Paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain

Regime change begins at home www.cpgb.org.uk 50p/�0.85No 476 Thursday April 17 2003

Glen Rangwala: USstrategy for pre-emptiveand active overthrow

n Gulf War II - balance sheetn April 12 anti-war demon May electionsn FBU Brighton conference

wor k erweekly

Why Iraq couldnever havebeenanotherVietnam

Mike Macnair argues thatthe left was wrong - seepages 6-7

l

Letters may have beenshortened because of space.Some names may have beenchanged�

Letters, BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XX l Tel: 020 8965 0659 l Fax: 020 8961 9193 l weeklyworker@cpgb.org.uk l www.cpgb.org.uk

2

LETTERSApril 17 2003 476worker

weekly

cpgb

com

mu

nis

t p

arty

of g

reat

bri

tain PARTYnotes

Balance sheet

T he Iraq phase of US imperial-ism’s permanent war is virtu-ally over. It is timely thereforeto draw up an honest balance

Return homeIan Donovan’s article (‘Consistent de-mocracy after Saddam Hussein’ April 10)brings to light Sean Matgamna and hiscronies’ ruthless persistence in pursuinganti-Arab chauvinism.

Perhaps the best example of this phe-nomenon, not mentioned by Donovan,is the AWL majority’s continued refusalto support the right of Palestinian refu-gees to return to their homes. However,Donovan is misled in believing that suchpolitical analysis stems from the AWL‘not having time for Arabs’ as such.Rather the reason the AWL does notsupport Palestinian and Iraqi self deter-mination stems from their overtly pro-imperialist and anti-communist ideologyand practices.

Consider this example. In the newAWL pamphlet, Rhodri Evans informsus that if the Iraqi Communist Party hadtaken power (or led a revolution) in the1950s, Iraq would have become “a prisonhouse for its workers”. He is talking hereabout the largest and most popular po-litical party in modern Arab history, withmillions of members and grass rootsworking class and peasant support. Theirbrand of socialism was not good enoughfor the AWL.

The party’s adoption of a Moscowfriendly policy made them evil, power-crazed ‘Stalinists’. Just as well the ICPwere too timid to lead the working classto power and left the country in the sta-ble hands of the Ba’athist mass murder-ers and their now imperialist successorsand former sponsors. Suffice to say thatthe AWL does not limit its opposition tosocialism and national liberation in theArab world.

Following close behind the strongestlink of anti-communism (Matganma andco) is Jack Conrad. Dropping anothercold war bomb shell he writes “In the westanti-communism - based in no smallmeasure on the appalling reality of ‘ac-tual living socialism’ - cowed, politicallydisarmed and contained the workingclass” (‘American power and the Bushproject for the 21st century’ April 10).

But no antidote to this anti-commu-nism is provided by Conrad, who typi-cally refers to the “appalling reality” ofcommunism while ignoring its majorachievements and failing to contrast it tothe appalling realities of anti-communismand imperialism (infiltrating the left andtrade unions, arming and training dicta-tors and death squads, raping the thirdworld, etc).

Currently the Weekly Worker seemsto have nothing to say about the on-going resistance to neo-liberal imperial-ism and capitalism across the world.From peasant uprisings in Columbia,Mexico and Nepal to the building of massdemocracy in Venezuela. Is not the aimof communist propaganda to give liveblood and encouragement to such re-sistance and inspire further resistance?Let us please put an end to the dogma,the pessimism and the academic one-upmanship of the revolutionary left andbuild a mass movement capable of bring-ing about change.Joe Willsemail

UnwarrantedComrade Donovan’s article ‘Consistentdemocracy after Saddam Hussein’ con-tained the line “It is quite obvious thatthe AWL doesn’t really like Arabs verymuch, and does not regard them as hav-ing much in the way of national rights”.

While we would not subscribe to theAWL’s politics on Israel/Palestine, wenevertheless view their arguments asmerely mistaken, and not born out of adislike of Arabs.

As CPGB members we view this as an

unwarranted extrapolation from their ar-gument, and would therefore wish to dis-associate ourselves from it.Manny NeiraLee RockSteve Cooke

ExcellentWith reference to your article “Consist-ent democracy after Saddam Hussein”,excellent stuff.

It has been a long, long time since Ihave seen a genuine example of prole-tarian internationalism. The Alliance forWorkers’ Liberty’s position is shameful.Jim Williamsemail

DefeatismOn the Saturday April 12, anti-war march,the organizers claimed 200,000-250,000people attended, the figure I guess to bearound 50,000-60,000.

Is this a sign of defeatism? Do we feellike we have to resort to lies? We are seento be ashamed of our numbers, Well I saythat we do not have to be.

We should be proud to be anti-war. Itmeans that the government and theirpropaganda organs such as the BBChave not distorted our minds, our opin-ions. The fact that we have not changedour minds just to be a cog in the systemof the patriotic mass gives us the meansto be proud of ourselves; we have stoodfirm and united in what we believe.

I only hope that this unity continuesin the future. Workers of the world unite!James CampyWakefield

Non-sectarianSWPI have watched with interest the trans-formation of the Weekly Worker. It nowhas less sectarian attacks on the SWPetc. This was something I tried to raisewith the CPGB a few months ago when Iconsidered joining. I was told that theWeekly Worker was proud of its cover-age on the far left and that this was vitalto the working class etc.

It will be interesting to see if your pa-per returns to its old ways now the im-mediate military campaign in Iraq isdrawing to a close. I feel that huge num-bers of people have become radicalisedfor the first time in their lives over the pastfew months. If Marxists are to developthis then continuing your “gossip sheet”of the left will be totally fruitless.

I instead decided to join the SWP be-cause it is clear that they have, above anyof the far left, been able to build a massmovement and in the process argue forrevolutionary politics within that move-ment. I am of the opinion that the SWP isclearly the most non-sectarian organisa-tion on the left - and this is proven by itstrack record within the coalition - but it isalso principled in the clarity of its anti-imperialism.

Now I know you won’t agree with thatbut I have to say that Welsh CPGBmembers have been singularly lacking inany involvement within the coalition inWales. They do very occasionally appearto tell people what we are doing wrong,however, and this is met with anger orlaughter. Come on comrades get in thewater- its warm!Bobby BlazerCaerphilly

AaronovitchSo your former comrade David Aarono-vitch is recommending the WeeklyWorker to the readers of his column inThe Guardian. He says that your gos-sip sheet is “by far the best and mostanalytical source of information on thefar left” (April 8).

But what do you really do? You per-form a splendid service - for the other

sheet.Alongside the abundant gains and

successes recorded by the anti-warparty (and the left), errors and short-comings must be fearlessly admittedand speedily rectified. Only then canwe properly prepare for the next phaseof what James Woolsely - CIA direc-tor from 1993-95 and Pentagonchoice to head the information depart-ment in the US occupation govern-ment - has chillingly called “WorldWar IV”. This bloodthirsty hawk en-visages a conflict “against tyranny”lasting “decades” (The GuardianApril 8). Iran, Syria, North Korea,Libya, Cuba and even China - all ofthem are targeted for regime change.

The anti-war movement was aboveall international. Actions were oftensimultaneous and coordinated. No-vember’s Social Forum in Florence setthe scene. Across the world manymillions marched. Britain - junior part-ner in the ‘coalition of the willing’ -proved to be no exception.

On February 15 London witnesseda truly historic demonstration of twomillion. Glasgow 80,000. Tony Blairfaced two unprecedented parliamen-tary rebellions. Robin Cook resigned.But the parliamentary pro-war partyalways commanded an unassailablemajority. Meanwhile opinion polls re-corded most people in the country op-posing the war. On March 12 1,500delegates met together in the first Peo-ple’s Assembly. The anti-war party im-plicitly challenged the sclerotic andunrepresentative nature of parliamentand Britain’s quasi-democratic consti-tutional monarchy system.

The day the war broke out - March20 - there were countless nationwideprotests. School students formed thevanguard. A new generation emergedsinging and shouting into politics. Twodays later half-a-million rallied in Lon-don. Patriotism and ‘backing our serv-ice men and women’ was the onlyconvincing argument in Blair’s armoury.Amongst the soft and vacillating itwrought devastation. Robin Cook, MoMolam, Diane Abbott, Charles Ken-nedy and Daily Mirror editor PiersMorgan abjectly surrendered. Despitethat between 20% and 30% of thepopulation continued to support theanti-war party. April 12 - as the waragainst Iraq reached its chaotic climaxin looting and state collapse - 80,000 inLondon and 3,000 in Glasgow pro-tested against the US-UK occupation.

Achievements on the credit side aretherefore palpable. What about thedebit column? Keeping the Stop theWar Coalition single issue served tocamouflage an opportunist fear ofproviding a clear, unambiguous po-litical lead. Confronted by big issuessuch as terrorism, democracy andpatriotism, STWC balked. Clarity wassacrificed to a chimerical numbersstrategy. Andrew Murray - STWCchair and member of the MorningStar’s Communist Party of Britain -wanted to reach out to the LiberalDemocrats and “even into the ranksof the conservatives”. His disastrousslogan: the anti-war party must be “asbroad as the country”.

That meant a pigheaded refusal tocondemn the murderous actions of al-

Qaida, welcoming a Liberal Demo-cratic fifth column onto platforms andcurtailing or strangling debate. TheSocialist Workers Party and their CPBallies tried to run the STWC’s confer-ence and the first People’s Assemblyas bureaucratic rallies, not democraticforums and decision making bodies.And having reluctantly agreed to thelaunch of the People’s Assembly, theSWP put a block on local and regionalassemblies - STWC’s authority andthereby SWP interests might be jeop-ardised.

