimate because a) it presupposes the nation-state, which is inherently anti-democratic and b) because the US has veto power over many of the UN's most important decision-making bodies, such as the Security Council. The anti-authoritarian position must obviously be much more radical than the liberal-left position. We believe that anti-authoritarians should advance the following demands: First, all war criminals must be brought to justice (and judged by an international people's tribunal). Osama Bin Laden, Augusto Pinochet, Henry Kissinger, and those who have committed acts of terror and violence must be held accountable for their actions and dealt with accordingly. Second, there should be an international grassroots assembly/plebiscite/encuentro/assembly/truth and reconciliation commission on global terror. This assembly will define the terms of terror and the appropriate responses to it. There are existing decentralized, grassroots networks and organizations that could provide basis for such an initiative. Third, we must oppose military action against Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan, or anyone else until these first two conditions are met. FUTURE: We believe that anti-authoritarians should work to radicalize the anti- war movement. We should ensure that it is democratic and decentralized in structure, that its demands are anti-authoritarian in content, and that we use this movement to build cooperative relationships with the oppressed and enraged throughout the world who share our horror at the US's impeding military action and the world it seeks to create. We believe there is a great potential to create a radically democratic and deeply oppositional movement against the war. We believe this movement could sustain the accomplishments of the struggle against global capital and bring our movement to a new level of engagement, diversity, and radicalism. Another world is possible. ================================ Principles of United for Justice with Peace - Massachusetts
The individuals and organizations that comprise United for Justice with Peace express our profound grief for the thousands whose lives were cut short in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and extend our heartfelt condolences to all those who suffered losses in the event. We stand with people of conscience the world over in condemning unequivocally these horrendous acts of violence. In pursuit of a world without terror the Coalition adopts the following principles: * We seek global peace through social and economic justice. * We will not support war, whatever reason or rhetoric is offered by the politicians or the media. War in our time and in this context is indiscriminate, a war against innocents and against children. Further militarization or restrictions of our society will also have dire consequences on human rights and civil liberties at home. * We are opposed to the use of military and economic aggression that targets countries and peoples to apprehend the few who are culpable. Those responsible should be brought to justice through genuine international cooperation and through judicial process based on the rule of law. * We oppose the diversion of positive human energy and material resources away from basic needs of health, education and affirmative social supports and toward the destructive and dangerous uses by the military. * We stand in defense of our constitutional civil liberties and reject the rush to repressive measures. We can not be secure by limiting our liberties, as some of our political leaders are demanding, but only by expanding them. * We oppose anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and all forms of racial, ethnic, and religious violence and bigotry. * We call for addressing the serious humanitarian crises in Afghanistan and other affected regions. * We call for root causes to be addressed. Millions of ordinary people in the Middle East are angered at US support for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the inhumane economic sanctions against Iraq, US support for repressive regimes, and the actions of unaccountable global economic institutions dominated by the United States, which have perpetuated poverty and despair at home and abroad. US cultural domination over a pluralistic world and a military presence of bases further erodes our presence as a force for peace and freedom. Until these policies have been changed we will never be safe, and we will continue to betray the ideals of freedom, justice, and democracy which we rightly prize. * We are committed to nonviolence principles in all actions done in the name of the coalition. * We are committed to being a coalition which welcomes new voices and collaborates with other communities working for similar goals. As those who have long struggled for social justice on many fronts, we are united in our resolve to demand policies which support human needs, not weaponry, exploitation and repression. More strongly than ever, we believe that democratic processes provide the only way forward. As we strive to remake the world in the image of a beloved community of global citizens, no one of whom suffers from the scourge of terror, we stand with those everywhere who are committed to justice, peace and the recognition of human dignity for all. Sponsored by: Alliance for a Democratic and Secular South Asia, Jewish Women for Justice in Israel/Palestine, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Massachusetts Peace Action, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, National Lawyer's Guild-Boston Chapter, Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights, Prabasi of New England, Boston Mobilization for Survival, SABEEL, Boston Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), VISIONS for Peace with Justice in Israel/Palestine, Cambridge Peace Commission, New England War Tax Resistance, Citizens for Participation in Political Action (CPPAX), Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), Grassroots International, World Federalists of New England