The anti-war party is undoubtedlya people’s movement. But not one inwhich the organised working class ex-ercises decisive hegemony. Thatmust change. One encountered muchover-excited chatter about strike ac-tion. Foolishly the People’s Assem-bly agreed an extravagant - buckpassing - resolution demanding theTUC “immediately” organise “generalstrike action”. However, real strikesproved elusive and, had they occurred,would have scattered Murray’s liber-als and conservatives like autumnleaves in a thunder storm. To becomea war stopping social force the anti-war party must adopt consistent in-ternal democracy and solidly baseitself on the militant working class.

Perhaps the biggest failure hasbeen the Socialist Alliance. Despitethe explosive wave of radicalisationthe SA lackadaisically opted for“business as usual”. The SWP, Work-ers Power, the Alliance for Workers’Liberty, the International SocialistGroup and most of the so-called in-dependents voted to postpone theannual general meeting till after thewar. Already dangerously becalmed,this effectively liquidated the SA. TheSWP saw a golden recruiting oppor-tunity for itself - and would brook nocompetition.

Consequentially the left spoke in awelter of fractious and confusingvoices. Petty sect rivalry triumphedover the partyist project of incorporat-ing all talents and all principled shadesof socialist opinion - including in theLabour Party - into a single democraticand centralised organisation.

Doubtless hundreds of new mem-bers were made along with thousands

of new contacts. Ambitions shouldhave been higher though. Far higher.The narrow carapace of the sectsshould have been shattered and aban-doned. By transforming ourselves wecould have won tens and hundredsof thousands.

If it is to have a worthwhile futurethe May 10 - delayed - AGM will haveto be a relaunch conference. Gulf WarII proves that an on-off SWP “unitedfront” of an electoralist kind is asgood as useless.

What of the CPGB? There weredefinite shortcomings. Our leadershipdid not move swiftly or decisivelyenough. Furthermore, sectarian diver-sions were given far too much leewayand prominence. Eg, objections to theinvolvement of the Muslim Associa-tion of Britain in the anti-war party. Pu-erile talk of popular fronts wenthand-in-hand with brittle moralismabout selling out fellow communistsin the muslim world. Under the circum-stances such nonsense should havebeen dealt with quickly and firmly.

The CPGB actually shed a thin layerof members. Collectively we failed toenthuse and lift them to the tempo ex-hibited by the mass movement. Eitherthey quit or membership was termi-nated. Dead wood. An inactive com-munist is a contradiction in terms. Ofcourse, numbers have been more thanmade up for by an influx of recruits.But there is no room for crowing.

Take the Weekly Worker. Sales onthe numerous protests and demon-strations boosted circulation. But notqualitatively. Readership - in the printand electronic formats - still hovers atjust under an average of 10,000. Notgood enough. Obviously our papershuns populism and demands seri-ousness. More should have beendone though to improve accessibil-ity (without watering down hard hit-ting polemics, etc).

There is, however, every reason forconfidence. Britain is changed forever.The audience for leftwing ideas hasmultiplied many times over. There is athirst for knowledge. A prediction -the anti-war generation of 2003 willprogressively come to regard theWeekly Worker as required readingl

Jack Conrad

Every reason for confidence

ACTION

www.cpgb.org.uk/action

3476 April 17 2003workerweekly

Ask for a bankers order form, orsend cheques, payable to

Weekly Worker

Fighting fund

Much more03

full week (self-catering accomodation):£130/£85 unwagedfirst weekend (incl. one night�s accomodation):£30/£20one day (sessions only): £15/£8,one session: £6/£3

August 3 - 10 2003,London

This annual school will be debating a wholerange of issues to do with the Iraq war including:

● new American century and the myth of post-imperialism● the aftermath of the US-UK conquest● rogue states and why they were invented● fighting for defeat:Leninism and war● Socialist Alliance and Iraq:did it meet the test?

Places are limited. Reserve yourplace now by sending a chequefor £20 to the CPGB address.

CommunistCommunistCommunistCommunistCommunistUniversity

CPGB London forumsEvery Sunday, 5pm, Diorama Arts Centre, 34 Osnaburgh Street (nearest tubes- Great Portland Street, Regents Park).Sunday April 20: ‘The new US imperialism’

CPGB Guildford forums‘The new US imperialism’, Wednesday April 23, 7.30pm, Lecture Hall, Guild-ford Institute, Ward Street.

CPGB Wales forums ‘The new US imperialism’, Tuesday April 22, 7.30pm, Clwb Ivor Bach,Womanby Street, Cardiff (5 minutes walk from central station)

May Day actionsLondon: Demonstration supported by TUC and Stop the War coalition onThursday May 1: Assemble 12noon at Clerkenwell Green, march to Trafal-gar Square.Manchester: March and rally on Saturday May 3: Assemble 12.30, Cham-berlain Square, march through city centre.

The Really Big BlockadeFaslane nuclear base, on the Clyde, 7am. Details from Scottish CND on 0141423 1222.

Jeremy Hardy film‘Jeremy Hardy v The Israeli Army’, a dark comedy by Leila Sansour, pre-sented by the Palestinian ambassador Mr Afif Safieh. Q&A session withJeremy Hardy and Leila Sansour after screening. April 23 and 24, 8pm, TheBloomsbury Theatre, UCL, 15 Gordon Street, London. Tickets £6.50. BoxOffice: 020 7388 8822.

Anti-racist marchManchester anti-racist day, Saturday April 26, 10.30am, Castlefield Basin,Liverpool Road. Called by Unison. Rally and music, 12 noon onwards, AlbertSquare. Concert in Apollo, 7pm onwards, with Chumbawamba, Alabama 3and others. More details from www.anl.org.uk or www.northemandus.org

Love Music Hate Racism gigSunday April 27, Burnley Mechanics, 3pm-11pm, with Basement Jaxx, TimWestwood, Heartless Crew and others.

Socialist Alliance annual conferenceSaturday May 10, 10am to 5pm, Islington Green School, London. For detailsphone 020 7791 3138 or go to www.socialistalliance.net

Free Palestine national rallySaturday 17 May, 1.30pm, Trafalgar Square, London. Called by the PalestineSolidarity Campaign.

Party willsThe CPGB has forms available fore you to include the Party and the strugglefor communism in your will. Write for details.

RDGTo contact the Revolutionary Democratic Group email rdgroup@yahoo.com

side. The Weekly Worker spends mostof its time attacking other sections of theleft - the SWP, the Socialist Party, theAlliance for Workers’ Liberty. Certainlymore energy and space is given over todamaging the left with little internal tit-bits than uniting against Tony Blair andhis rotten imperialist government.

Aaronovitch used to support theCPGB journal Marxism Today. Now thathe is thinking about joining New Labourhe is supporting the Weekly Worker. Everwondered why?Eddie Hollandemail

After SaddamAs the battlefield phase of the war in Iraqapproaches its conclusion, the future ofthe country after Saddam becomes theurgent question. The search is on for thefairest and most effective means toachieve a stable civil administration thatwill represent the true interests of all thepeople. Already rival plans and interestshave emerged and the differences engen-dered look set to open up wider chasmssowing seeds of future conflicts. Tomake sense of these turbulent times, wecan turn to history as it may offer somehard but necessary lessons for us. With the collapse of the Ottoman Em-pire, the territory of modern day Iraqcame up for grabs. Unfortunately for thepeople (Arab and Kurd alike) the land fellunder British control. The new Britishmasters did not have an easy ride how-ever. It was many years before the localpopulation were pacified, during whichthe British did not flinch from employingthe fiercest repression. Today the US invaders and their sup-porters talk about “liberating” the peo-ple of Iraq; in the 1920s, the British andtheir apologists talked about “civilising”them. Not much has changed apart fromwords. Let us have no illusions, Britain’srecord is not a benevolent one, neither isthe American’s today; Britain was inter-ested mainly in securing its vital interestsin Iraq, which focused on the oil aroundMosul and Baghdad. These reservesrepresented the biggest prize, never farfrom British calculations. For this theBritish were prepared to play a very dirtygame indeed. What has really fundamen-tally changed now? British public records now reveal thegovernment debates about the use of gason rebellious Arab and Kurdish tribes,with Winston Churchill (our greatest warhero) arguing: “I don’t understand thissqueamishness about the use of gas. Iam strongly in favour of using poison gasagainst uncivilised tribes”. Gas was indeed used against the peo-ple “with excellent moral effect” accord-ing to the estimate of one British official.Elsewhere Wing-Commander Arthur“Bomber” Harris (another British warhero, let it be noted) boasted: “Arabs andKurds now know what real bombingmeans in casualties and damage. Within45 minutes a full-size village can be prac-tically wiped out and a third of its inhab-itants killed or injured….” Shock andawe!

Like today, the confrontation pre-sented an opportunity to take extrememeasures and this became a useful test-ing ground for a host of new weapons:phosphorous bombs, liquid fire, delay-action bombs in the case of the 1920s.New weapons are being tested right nowin the current Iraq campaign.