============================= If You're Not Killing the Killers, It's Terrorism by Crispin Sartwell Published on Tuesday, October 9, 2001 in the Philadelphia Inquirer http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1009-08.htm http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/home/
Before the war began, a debate was under way about the meaning of the word terrorism. Among other things, this was important in crafting an antiterrorism statement that could get through the United Nations. Various nations feared their own actions within their borders might be construed to be terrorist. Now that our offensive is happening, the debate is, if anything, even emptier - yet all the more urgent. We must not, in responding to terrorism, become terrorists ourselves. Michael Kinsley, writing last week in the Washington Post, tried to show that terrorism could not be defined by the "scope of the harm": "Most terrorist actions are fairly small-scale compared with the death and destruction committed by nation-states acting in their official capacities. Even Sept. 11 killed fewer people than, say, the bomb on Hiroshima - an act that many Americans find easy to defend." I propose to define terrorism as follows: military action aimed primarily at noncombatants. By that standard, the bombing that ended the war with Japan ranks among the greatest terrorist acts of all time. At Hiroshima, 130,000 people died; at Nagasaki, 75,000. These bombings were utterly unconscionable and utterly unforgivable, two of the worst atrocities in a nightmare century of the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Rwanda. There are, of course, important differences between the American use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Sept. 11 attacks. The nuclear detonations took place in the context of a grueling war started by the Japanese. As Kinsley points out, there is another difference. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs took many, many more civilian lives. The bombs killed tens of thousands of children. It may be thought that what distinguishes 1945 and Sept. 11 is that one is an act of a government, the other the act of a paramilitary organization. But such a distinction does not save the former from being terrorism. But let's get something straight: That Hiroshima and Sept. 11 are morally equivalent cannot justify either one. When I compare the two, I am not doing it to provide any moral cover whatever to Osama bin Laden. Nothing, nothing can justify flying airliners into office buildings. It doesn't matter, finally, whether we call it terrorism or war or love or charity. The words, in the mouths of the various parties, are nothing, literally nothing. But the lives destroyed are real, are true, are precious beyond speaking. The insane equation of death in which person a kills b and c because person d kills e and f, has got to stop. When Palestinian terrorists car- bomb a shopping district, Israel replies by lobbing a rocket into a refugee camp. Then the Palestinians detonate another bomb, etc. It's all terrorism because no one is even pretending to kill killers. Everyone is a mere murderer, whether he's called the general or the Jackal. In my view, we must respond with force. But we had better try as hard as we know how to kill the people responsible and not cities full of noncombatants. Otherwise, you can call what we're doing infinite justice or shoo-fly pie, but it's still murder. The Horror and the Humanity of September 11: F inding a Progressive Solution to the Tragedy of Global Miseryby Nathan Newman Special to the Progressive Populist, Oct 1 issue
I didn't see the initial crash of the towers, but from the streets outside my apartment here in Jersey City, I could look across the Hudson to the smoke and char billowing in the air and stare in unbelief at the striking absence of those landmarks so usually dominant in our vision. Many in my neighborhood took the PATH subway to the World Trade Center station every day and many of them would never come back. The sick irony of the hate involved in the attack was underscored as a makeshift memorial - one of a seeming infinity erected throughout the New York region - appeared at our station, its list of names dominated by the Arabic dead from our heavily Middle Eastern and South Asia neighborhood. How can progressives respond to September 11? With pain, with horror, with sympathy, with pride, with all the regrets of what could have been. But most importantly not with its usual defensive stance of saying just "no", for out of the horror of that day are also the possibilities of a new sense of humanity in the world that progressives should embrace as the positive solution to prevent further tragedies. While we should worry and act proactively to defend civil liberties and promote international justice as an alternative to military means of security, it is worth emphasizing the positive sides that our society revealed in these crisis days, some of them directly the result of the political and cultural organizing progressives have been promoting for years. I say all this not to paint a pure rosy picture, since we may have some grim days ahead, but to emphasize the gains we have achieved by our constant engagement with these issues over the years. There is so much good we can appeal to in our fellow citizens, so we should not frame our response totally in a "ten minutes to midnight" approach. Despite some horrible acts by individual Americans, the major media and politicians have been dramatically less xenophobic than during past terrorist acts in the US, with continual admonitions against turning hate against fellow Americans, especially Arab and Islamic Americans. Despite the justified anger at the death and destruction, there has been a heartening lack of scapegoating and an understanding promoted of the diversity of what Islam means and the humane components of the Palestinian struggle which overwhelmingly reject this act of mass murder. This is a remarkable advance on the xenophobia that absolutely dominated all discussion of terrorism and the Middle East even a few years ago. In speaking of these events, we need to remember that in times of crisis communication is not always about what is intended but what will be heard and understood by listeners. When bodies lie barely cold in the rubble of mass death, no explanation, no "perspective", on the causes of the event are likely to be heard or should expected to be heard as anything other than an excuse for the murder. That is a reality that has to be part of any responsible left response to these tragic events. In that sense, anything said must be clearly put in the context of absolute and unequivocal condemnation of these mass murders and of the criminality of those involved. While the US has its own international crimes for which it should be held accountable, they are irrelevant to these events, for there is no calculus that allows the grievances of one set of innocents to be taken out on the bodies of another set. This reality is why the Palestinian leadership condemned it so strongly without any reference to US actions, an act of amazing compassion considering this was done even as their people were being killed with weapons and by allies of the US. As was reported by Reuters, the Palestinian leadership stated that the attack contravened ''all human principles and values regardless of the existing differences with the American administration.'' Arafat himself told reporters, "We completely condemn this serious operation. ... We were completely shocked. It's an unbelievable disaster. It is touching our hearts. It is very difficult to explain my feelings. God help them. God help them.'' No one wants to hear about past mistakes right now that this tragedy has occurred (since that just doubles the bitterness), but everyone wants to hear about solutions to prevent a similar tragedy in the future. The Right is coding their explanation and scapegoating in their proposed solution - military response - implicitly (and in a few cases explicitly) blaming too little military spending and too lax repression for the events of September 11. Conversely, instead of discussing past crimes by the US government, a better approach is to stress solutions for the future - collective security through global justice. We can act in solidarity with the Palestinians and the other victims of US violence by strongly emphasizing the evil of all violence bred of hate, domination and exploitation. We will find far more allies for a just world through building solidarity between the victims of the World Trade Center and other global victims of violence than through any finger-pointing or causal explanations. There has been a surprisingly large amount of acknowledgement of the suffering of the Palestinians and other victims of US military actions in these weeks, both in the media and in the public. The very enormity of this act that may be encouraging war fever in some has through its enormity also focusing many Americans on the world of misery they often ignored. Maybe that is a justification for the effectiveness of the act of the terrorists, but it is the traditional religious explanation justifying all evil - that when we confront evil in its raw singular hateful reality, we may be inspired to find the good within in reaction. That is never guaranteed, but when peoples' hearts are opened at such a moment, we may find that an appeal for humanity and love may be far more effective than a more traditional oppositional stance. People will hate only if they feel that is the only solution to the wound that was opened in them. If we can provide an alternative solution, of solidarity between all victims of violence and hate, of ending misery so hate cannot breed, of seeking a real end to war and violence through democratic and global collective security, that is I think the truest way to serve both the victims of this September 11 and the victims of US violence as well. Nathan Newman is a longtime union and community activist, a National Vice President of the National Lawyers Guild and author of the forthcoming book NET LOSS on Internet policy and economic inequality. Email [email protected] or see http://www.nathannewman.org. Eric Lee, "Trade Unionists and Democratic Socialists Should Support the War"[Eric Lee is webmaster for LabourStart. He has been an activist in the American and Israeli left and peace movements.] There are times when socialists have to grit their teeth and admit that a victory for their own country's ruling class in a war would be beneficial for the working class. There is a long history of this kind of response, going back to Karl Marx himself. One very good example of Marx endorsing a war and supporting a capitalist government at war came in 1861 when the civil war in the United States broke out. Marx correctly saw that a victory for the slave-owning states of the