What is unfolding in Iraq today canperhaps best be described as globalisa-tion at gunpoint, the reshaping of a coun-try to suit international capital. The‘liberation’ structure envisaged will be ahand picked group of Iraqi exiles whohave no social base among the people.It seems that no democratic mandate isto be risked at least until everything hasbeen tightly sewn up. In this respect it is significant that theleader of the Iraqi National CongressAhmad Chalabi has called for US troopsto remain in occupation for at least twoyears before elections can be organisedand the outcome more or less guaran-

teed. It is unsurprising that these aspir-ants to the highest office already cannottrust the people; their ambitions don’trun much further than the desire to plun-der the country with their Americanfriends. The greatest danger to the future dig-nity and true independence of the peo-ple of Iraq lies in the political vacuum leftby the formerly dominant Ba’ath Party.Since Saddam’s machine systematicallyeliminated all effective opposition, includ-ing the once mighty ICP, there is simplyno organised group that can defend na-tional interests against what the US andUK plan to do now in the liberated coun-try, which is nothing less than a corpo-rate takeover. ‘To the victor the spoils’ is a truismnow being vividly illustrated as thescramble for the big reconstruction con-tracts gets underway. We have tradesecretary Patricia Hewitt saying that UKcompanies are well placed to win in faircompetition against companies fromcountries who had previously ‘collabo-rated’ with Saddam. She even gener-ously conceded that companies fromIraq would also be able to bid for recon-struction contracts (in their own coun-try).

Only the Kurds can claim serious le-gitimacy, although their writ does not runbeyond the boundary of Kurdistan. Af-ter their loyalty to the coalition, what canthe Kurds expect to gain - or will they bebetrayed yet again? Finally, will the Kurd-ish leaders now be able to walk tall andby standing up for true Kurdish interestsset an example for all Kurds and Arabsseeking to restore their dignity as humanbeings?

All true friends of the Kurds desper-ately hope that there will be a capacity toresist the more glaringly abusive whimsof the US-UK coalition as they seek toimpose their own vision on the country.‘Baghdad is ours’ ran the headlines insome UK newspapers. No, it is not. Bagh-dad belongs to the Iraqi people, just asSulaymaniya, Arbil (and Diyarbakir) be-long to the Kurdish people!David Morganemail

Helen DawitHelen Dawit is a second year student atCity and Islington College in London,studying travel and tourism.

She had to flee her home in Eritrea af-ter her father, who had been involvedwith the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF),disappeared. She had personal acquaint-ance with people who were killed foropposing the government. Helen and hermother were subjected to violent harass-ment by Eritrean security forces and fled

the country after a particular violent at-tack.

In Ethiopia Helen got separated fromher mother and she has not heard of hersince. A friend of the family helped Helento travel to the UK, where she arrived inDecember 1997 and claimed asylum. Thehome office turned down her application,claiming it would be safe for her to returnto Eritrea. This stands in sharp contrastwith reports from Amnesty Internationalabout the fate of Asylum seekingEritreans who had been deported fromMalta in October 2002, and who wereimmediately arrested by the EritreanAuthorities.

The detainees have since ‘disap-peared’. There is also the possibility thatHelen might be forcibly recruited into thearmy. The present political situation alsoincreases the dangerous situation inEritrea and highlights Helen’s vulnerabil-ity if she returns.

When Helen, now 21, came to thiscountry, she was 15 years old and com-pletely on her own. She has succeededwith her studies and built a life despiteher trauma from the past. She does notknow anything about the fate of her par-ents and apart from the dangers of beingdetained and tortured if deported toEritrea, she also has nobody and noth-ing to return to.

Please support her appeal to be ableto stay in the UK and continue her stud-ies. What you can do - download thecampaign petition (http://www.ncadc.-org.uk/letters/newszine33/helen-dawit.html) and get as many signaturesas you can. Inquiries/further information:Asylum for Helen Dawit c/o Linda Lloyd,City and Islington College, 444 CamdenRoad, London, N7 0SP.NCADCManchester

Canada gaffeThe United States ambassador toCanada, Paul Celluci, finds it “incompre-hensible” that Canada’s ships in the Per-sian Gulf would not automatically turnover possible Iraqi war or human rightscriminals to the US.

I find it “incomprehensible” that the USshould have such an ignorant and un-diplomatic ambassador. There is now aworld court for war criminals, the Inter-national Criminal Court in The Hague,Netherlands. The US signed the ICCtreaty in December 2000, though it hasyet to ratify it. The US State departmentshould keep its ambassadors informed.

No wonder Bush is not coming toCanada. With advice from this ambassa-dor, many stupid decisions are possible.Tom TrottierOttawa

Over the last two weeks our £500monthly fighting fund was lookinga bit thin. This week I can report aslight improvement. Thanks to com-rades TR (£50) and WR (£20 each),comrade MG (£10) and a total of £55collected for us on CPGB stalls at theApril 12 demonstration against theoccupation of Iraq our total has risento £162. Still nowhere near enough,but at least we are nearer the right tra-jectory to hit our target.

As we have said before and willno doubt say again meeting our £500target is vital if our mounting ex-penses are to be met. Lifting our-selves during the war period hasbeen exhilarating. But is has alsobeen hugely costly. Phone, print andpost bills have soared. So comradeswe really do depend on you to keep

going.One particularly positive feature of

the April 12 demonstration was thenumber of email readers who boughtthe print version of the paper. Sellersreport that they also accounted forthe bulk of donations on the day. Soa big thanks this week to our e-read-ers.

With the extra sales on the two legsof the London march and in HydePark plus 7,189 e-readers recorded bythe midnight of April 16 our total cir-culation this week stands at around9,500. As we have said, this is good.But much more can and needs to bedonel

Robbie Rix

Around the webDebating thenext move

o compliment the lastfeature on alternative newssources (Weekly WorkerT

4

AFTER GULF WAR IIApril 17 2003 476worker

weekly

aroundTHEWEB

April 10), this week we will bedipping into a small selection ofkey progressive discussion lists.

There are a number ofimportant announcement liststhat deserve to be consulted.www.groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-war-news, www.groups.ya-hoo.com/group/communist-internet , and www.groups.yahoo.-com/group/peoples_war carry agood deal of reports fromdomestic and international mediasources. The latter two beingStalinist-inspired lists, it isunderstandable that statementsmake up a good proportion ofposts from various communistparties (ruling or otherwise) andtheir �official� news agencies.Nonetheless they do have thevirtue of presenting anotherperspective on the Iraq conflict.The Scottish Socialist Party�sannouncement list (www.groups.-yahoo.com/group/ssp-notice-board) is also a valuable port ofcall. Most posts here are for-warded articles from the bour-geois press (particularly TheGuardian), or from other alterna-tive news sites. Obviously the waris heavily featured, but in �normal�times domestic class struggleissues predominate � albeit witha Scottish twist.

One of the quirkiest but mostuseful lists around iswww.groups.yahoo.com/group/leftist_trainspotters . Dedicated to�playfully sectological, good-humouredly sectarian� discus-sion, the raison d�etre of the list isto �trainspot� the left - be it ondemonstrations, elections, theinternet, the media, chanceencounters down the localsupermarket, and amusinganecdotes.

With the war on Iraq, the listhas come into its own for back-ground information on the Ba�athmovement, exile groups, Iraqicommunists (and the circulationof their material). Given the�spotting� opportunities of anti-war demonstrations, there hasbeen a flurry of eyewitnessreports from around the globe.However, the remit of this listdoes not cover (in theory at least)debate and discussion beyondspotting related informationexchange.

Returning once again to Urban75 (Weekly Worker April 3), theboards area of the site hasdiscussion threads on nearlyevery subject under the sun. Ofparticular interest to anti-waractivists will be the section givenover to the war in Iraq. In keepingwith the other forums, U75participants discuss all aspects ofthe imperialist attack. To give ageneral flavour of what is onoffer, there are threads on the

Bush-Blair strategy, the Projectfor a New American Century,resistance, and media coverage.There is even a light heartedthread on the Goebbelsian Iraqiminister for information, Moham-med Saeed al-Sahaf, carrying anear-complete list of �ComicalAli�s� famous empty boasts. Foranti-war discussion, U75 isprobably unbeatable.

Red Pepper�s official discus-sion list at www.groups.yahoo.-com/group/redpepperdebatehas developed something of aniche for itself in the course ofthe war. Ordinarily a general leftdiscussion list dominated bydebates around the EuropeanUnion and more theoreticalissues, recent threads havefeatured some high-leveldiscussion on some of the USmotives behind the war. Thethesis that the war is partly aboutthe supremacy of the dollar overthe euro (see www.atrueword.-com/index.php/article/articleprint/49/-1/1 ) hasgenerated a lot of interest, anddoes itself deserve wide consid-eration.

The (infamous) UK LeftNetwork list (www.groups.yahoo.-com/group/uk_left_network)tends to have a wider purviewthan that of Redpepper Debate,serving as both a place fordebate and information ex-change. Despite periodic bouts ofbad tempered point scoring,political debate is frequently of ahigh standard. Perhaps thedominant theme to have emergedin the three years of its existenceis the problem of independentworking class politics in Britain,and this does colour a great dealof the contributions.

For instance debates aroundthe tasks of communists in bothIraq and imperialist countries, thecharacter of Labour as a bour-geois workers party, elections,the SSP, and Socialist Alliancetend to be framed by the ques-tion: �what do we do now?�. TheUKLN is certainly an essential listto be on, though comradesthinking of subscribing should beprepared for heavy email traffic.