south against the industrial capitalists of the north would be disastrous. He enthusiastically supported the US President, Lincoln, and encouraged the ruthless prosecution of the war. But Marx did more than just offer 'critical support' to the US government. He advocated an expansion of the war, and particularly of the war goals. Marx was not interested in the limited goals of restoring the union, as declared by Lincoln. He wanted the war transformed into a revolutionary war, including a freeing of the slaves, which was something the American government was reluctant to proclaim. It should be recalled that the US was at that time, 140 years ago, in very expansionist mode. It had recently waged war against Mexico, managing to seize vast terroritories in the south west. It was in the final stages of a brutal war of extermination against native Americans -- a war for which the term 'ethnic cleansing' simply does not do justice. The American civil war was followed by rapid economic growth which eventually led to increasing US involvement in international wars. In other words, the decision by the northern capitalist rulers in the US to prosecute a war against the slave- owning Confederacy could be seen as part of a broader program of imperial expansion, as indeed it was. None of this prevented Marx (and Engels) from enthusiastically supporting the United States. This was not the only war launched by capitalist and imperialist powers which the founders of modern socialism lent their support to. Only a few years earlier, Marx and Engels railed against the failure of the British and French to more aggressively pursue their war against Russian tsarism -- a war now known to us as the 'Crimean War'. This was but one episode of many in Marx's life in which he put a higher priority on crushing tsarist Russia than on nearly anything else. Marx's legendary Russophobia had its rational roots in something quite real: the role played by this reactionary regime as the 'gendarme of Europe'. Marx never forgot the role played by Russian troops in the crushing of the 1848 revolutions. Why bring up the American Civil War and the Crimean War at this moment, in 2001? What could be possibly be relevant here? A few things come to mind. First of all, when expansionist, imperialist, capitalist countries go to war, socialists do not always and everywhere have to oppose them. There can sometimes be cases when socialists might give such countries their enthusiastic support. Second, when capitalist countries go to war against even more reactionary regimes (e.g., the American Confederacy or the Russian Empire -- or the Third Reich), the natural reaction of socialists should be at the very least a vague sympathy for the capitalists. Simply put, a victory for the other side would be catastrophic. Third, when supporting those capitalist regimes in their wars, socialists do not have to confine themselves to supporting the war aims proposed by the ruling class -- they can propose additional aims which would widen the war and lead to different results. I thought of these things when looking at the knee-jerk reaction of most of the Left to the US- British attacks on Afghanistan which began this month. Some of the groups concerned have suggested that the slogan 'Defend Afghanistan!' would be an appropriate one for the left to adopt at this time, indicating a clear preference which I, for one, reject. I think a very strong case can be made for the left to support a vigorous military campaign against the terrorist network responsible for the 11 September attacks on the United States -- a campaign which would also target regimes such as the Taleban which provide sanctuary for such terrorists. It is not necessary to argue that case today among most mainstream left parties, as most are already giving their support to the campaign. The Greens in Germany have been unusually pro- American in recent days, and the ruling social democrats in France, Germany and elsewhere were early supporters of a military response by the West to terror. So was the American trade union movement, which hailed the 'aggressive' US response. The revolutionary Left in countries like Britain is, in this sense, isolated. A few thousand demonstrators have been mobilised recently, but there does not appear to be any genuine groundswell of protest. There is no mass anti-war movement. Now, there is nothing wrong with taking an unpopular view -- indeed, it can sometimes reflect a kind of courage. But to take a viewpoint which is at once opportunistic and at the same time unpopular simply makes no sense. Particularly if that viewpoint is morally wrong. There is no question in my mind that some elements of the Left have utterly lost their moral compass -- and this was revealed quite clearly during the Kosovo war. That same moral bankruptcy that was revealed by those who gave their support to the criminal Milosevic regime has not gone away. Those who thought that the genocide being waged against the Kosovars was a Western propaganda ploy are today claiming that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was somehow the result of US foreign policy. Those on the Left who understood in 1999 that it might be necessary to grit one's teeth and give limited and critical support to Nato -- if that was the only way to save the Kosovars from extermination -- should today consider how they react to the scourge of international terrorism, particularly in the virulent form we saw on 11 September. To embrace the 'anti-war movement' for opportunisitic reasons while knowing that it is as morally bankrupt as it was two years ago is counter-productive because this is not now, and