This is by no means an exhaus-tive tour of online leftist commu-nities and there have been animportant number of omissions(such as Red Action�s bulletinboard, and the SSP and SAdebating lists). Discussion incyberspace should be no substi-tute for action, but it can (anddoes) compliment our politicalpractice by providing a platformfor leftists to thrash out importantissues and allow for rapiddissemination of information.Communists and revolutionarysocialists could do worse thanchecking these important forumsout l

Phil Hamilton

aturday April 12 2003 was a day ofdemonstration, and not just in the

Esher gets tasteof war protest

streets of London. The Home Countycommunities of Hersham and Esher inSurrey got a taste of protest too.

A small group affiliated to the SurreyStop the War Coalition assembled onHersham Green - much to the bemuse-ment of local shoppers. At one point itlooked as if there would be more marshalsthan marshalees. However numbersslowly grew to around 60 marchers. Thegroup marched slowly through the town,setting many a net-curtain twitching.

Once assembled on Esher Green,speeches began. John McDonald MP,of Labour Against the War, reminded usthat when pausing to honour the dead,we must think of all the dead. Soldiers ofboth sides as well as civilian men, womenand children. The US-UK coalition mayfeel vindicated. But what has been thehuman cost of imposing neo-colonial-ism?

Mick Moriarty (Labour) and SandraSimkin (Green Party) also graced thesoapbox. But they had little new to say.Then Jeremy Butler (CPGB) took thestand. He demanded passionately thatthe Stop the War Coalition take on themantle of fighting the corner of the Iraqipeople and all oppressed peoples of theworld. His words were well received - aswell received as one can be when deliv-ering a speech on a village green to thesound of wedding bells. It was refresh-ing to hear the message of anti-imperial-ism and communism in the heart ofSurreyl

Rae Hancock

S

n April 12 many thousands ofdemonstrators rallied in HydePark at the call of the Stop theWar Coalition. What did the

United Nations

Authentic and fake main speakers - Alan Simpson, JeremyCorbyn, Anas Altikiriti, AndrewMurray, et al - have to say? One afteranother they repeated flatulent de-mands for the United Nations and theInternational Criminal Court to inter-vene. Eg, “political control must betransferred to the UN.”

While US imperialism, the sole remain-ing superpower, completes the Iraqphase of its “decades long” campaignto impose complete control over theworld, the leadership of the anti-warmovement is effectively reduced tobegging reactionary organisations tointercede.

Of course, not everyone peddled thatline. Yet even Lindsey German - editorof the Socialist Workers Party’s Social-ist Review and convenor of the STWC- packages her politics in what couldeasily be mistaken for pacifistic plati-tudes. While a small army of SocialistWorker sellers pushed the SWP’s ver-sion of revolutionary politics, their com-rade on the Hyde Park platform cameover as another left reformist.

Key speakers either simply had littleuseful to say, or avoided saying it, topreserve the ‘broad coalition’. This ap-proach sacrifices real political leadershipon amazingly bad terms, as inevitablythe size of demonstrations has dwindledas British troops found themselves inthe firing line. A coalition for victory wasproclaimed by the political establishmentand the bourgeois press. Our majoritymelted away as soft elements desertedto the patriotic flag.

So the demonstrators were hardly

politically backward. On April 12 theywere conscious enough to march evenas imperialist war gave way to triumphaloccupation. Such people should betreated with respect. They need theunalloyed truth: the working class is theonly force able to achieve revolution-ary change and thus abolish war.

Communists believe that this truth isnot too hard for the people to compre-hend. The nonsensical attempt to wedthe working class to the British bour-geois state and the UN as political in-struments must be exposed.

Put simply, imperialism is action to se-cure the international interests of the rul-ing class of a powerful capitalist stateby oppression abroad. While in the pastit has taken the form of war, occupationand direct, forcible control of other peo-ples, it need not be military. Indeed, inrecent history, many colonies havebeen granted a nominal ‘independence’while the imperialists have relied on theireconomic dominance and sponsorshipof foreign reactionary groups or neigh-bouring states to maintain their power.Ironically, imperialist support for Sad-dam Hussein in Iraq as a counter-bal-ance to Iran is a case in point. In this way,imperialism released itself from the sheercost and opprobrium of visibly denyingentire peoples their freedom.

The ultra-reactionary George W Bushadministration in the US, though, is nowabandoning this apparently ‘softer’ im-perialism and turning to a version ofneo-colonialism - but backed by over-whelming force. The damnable 9/11 at-tacks on the World Trade Centerallowed anger and patriotism to bestoked to the full. An already weakworking class in the US could be won,or at least silenced, for what is a project

to hike arms spending and cow poten-tial international competitors.

The change in US policy is partly aresult of its revised thinking in the af-termath of the collapse of the Soviet Un-ion. The US is now the only superpower,and wishes to remain so. After war onAfghanistan and Iraq, US imperialismhas barely drawn breath before con-cocting the thinnest of all cases to jus-tify the invasion of Syria. Iran and NorthKorea were long ago put on notice ofpossible action by their inclusion inBush’s ‘axis of evil’. As for Castro’s re-gime in Cuba, it has long been a humili-ation for the US by its very existence.Once again it has become a target for‘liberation’.

But the US has not been unopposedeven by other bourgeois governments,and this fact warrants discussion. Acommon theme of the STWC platformshas been heaping of accolades on Ger-many and particularly France for oppos-ing the war and now insisting on a UNand not a US administration of occupiedIraq.

Countries characterised by the US as‘old Europe’ (as opposed to the pro-USEU applicants of eastern Europe) didnot speak out due to altruism. Frenchimperialism negotiated lucrative con-tracts with Saddam Hussein for the sup-ply of many of the military technologieshe used to kill his own people: a crime itshares with its US and UK counterparts.Moreover, France fears losing out nowthat the US controls the oil directly. Italso recognises that were US imperial-ism to achieve its global aims, it wouldbe at the expense of the EU’s own plansfor imperialist domination.

What of the UN? It was establishedas a ‘den of thieves’ in which compet-

O

he April 12 march organised bythe Stop the War Coalition wasnothing like the wake predicted

the march was an effective rejoinder tothose that had written off the anti-warparty in the lead up to the event. How-ever, from the comments of a numberof these comrades, there is a lack ofclear vision about where the movementmust go now.

Some hoped for a large turnout on theMay 17 national demonstration in soli-darity with the Palestinians, with thenew layers activated by the fight againstthe war “feeding into” mobilisationson other issues. In other words, morebig demos, more opportunities to re-cruit to ‘the party’ - the SWP sect, thatis. If cynical, one might conclude thatthe SWP believes the task for the move-ment is to serve the ‘party’, not the otherway round.

Of course, the likelihood is that thesenew forces will indeed have undergonea more general politicisation, and thatthey will become activists on other is-sues as well - particularly one as closelylinked to the Iraq war as Palestine.

Yet the maverick MP George Gallo-way has correctly warned against a‘grand old duke of York’ strategy forthe movement - up to the top of the hill,then all the way back down again. Therehas to be something more than simplyone march after another, an unendingsequence of mass mobilisations thatsimply protest. The movement needs tocome up with some answers of its own,then organise to achieve them. It needssomething like a political party, inother words.

Sellers of the Weekly Worker re-ported that during the course of discus-

Anti-war party by some smug media pundits.

First because, given the endgame be-ing played out in Baghdad, it was nu-merically very big. Predictably, thepolice and march organisers gave verydifferent figures for the turnout - esti-mates varying between twenty thousandup to 200,000-plus. (No prizes forguessing which one is which.) The leftcurrently does not have a reliable andaccurate method of calculating the sizeof such mass actions - or indeed the cul-ture of telling itself the truth about themanyway. However, in the view of this re-porter, it is ‘artistically’ accurate to saythat the march was up to 80,000 - by anystandards, an impressive achievementgiven what was happening in Iraq itself.

So, the size of the march was excel-lent - its mood of quiet determinationwas even better. This was the ‘hardcore’ of the movement on the streets,and its size and solidity should be acause for some confidence. Again,young people were very much in evi-dence and leftwing paper sellers did asteady trade. While the bulk of anti-warprotesters do not yet hunger for ideas,there is certainly a minority that is re-freshingly open to the politics of the left.The demographics of the march un-derlined that a new, very young, layerof political activists has definitely ar-rived on the scene.

The question is, where now?I spoke to a number of SWPers dur-

ing the day who agreed that the size of

T

5476 April 17 2003workerweekly

DefendingGallowayand Dalyell

eeting on Monday April 14,the Hackney Stop the WarCoalition was smaller than

Model letterissued by STWC

usual, perhaps reflecting the fact thatthere was nothing to organise for atthe moment. Naturally discussionturned to where we should go next.There was a general desire to keepthings going because nobodyseriously believes that the UnitedStates project for world domination isfinished. The Socialist WorkersParty is organising a very welcomemeeting on the American Centurywhich might help orientate activists.

I raised the necessity of the anti-war movement taking a lead inbuilding a viable party alternative tothe pro-war Labour and Tories.Others opposed this course.

One comrade thought that a partywould be unacceptable to groups likeanarchists and muslims. We couldnot think of creating a party unlesswe had a programme for them.

Generally the meeting agreed thatparties were an obstacle to unity.Another speaker said that the degreeof unity reached by the movement wasdue to the vagueness of the slogans. Ifwe had a party it would have led to usdiscussing the meanings of theslogans and split the movement apart.

Possibly so. But only because someelements on the left are unwilling toaccept the constraints of democracy.Not because understanding is the

Rt Hon Tony Blair10 Downing StreetLondon SW1A 2AA

Re: George Galloway MP and Tam Dalyell MPThis is a letter of support on behalf of the above membersof the Labour Party. The Stop the War Coalition has ben-efited from their involvement from the embryonic stagesof its existence. Importantly, the anti war movement hasbeen the biggest of its kind, not just in Britain, but in addi-tion encompasses the international perspective.The fundamental freedom of speech in a democracymust be preserved, and their political dissent should notbe silenced. Many of the elective object to the invasion ofIraq, the lack of legal legitimacy, and the unnecessarydeaths of civilians. It is their duty to represent their con-stituents and the public at large.I am writing to demand that the whip is not removedfrom Messrs Galloway and Dalyell. This would renderthem powerless in the House of Commons and my viewswill no longer be voiced.

Sincerely,

[Your name and address]

enemy of unity.The SWP - which calls itself a

‘party’ and therefore an ‘obstacle tounity’ and feels no need for any other -called us back to the planned demon-strations on the horizon, namely MayDay and around the G8 meeting nearGeneva in June. They seem to beshepherding everyone towardsGlobalise Resistance - anothertransmission belt for SWP recruit-ing.

The danger of the Labour whipbeing withdrawn from GeorgeGalloway and Tam Dalyell was raised.Comrades were urged to write to TonyBlair complaining about any attemptto throw them out of the Labour Party.

It was felt that this should be left toindividuals and not be done by thegroup lest we be seen as irrelevantultra leftists. Both local MPs, DianneAbbott and Brian Sedgemore, votedagainst the war. But it was thoughtthat their seats were safe due to localsupport, indicating the depth ofopposition within Labour to the warhereabouts.

Unfortunately the meeting exhib-ited no strategy for drawing thislayer to the left other than sayingthey should leave Labour and join us.But exactly who are we? We changeour name every couple of months, andthink a united working class party isa contradiction in terms l

Phil Kentanti-imperialisming imperialists attempted to resolvetheir disputes - not least with the SovietUnion - without resort to mutually ruin-ous war. It is neither progressive nordemocratic. It is a gathering of govern-ments. Not peoples. Many memberstates are naked dictatorships. The UNrecognises ‘de facto’ governments,

which effectively means that if you con-trol a people, you are granted a seat.Tyrants are therefore allowed to vote onbehalf of the people they oppress. It islike kidnappers being asked to representthe views of their hostages.

Naturally, the UN also contains repre-sentatives of bourgeois liberal democra-

cies like our own. However, once again,it imposes no obligation on those repre-sentatives to vote or act in accordancewith the wishes of their peoples. The UKargued for war on Iraq against clear andpersistent evidence that its own peopledid not support this demand.

Ironically, as STWC platform speak-ers continue to call for UN action, andeffectively reinforce dangerous illu-sions about its powers and its nature,that very body is fast becoming irrel-evant. Thieves may cooperate whiletheir forces are evenly balanced. But letone gang overtake its rivals and theyinevitably want to keep the whole plun-der for themselves. Cooperation andeven shares are derided. An analogywhich exactly describes the behaviourof the US in Iraq. It acted without UNsanction. Now it insists that the UN hasno right to hamper its robbery and ex-tortion. The UN restricts itself essen-tially to charity work.

While the UN itself may not insist onthe wishes of peoples being observedby its members, in theory the British par-liament, elected by our own people,could have imposed this responsibilityon our UN ambassadors, and have pre-vented any British action in the war, forwant of support.

A central lesson to be learnt from thehistory of Gulf War II in Britain was theway in which any pretence of such de-mocracy was abandoned. The needs ofUS imperialism and its little brother camefirst. The wishes of the people were ig-nored by the government. So when theyhammer on about ‘regime change’ toachieve democracy abroad, the commu-nist reply is, ‘regime change begins athome’l

Manny Neira

The CPGB’s draft programmeincludes this section on peaceBritish imperialism has an unparal-leled history of war and aggressionin virtually every corner of theworld. Though no longer the power itonce was, it maintains large, wellequipped armed forces in order todefend the interests of capitalismabroad and at home. Communistsoppose all imperialist militaryalliances and ventures.

British capitalism is one of theworld�s main weapons manufactur-ers and exporters. It has a vestedinterest in promoting militarism.Communists stress however that thestruggle against the military-industrial complex cannot beseparated from the struggle againstthe profit system as a whole.

Communists do not call for this orthat percentage cut in militaryspending. We are against givingeven one penny or one person to thecapitalist state�s armed forces.

Peace cannot come courtesy ofbodies such as the United Nations -an assembly of exploiters andmurderers. Nor can it come about bytrying to eliminate this or thatcategory of weapons. It is the duty ofcommunists to connect the populardesire for peace with the aim ofrevolution. Only by disarming thebourgeoisie and through interna-tional socialism can the danger ofwar be eliminated.

Communists are not pacifists.Everywhere we support just wars,above all revolutionary civil wars forsocialism. Communists will there-fore strive to expose the warpreparations of the bourgeoisie, thelies of social chauvinists and theillusions fostered by social pacifism.These alien, bourgeois influencesobjectively disarm and paralyse theworking class in the face of abourgeoisie armed to the teeth l

Draft CPGB programme 50p each or £2 for 10 copies

M

sions with many marchers, the phrase“I’ll never vote Labour again” was a re-curring one. We even heard somethinglike it from several of the platformspeakers in Hyde Park.

This is understandable - laudable even,given the despicable Blair and the cra-ven role of much of the parliamentaryparty. But what - in effect - does it mean?

There is no viable political alternativeto compete with Blair and his party forthe votes of the anti-war movement, pro-gressives and the working class. In its

remains defiant

absence, the ‘softer’ elements of the anti-war party will either drift back towardsgrudging support for Labour as thelesser evil, or even - if really disorien-tated - towards the slippery CharlesClarke and his Liberal Democrats. If theharder elements that marched on April12 do not address themselves to build-ing a political alternative to Blair andLabour, then the ‘no vote to Labour’stance is effectively a disengagementfrom politics - the exact opposite of whatthe movement needs.

The monster anti-war mobilisationsthat began on February 15 were light-ening flashes that momentarily illumi-nated broad vistas for the left, revealingthe huge potential for a revolutionaryalternative to take root in contemporarysociety. We need to put our own housein order before that happens, however.

So, let us try that again, shall we - massmovement serves ‘party’, or party servesmass movement? Getting that the rightway round would be a start …l

Ian Mahoney

Which way now?

6

HISTORYApril 17 2003 476worker

weekly

t has been common among oppo-nents of the imperialist conquest ofIraq to say that the US and Britainare getting into a “new Vietnam”.

From 1957 the CP beganguerrilla activity in the Southwith military support from theDRV. The scale of this activ-ity gradually built up, andthe Diem regime’s armedforces proved unable to con-tain it. In 1960 the CP formedthe National LiberationFront (NLF) in the south.The US in 1961 moved be-yond CIA resources to thedirect use of US troops asadvisers to the southernarmy; by 1962 there were14,000 of these “advisers”.The NLF controlled about athird of the territory of thesouth. Recognising that thesituation was deteriorating,the US now sanctioned amilitary coup which over-threw and killed Diem. TheSouth Vietnamese generalshad, however, great difficultyin forming a stable politicalleadership and political crisiscontinued through 1964 and1965 until the emergence ofNguyen van Thieu as theUS preferred protegé.

In February 1965 UStroops officially went directlyinto action, and by the endof the year the US had over100,000 troops in Vietnam. By1966-7 the number had risento 300,000 and by January 1968 to 498,000.The DRV and NLF, which had begun toshift from guerrilla to conventional war-fare, were forced back on guerrilla meth-ods. The US also in 1965 began anenormous air onslaught on the DRV withthe aim of destroying the north’s willing-ness to support the NLF. This failed inpart because of the government’s mobi-lisation of the population to repair dam-age, conceal operations, etc, but alsobecause the USSR supplied the DRVwith Migs and sophisticated anti-aircraftmissiles, while China maintained a steadysupply of lower-level arms. It was laterestimated that around 1,400 US aircraftwere lost over the DRV between 1965 and1968.

By pouring troops into southern Viet-nam and launching its massive bombard-ment of the DRV, the US seemed to haverestabilised the situation. It was thereforean enormous shock to the US adminis-tration when in February 1968 the NLFlaunched the Tet offensive in the citiesand towns of the south. The attackswere beaten off, but US commander, gen-eral Westmorland, had his request for an-other 200,000 troops rejected; inNovember 1968 the bombing campaignagainst the DRV was halted, and in Janu-ary 1969 peace talks began in Paris. TheUS began to adopt a policy of “Vietnami-sation”, ie, retreat (at least in theory) toUS troops playing only an advisory andback-up, rather than a front-line, role.

Nonetheless, the war was to drag onfor another seven years before the finalcollapse of the southern regime in 1975.Paradoxically, the Tet offensive may haveactually improved the position of theSouthern regime on the ground, since itwas, in immediate terms, a defeat for theNLF and as a result led to some growthof pragmatic support.