will not become, an unpopular war. A better position for the Left would be to react as Marx might have done, seeing in this war an opportunity -- or a series of opportunities -- to reduce some regional tensions in the world (Palestine, Kashmir), to oust at least one super-reactionary regime (the Taleban), and to bring an end once and for all to the threat of weapons of mass destruction being used by insane terrorists backed by rogue states. In this war as in all others, socialists have to ask themselves what will be the result if one side or the other wins -- as usually happens in a war. If you feel that a victory by Osama bin Laden and his Taleban 'hosts' would do some good for the world, then by all means shout 'Defend Afghanistan!' As for the rest of us, it is time to grit our teeth and hope for a swift and decisive victory by the West. Bill Onasch, Against Terrorism and the Cynical War Against Terrorism: Response to Eric Lee [Bill Onasch is a vetran US labor activist and webmaster for KC LABOR] It’s hard to imagine any sane, civilized person condoning such a barbaric act as the attack on the World Trade Center. Those responsible for it need to be eliminated not just for vengeance but to ensure they don’t strike again. Sensible security precautions should be taken to prevent future such attacks—though it is hard to defend against men not only willing but eager to die as martyrs. I could agree with Eric Lee, and others, to support actions by the U.S. government to apprehend and deal with those who carried out the New York atrocity. But the “War on Terrorism” is a whole lot more than that simple quest for justice. First of all you have to decide on who is a terrorist. One person’s “terrorist” is often another’s hero. The Zionists certainly carried out terrorist actions during the British occupation of Palestine. Now they defend themselves against terrorist attacks by Palestinians frustrated by Israeli rule. Connolly and Collins may be terrorists in the memories of the English but are worshiped by many Celts. The ANC and PAC were called terrorists during apartheid; today the ANC rules South Africa and enjoys the confidence of world capitalism. In the 1950s the President of the United Electrical Workers in the USA was once denied entry into Canada to attend a union convention because the union was alleged to be controlled by red terrorists—an allegation subsequently dismissed in court. The respected Belgian economist and historian Ernest Mandel, a survivor of a Nazi death camp, was banned from many countries, including the USA, because his political organization, the Fourth International, had been falsely labeled terrorist. The Bush war room has reportedly identified “terrorist” targets in sixty countries. Clearly this goes far beyond the bin Laden network. It even transcends any connections to fanatical Islam. It is a blank check for Bush to intervene militarily anywhere in the world whenever he sees fit. I don’t know if he will try to pacify the terrorists in Ireland but he could under the bipartisan doctrine of the “War on Terrorism.” More likely would be intervention against terrorism in Colombia. What if Chavez gets too uppity in Venezuela? And then there’s that Castro fellow in Cuba they’ve never much liked. As Bush told the world in his speech to congress “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” This is a war without a clearly defined enemy, with no strategic objectives, with no way of telling when it has been won or lost. The “War on Terrorism” is really the resurrection of the U.S. as policeman of the world, prepared to intervene anytime, any place to make the world safe for what’s become known as Globalization. Since there is no longer a Red Menace of Communism to fight they’ll make do with fighting Terrorism. But the ruling class in the USA also has many domestic objectives as well as reasserting themselves on the world front. These include: Recovering Domestic Political Stability. The 2000 presidential election triggered the biggest political crisis in the U.S. in more than a century. Bush received fewer popular votes than Gore. His ultimate victory in electoral votes was tainted in Florida. Many felt the election was stolen and a nearly equally divided congress appeared headed for contentious battles. That’s all now been forgotten. Democrats and Republicans literally linked arms and sang God Bless America. As Americans bought flags (mainly made in China, by the way) in record numbers, and more than a few donned T-shirts with such slogans as “Nuke the Towel Heads,” Bush has gone from suspected imposter to the most popular President in the history of polling. Assigning Blame for the Recession. America was well into the opening stages of an overdue recession on September 11. Certainly there was much property damage and economic dislocation from the 9-11 attack. But the capitalist class as a whole has over reacted with massive layoffs, even in industries unaffected by the attacks, along with calls for government hand-outs and wide spread demands for wage cuts from their workers. As we predicted immediately after the attacks we have also seen assaults on the environment and civil liberties steam rollered through the new bipartisan unity in congress—proposals that wouldn’t have made it to first base on September 10. Soon we will see approval of Fast Track to speed up Globalization. These are all good reasons for what Eric Lee and others call a “knee-jerk” reaction from class conscious workers against the phony patriotism being whipped up by the bosses, their politicians, and their media. We’re against both real Terrorism and the cynical War on Terrorism.
|
|
|