The US now put major resources intotraining and equipping the regime’s armyand building up paramilitary forces,though their confidential documentscontinually complained about the prob-lem of these forces avoiding direct com-bat with the NLF and developing intolocal protection rackets. The number ofUS troops in Vietnam began falling in1969: from 542,000 in 1968 to 537,000 in1969, to 473,000 in January 1970, to336,000 in 1971, 133,000 in January 1972,

and 45,000 in July 1972.In spite of the avowed policy of ‘paci-

fication’ and ‘Vietnamisation’ US troopscontinued until 1970 to be employed inaggressive ‘search and destroy’ sweepsagainst the NLF, with massive use offirepower which devastated villageswithout eliminating the guerrillas. AnAmerican invasion of Cambodia in 1970,and a southern regime invasion of Laosin 1971, both aimed at eliminating guer-rilla ‘sanctuaries’, were both failures. By1971-2 the US army in Vietnam was expe-riencing a crisis of morale and discipline,with large-scale drug use, ‘fragging’ orassassination of officers and NCOs, tre-bling of absent without leave and deser-tion rates and an approximate doublingof mutinies and refusal of orders between1965 and 1971.

In 1972 the DRV launched a large-scaleconventional offensive, across thenorth-south border, which after early suc-cesses was beaten back by the south-ern army with massive US air support, theDRV gaining only limited territory. Thisapparent success for ‘Vietnamisation’enabled the US administration to save itsface enough to sign a ceasefire agree-ment in Paris in January 1973. The lastUS combat troops left Vietnam in March.

President Nixon, meanwhile, was fight-ing for his political life in the face of theWatergate scandal, and was unable toresist when on June 30 1973 Congressvoted to cut off funds for all military ac-tivity in Indochina. Congress went fur-ther, cutting the funds for resources forthe southern regime’s army by 50% from1973 to 1974 and again by a third from1974 to 1975.

The results for the southern army weredisastrous. Trained in the US style ofmassive use of firepower, they were nowsubject to enormous cuts in ammunitionsupplies and their ability to use air sup-port. In November 1974 they were downto 85 rifle bullets per man per month, atiny figure. In January 1975 the DRVopened a new conventional offensive,and the southern regime now collapsedrapidly, with DRV troops entering thesouthern capital of Saigon and southernformal surrender on April 30.

An account sympathetic to Americanobjectives and conduct of the war,Guenter Lewy’s America in Vietnam

(1978), concludes that theUSA in the end was never ableto construct a broad consentto the regime - or a state notradically weakened by corrup-tion - in south Vietnam. But healso argues that this was notin itself decisive, but ratherwhat caused the Thieu regimeto fall was the US’s abandon-ment of its ally in 1973-4. He at-tributes this latter, as well asthe collapse of US moralearound 1970 and after, to the(as he sees it) malign role of theanti-war movement.

US anti-warmovementSuccessive US administra-tions never had overwhelmingsupport for their Vietnampolicy. Until 1964-5 US in-volvement was largely covert.A 1964 poll showed 53% ofuniversity graduates willing tosend troops to Vietnam, butonly 33% of those with schooleducation only (a rough par-allel for class, indicating lesssupport for the war among theworking class). Polling in Au-gust 1965 showed 61% in fa-vour of US involvement inVietnam, a clear majority butnot one which would margin-alise opposition. Opposition

was strongest among blacks, women,and the over-50 generation which hadlived through the 1930s depression andWorld War II. By 1971 polls showed aclear, but equally not overwhelming, ma-jority of 61% against the war. (This andother information following from HowardZinn A People’s History of the UnitedStates 1996.)

The anti-war movement began on asmall scale in 1965 and seems to havegrown at least in part out of the experi-ence of the black civil rights movementwhich had been going on since the mid-dle 1950s. There was a demonstration ofabout a hundred in Boston in early 1965against the bombing campaign, and an-other of a few hundred in Washingtonin summer 1965. The Student Non-vio-lent Coordinating Committee (SNCC),one of the lead organisations in the civilrights movement, called for withdrawalfrom Vietnam in early 1966, and SNCCmembers began engaging in non-violentdirect actions against the war that year.

From 1967 the movement began tosnowball, with perhaps two million in-volved in one or another form of demon-stration on the October 15 1969 day ofaction, and continued into the early1970s: in 1971 20,000 people took part ina sit-down protest in Washington and14,000 of them were arrested, while dem-onstrations nationwide continued to at-tract hundreds of thousands.

The non-violent direct action wasclearly learned from the civil rights move-ment, which had used such tactics in itscampaigns against segregation and forblack voter registration. Its purchase onthe war was simple. The USA was fight-ing in Vietnam with a conscript army.Though the US state had before WorldWar II only used conscription in full-scale wars, its imperial responsibilities asglobal cop had led to continuation ofselective conscription. The ‘draft’ wentthrough the Korean war and into Viet-nam. The officer corps was traditionallysupplied in small part by the military acad-emies, but more extensively by the Re-serve Officer Training Corps (ROTCs) onthe university campuses.

Draft refusal as a mode of protestagainst the war had been first suggestedin 1964. Burning draft cards or handingthem back became a form of organised

Iraq could never have been Certainly the leaders of the anti-war move-ment, many of whom came into politicsat the time, liked to imagine the anti-warmovement as akin to the movementagainst the Vietnam war.

The rapid collapse of the Ba’athist re-gime has quietened these arguments. Buthas not silenced them: after all, in Af-ghanistan US troops are still taking casu-alties from guerrilla opponents ...However, the invasion of Iraq is notanalogous to the Vietnam war. In particu-lar, the anti-Vietnam war movement is nota satisfactory guide to the tasks of op-ponents of the “war on terror” and its cur-rent manifestation in Iraq. To understandwhy, we need to understand how theUSA came to be defeated in Vietnam andthe nature and role in this defeat of theanti-war movement.

VietnamThe Vietnam war began effectively in1946, and US involvement began in 1950- in the form of material aid and adviserssupporting the French colonial power.During World War II, the existing Frenchcolonies and protectorates in Indochinahad been occupied by the Japanese, andthe Allies had supported national resist-ance groups led by the Communist Party.

When the war came to an end, theBritish occupied southern Vietnam, dis-armed the resistance groups and handedthe country back to the French. Thenorth was occupied by ChineseKoumintang troops, which did not dis-arm the resistance movement; the CP-ledresistance movement was able to declareindependence, the formation of theDemocratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV),and a Viet Minh (Vietnamese Revolution-ary League, a nationalist front led by theCommunist Party) provisional govern-ment.

The French invaded the north in 1946and were able to obtain control of thecities and towns, but were never able totake effective control of the countryside.After the Chinese revolution in 1949, theDRV/Vietminh began to receive signifi-cant military material from the new Peo-ple’s Republic of China, and from 1950-51they were able to develop a conventionalarmy under the leadership of Vo NguyenGiap; the same events led the USA,which had been lukewarm or hostile to-wards French recolonisation of Indo-china, to throw their lot in with the French.

US material and military advisers be-gan to arrive from October 1950, and bythe end of the war the US was paying80% of the costs of the French war ef-fort. The next four years saw Giap pursu-ing a complex mixture of guerrilla andconventional warfare, culminating in1954 with a major conventional defeat in-flicted on the French at Dien Bien Phu.

After Dien Bien Phu, diplomacy brieflytook over. Under the Geneva accords(1954), the French conceded Viet Minhcontrol of northern Vietnam, while the VietMinh conceded French temporary admin-istration of southern Vietnam. A declara-tion, to which the US expressedreservations, called for all-Vietnam elec-tions in 1956 to decide on unification.

In fact, the US now forced the Frenchout of the south and supported a gov-ernment led by Ngo Dinh Diem, a catho-lic nationalist who had collaborated withthe Japanese, moved out of the north forobvious reasons, and opposed theFrench. Substantial US resources wereput into building up the Diem regime. The1956 elections were never held, andDiem’s catholic regime was unacceptableto the buddhist sects which held consid-erable practical power in the southerncountryside.

I resistance. By mid 1965 there were 380prosecutions, by mid 1968 3,305; by theend of 1969 there were reported to be33,960 offenders. In May 1969 2,400 of4,400 summoned to the Oakland, Califor-nia draft induction centre failed to turnup. The draft board offices and inductioncentres became targets. Protests againstROTCs led to their removal from over 40campuses, and between 1966 and 1971ROTC enrolment fell by two-thirds.

Beyond the attack on the draft, therewere some extraordinary instances ofindividual heroism. Two American sail-ors hijacked a shipload of bombs. Gov-ernment officials opposed to the warbegan to leak information. Individual actsof overtly political resistance by US serv-icemen and women began as early as1965 and became more common as thewar went on. A servicemen’s anti-warmovement developed, with more than 50underground anti-war newspapers circu-lating on US military bases by 1970. Re-fusal to fight spread to the troops inVietnam, especially among blacks.

The race question also had a more di-rect impact on the willingness to continuethe escalation and attrition strategy of1965-68. 1967 saw enormous riots in theblack ghettos. The group advising presi-dent Johnson on general Westmorland’srequest in early 1968 for another 200,000US troops commented that:

“This growing disaffection [the anti-war movement] accompanied, as it cer-tainly will be, by increased defiance of thedraft and growing unrest in the citiesbecause of the belief that we are neglect-ing domestic problems, runs great risksof provoking a domestic crisis of unprec-edented proportions.”

They clearly judged that the state facednot merely non-violent resistance but therisk of riots turning into full-scale insur-rection. This judgement was reflectedelsewhere in exemptions from the CivilRights Act 1968 for police and armedservices members engaged in “sup-pressing a riot or civil disturbance”, andin a substantial stepping up of the FBI’sagent provocateur activities againstblack organisations and the left. The ideathat the USA risked full-scale revolution-ary crisis if it continued with escalationin Vietnam may well have been false; butit was this fear as much as the simple factof the anti-war movement protests whichdetermined the decision to de-escalatefrom 1968.

Another factor was the beginning ofthe reflection of the movement in thehigh-political terrain. Johnson’s decisionto de-escalate (and not to seek re-elec-tion) was partly informed by the strongresult of the anti-war candidate EugeneMcCarthy in the New Hampshire presi-dential primary election on March 121968.

DebatesLocal direct actions were organised by awide variety of bodies, but the big dem-onstrations and nationwide days of ac-tion needed broad coalitions, since therewas no party capable of fully taking thelead in the movement: the CommunistParty USA, though much larger than itsTrotskyist and Maoist/ New Left com-petitors, was not so much larger as to beable to act on its own, and the virulentanti-communism of the McCarthy era inthe 1950s had not yet faded away, so thatit would have been tactically unwise forit to do so anyhow.

Within the coalitions there were thusinevitably episodic debates about theslogans on which demonstrationsshould be called. The CPUSA generallylooked for whatever minimum slogan orslogans would attract the broadest sup-port. The main Trotskyist organisation,the Socialist Workers’ Party (no relationto our own dear SWP!) argued for two

US troops terrorised but did not win

7476 April 17 2003workerweekly

another Vietnamslogans only: withdrawal of US troops,and ‘self-determination for the Vietnam-ese people’. These, they argued, were asufficient basis of clear opposition to theimperialist war. To their left, the Maoistsand groups influenced by them called for‘Victory to the NLF’ to be the basis ofthe movement.

International movementIn 1966-70 Vietnam solidarity movementssprang up in a wide range of countries,in particular in Europe and Japan - in-spired partly by the American move-ment, and partly by the commoninterests of the ‘official’ communist par-ties, the Maoists and the so-called Uni-fied Secretariat of the Fourth Internationalwing of the Trotskyist In solidarising withVietnam.

These were not important to the Ameri-can defeat in the way the US anti-warmovement was, though they may havelent aid and comfort to the US anti-warmovement. They were more inclined tothe ‘Victory to the NLF’ slogan than themajority of the US anti-war movement;and their ‘direct actions’, since the coun-tries in question were not belligerents,tended to have the character of seekinga barney with the police, rather than any-thing which would have substantiallyimpeded US action.

The mass workers’ parties did not turntheir members out, with the result that theVietnam movements provided the firstopportunity for the groups of the far leftto appear as leaders of an actual move-ment; thus, for example, members of theInternational Marxist Group (whose re-mote descendant is today’s InternationalSocialist Group) and International Social-ists (today’s SWP) were prominent in theVietnam Solidarity Campaign, which mo-bilised 100,000 in London in October1968.

US defeated?It is traditional on the left to say that theUS was defeated in Vietnam by the he-roic and prolonged resistance of the Vi-etnamese people and the growth of themass anti-war movement in the US -which also involved considerable cour-age in acts of direct action and resistancein the face of police repression, thoughanti-war protesters never met the scaleof violence which was inflicted on the Vi-etnamese people.

It would be more correct to say that theUS could not have been defeated with-out these elements. More, however, wasneeded. Guerrilla struggle has been car-ried on by the Palestinians now for 36years without defeating the Israeli state,and several countries in Latin Americahave also seen very prolonged but ulti-mately unsuccessful guerrilla move-ments. The defeat of the US involved aseries of very specific elements.

In the first place, the Vietnam war hasto be understood in the context of theCold War and the Sino-Soviet split. TheUSA was not prepared to contemplatedirect and open war with the USSR orChina. But the lesson of the French de-feat was that this also excluded thereconquest of the DRV: resupply acrossthe Chinese border had allowed the VietMinh to maintain guerrilla and conven-tional forces which tied down Frenchforces and ultimately inflicted a defeat atDien Bien Phu on an isolated Frenchstrongpoint, which politically forced asettlement.

Thus the reconquest of the DRV wouldrequire military operations in southernChina, and ultimately the reconquest ofChina - or, as MacArthur had suggestedin Korea and Westmorland was to sug-gest in Vietnam, the use of nuclear weap-ons, risking a general nuclear war. On theother hand, the Sino-Soviet split ledBeijing and Moscow though the late

1950s and 1960s to posture to each oth-er’s left as supporters of the colonialrevolution. As a result, the DRV obtainedsubstantial support from both powers.In particular, the Soviet supply of high-tech air defences, though it did not neu-tralise American air superiority, made itsexercise seriously costly, while generalresupply limited the military effect of USstrategic bombardment of the DRV. Theresult was that the US could only havewon the war politically, by stabilising thesouthern regime, not by militarily de-stroying the ability of the DRV or the NLFto fight.

Secondly, the US had committed itself,by virtue of the doctrine of ‘contain-ment’, to defending a proto-state createdin the southern half of Vietnam out of acombination of émigrés from the north,former collaborators from the French re-gime, and local pre-feudal elites. The re-sources poured into this entityunderstandably did not produce a tran-sition to capitalism (as it did in formerlyfeudal South Korea) but vanished intothe pockets of state actors. The south-ern regime never became anything morethan a corrupt predatory entity, and thischaracter was reflected in the relative in-effectiveness of its armed forces and itsinability to make itself appear more attrac-tive to the masses than the Stalinism toits north.

But for the US to win the war it had setitself to win, South Vietnam had to be-come something like South Korea. TheUS kept putting on pressure for land re-form in order to win the ‘hearts andminds’ of the peasantry; the regime de-layed, adopted half measures, and so on,while all along the regime’s troops oper-ated large-scale looting and protectionrackets in their own interests and that oflandlords and officials who paid them off.

Thirdly, the US suffered from a sharpinternal contradiction in the post-warperiod between on the one hand its reli-ance on democratic ideology to legitimateitself both internally and internationally,and on the other hand its reliance for itsstate core (officer corps, security appa-ratus, etc) on a ‘party of order’ charac-terised by anti-democratic ideologies andnostalgia for the pre-Civil War slaveo-cracy. This contradiction adversely af-fected its ability to coerce the local elitesin southern Vietnam and give effect tostabilising policies. It also exploded in theUSA’s internal political life in the form ofthe black civil rights movement, which inturn shaped the US anti-war movement.In this context, the fact that the US wasrelying on a conscript army became po-litically fatal, by giving opponents of thewar a clear political focus and allowingmass opposition to the war to becomequickly directly reflected in the armedforces.

Lessons: the US stateElements within the US state drew anumber of lessons from their defeat inVietnam. A significant fraction of the USmilitary took the view from some stageof the war that guerrillas (or ‘terrorists’)cannot operate without ‘sanctuaries’ orsafe areas, so that counter-insurgencydemands a willingness to take on andeliminate the ‘sanctuaries’, whetherthese are physical (hence the invasionsof Cambodia in 1970 and Laos in 1971) orconstitutional (hence the US govern-ment’s flat refusal to treat al-Qaeda com-batants in Afghanistan either asprisoners of war, or as criminals).

The key to defeating insurgency istherefore a willingness to engage in un-limited aggression. On this view, US fail-ure in Vietnam flowed from unwillingnessto commit sufficient forces to actuallyconquer the DRV and if necessary Chinaand/or to use nuclear weapons (sug-gested by Westmorland shortly before

he was superseded in 1968). This doc-trine has been reflected in Israeli militarypolicy in the occupied territories and inthe 1970s in Lebanon. It appears to havecome to the fore in the US military, afterbeing a minority position for some time,since 9/11.

The counter-view, which has beenconsistently held by the British militarysince their successful practice of it inMalaya in the late 1950s, is that the keyto defeating an insurgency is the produc-tion of local counter-forces by exploitingpolitically any divisions within the localsociety. This calls for the use of minimumforce in support of local political objec-tives, rather than large-scale search anddestroy operations. A view which hascertainly been adopted by some US ana-lysts but seems to have had limited ef-fects on US operations to date.

More generally, the fall of the Thieuregime and the contemporary (1974-5)defeat of Portuguese colonialism in Af-rica and revolutionary crisis in Portugalled the core elements of the US state toconclude that the policy of ‘containment’of communism adopted in around 1950had failed and that it was necessary toadopt a new policy of ‘rollback’. The newpolicy began with the ‘human rights of-fensive’ launched by Jimmy Carter, presi-dent 1976-80, and was continued byRonald Reagan’s massive military build-up in the 1980s, which aimed - success-fully - to break the capacity of the USSRto sustain military competition with theUS, and thereby, by removing the Sovietmilitary umbrella, to give the US a freehand throughout the world.

One lesson which was fairly rapidlycarried into effect was the end of the draft.The French used Foreign Legion andcolonial troops rather than conscriptsfrom an early stage in Vietnam, and theBritish abandoned conscription fairly rap-idly after Malaya and Cyprus; evidentlyconscript armies are untrustworthy for‘counter-insurgency’ purposes. The USfollowed suit after Vietnam. All the morereason for communists and republicansto demand universal military service anda citizens’ militia!

An associated change has been ex-pressed by political analysts, until re-cently, as a fear of committing US groundtroops to any conditions which will giverise to large-scale casualties. Some USpolitical actors assess the mass anti-warmovement in the late 1960s as a result ofescalating US casualties. Yet at their highpoint in 1968, US combat fatalities in Vi-etnam reached only 2.4 dead per 1,000strength - extremely light in conventionalmilitary terms - though with so manytroops on the ground, even this figuremeant some 1,200 going home in bodybags in 1968.

The reality was that in the first placethe war never had overwhelming publicsupport in the US (conversely, it wasnever subject to overwhelming politicalopposition); secondly, large numbershad been partially radicalised by the civilrights movement, and the draft gave theiropposition a concrete target; and thirdly,the Tet offensive, while it was unsuccess-ful on the ground, told millions of Ameri-cans that their government had beenlying to them about the success of theUS military intervention, and called intoquestion all the rest of the case for thewar.

The ‘fear of casualties’ is an ideologi-cal formula. It covers what is more exactlya fear of the US political establishmentof getting into another war without suf-ficient political legitimacy and provokinganother mass anti-war movement, with-out, however, admitting that the problemwith the Vietnam war was that it lackedpolitical legitimacy. The result in practicehas been a shift (outside Latin America)from long-term military and covert opera-

tions to support regimes, as in Vietnam,to short-term interventions to destroyresisting regimes, leaving chaos behind(Lebanon, Somalia, ex-Yugoslavia, Af-ghanistan).

The linkage between the crisis of mili-tary morale, the growth of mass opposi-tion to the war, and the race issue, ledleading political and some military actorsin the US to make a serious attempt todevelop a black middle class and a blackelement in the officer corps through ‘af-firmative action’ and other measures. TheAmerican right never fully accepted thisproject and has been engaged since thelate 1970s in efforts to roll it back. It is note-worthy, however, that a challenge to uni-versity affirmative action, sponsored bythe right, has this year prompted oppo-sition from the military high command.

Lessons: the leftThe lessons the left drew from Vietnamwere simple and disastrous. The first wasthat a combination of colonial guerrillainsurgency with a solidarity movementin the metropolises based on direct ac-tion could defeat the projects of imperi-alism.

It is from the high point of the Vietnamwar, as much as from the disseminationat the same period of Che Guevara’s fal-sified account of the Cuban revolution,that the infatuation with guerrillas, indi-vidual terrorism and ‘minority actions’took its starting point. The formula hasbeen repeatedly repeated, in most casesdisastrously. It has remained most influ-ential in the so-called third world, but hadsignificant effects in the US, Italy andGermany and more diffuse effects in thecharacter of the left in the 1970s moregenerally.

What was omitted in this story was (1)the fact that the US anti-war movementemerged from a mass radicalisation on theissue of race, the civil rights movement,which had already made the US stateparanoid about internal threats; (2) therole of conventional military action in theVietnam war; and (3) the role of Sovietand Chinese military support to the DRV- especially the anti-aircraft assistancewhich made the US bombing of the northso costly, but also the more general sup-ply of arms and resources. The problemwas that the New Left’s (justifiable) hos-tility to the USSR led it to downplay theactual role both of the USSR and Chinaand of the overall international situationin the defeat of the USA in Vietnam. The‘official’ CPs had their own reasons forwanting to assert the ‘purely national’character of the Vietnamese movement.The left thus failed to think internation-ally even when it was engaged in ‘inter-national solidarity’.

An associated idea was the centralityof forms of ‘direct action’. Proponents ofthis - chiefly coming from the Maoist,anarchist and pacifist traditions - havenever quite realised that the reason forthe centrality of direct action in the USmovements of the 1950s to early 1960s(civil rights movement) and later 1960s(Vietnam) was the presence of targetswhich were easy to hit and do real dam-age to by direct action: segregation anddenial of the vote in the civil rights move-ment, and the apparatus of the draft inthe anti-war movement.

Outside this context, activities like cut-ting the wires at Greenham or Fairford,etc, unless they really become mass ac-tions - the activity of millions - achieveonly publicity stunts, valuable as such,but not immediate blows to the regimeand its projects. On the other hand, if theydid become the action of millions, theywould be an immediate insurrectionarythreat to the state, which the direct ac-tions of the 1960s were not. They wouldthus pose the question of political alter-natives.

The second was the idea of small com-mitted groups swimming in the sea ofbroader fronts as the road to politicalhegemony for revolutionary politics.This too came from the Maoist andGuevarist arsenal; but it seemed to beconfirmed by the fact that the anti-warmovement in the USA was built by acombination of coalitions and local ini-tiatives of very diverse groups. What itneglected to mention was that (1) theVietnamese and Chinese CPs were al-ready mass parties before they began, intheir guerrilla operations, to “swim like lit-tle fishes in the sea of the people”; and(2) the anti-war movement in the US,though its effects helped the US state toreach the decision to ‘Vietnamise’ andwithdraw, did not in itself achieve politi-cal victory. Subsequent broad massmovements and fronts have mobilisedvery substantial forces, which have,however, dissipated as soon as the im-mediate crisis came to an end.

... and IraqFrom what has been said it can be seenthat the idea of Iraq as a ‘new Vietnam’ isdesperately misleading. Very specific ofcircumstances meant that in 1965-75 acombination of third world military resist-ance, with Soviet and Chinese support,and a mass movement in the US whichemerged from the mass anti-racist move-ment and had a ‘hard target’ in the draft,could defeat the US’s immediate militaryproject.

Vietnam was, in fact, unusual. None ofthese factors have been present in theIraq war. It may well be the case thatBa’athist guerrilla resistance continuesafter the fall of the cities, just as Talebanguerrilla resistance has continued afterthe fall of the cities in Afghanistan. Thisdoes not make Afghanistan, and wouldnot make Iraq, a new Vietnam.

The policy of the US has changed: itno longer engages military force over thelong term to attempt to stabilise clientregimes, but merely in the short term toinflict destruction and withdraw, leaving“reconstruction” efforts at most to smallcadres of covert and special forces. TheUS armed forces are now volunteerforces rather than conscripts, and seri-ous efforts have been made (albeit imper-fect ones) to tackle their racialcontradictions.

Equally, the lessons drawn by the leftfrom the mass movement against the Vi-etnam war fail to address the core prob-lem. At the end of the day the US’s warin Vietnam was acutely and specificallyvulnerable, because of the draft, to theinternal contradictions of American so-ciety.

Where these very specific vulnerabili-ties are absent, a successful challenge toimperialist war involves the constructionof a broad political alternative which ad-dresses not just the war, but also all theissues affecting the broad masses in theimperialist country. This is the party ques-tion: and it cannot be resolved withoutthe existing organised left addressing theproblem of its division and the ‘party’, infact sect, regimes which produce thisdivision.

Small hyperactive groups, ‘swimmingin the sea’ of broad fronts which formtransmission belts into the ‘party’, can-not substitute for the creation of a massparty of the workers’ vanguard. The mul-titude of groupuscules, which whenthey unite in coalitions can animate largemovements, but which (precisely be-cause coalition actions are thought to beenough) never take the step to an actualparty organisation, is part of the inherit-ance of the modern left, worldwide, fromthe generation who radicalised aroundthe Vietnam war. It is the part we mosturgently need to abandonl

Mike Macnair

8

US STRATEGYApril 17 2003 476worker

weekly

Mol

ly C

oope

r

learly, the Iraq conflict was just thestarting point of a much broaderand deeper project of the UnitedStates to reshape the world post

tiatives. Thus, stable, long term allianceswould actually hinder the US’s ability to takethe type of bold, decisive action thatWolfowitz felt was required. For example, ifyou had to wait for a security council reso-lution, if you had to wait for your Europeanallies to come on board, you would be cramp-ing your ability to act in your own interests.

Thus, you had to take on board whoeverwould join up for whatever campaign youwere undertaking at the time – conjuncturalalliances rather than stable, institutionalisedbodies such as the United Nations.Wolfowitz’s 1992 memorandum called them“ad-hoc coalitions” – they are now known

Pearl Harbour momentDr Glen Rangwala is the Cambridge academic who discovered that the Blair dossier on Iraq’s ‘weapons ofmass destruction’ was drawn largely from a decade-old plargiarised source. He is also a member of LabourAgainst the War. Here he outlines his analysis of US motivations behind the conquering of Iraq

8

Project for a New American Centurywww.newamericancentury.org

Further writing by Glen Rangwalawww.middleeastreference.org.uk/writings.html

to prominence at the same time as many peo-ple who are actually his opponents in termsof the direction of foreign policy – hisnumber two at the state department is JohnBolton, a neo-conservative.

Powell still values the idea that US inter-ests are best served by keeping internationalalliances in some sort of stable format ratherthan a ‘pick-n’-mix’ approach. However, thispolicy has largely been discredited after allthe wrangling in the UN security councilover Iraq. Yet, even now, he is at pains to em-phasise that there were 45 countries onboard the coalition for war in Iraq.

The US was not alone, he said, and, inter-

tary muscle in those regions that no coun-try feels it can compete with its might. Thus,we have seen a massive increase in Ameri-can defence spending. Wolfowitz and thepeople around him look to the Reagan era asa model in this. So we now have a situationwhere the US spends more on its military thanthe nearest ten countries put together.

So this three-point strategy not only ex-presses the reality that America is the world’sonly superpower in the aftermath of the col-lapse of the USSR. It is also crafted to en-sure that the US will remain the only worldsuperpower. The massive military build upis intended as a deterrent to future potentialcompetitors for world hegemony – particu-larly Europe.

Thus, US military spending this year willtop $400 billion – over one billion dollars aday. This is simply without precedent in his-tory.

This neo-conservative strategy was devel-oped gradually throughout the 1990s. It wasfelt that such an interventionist, aggressiveforeign policy could not be won all in onego. In a core ideological document of thistrend in 2000, it was said that it would take acataclysmic event to make the US publicaccept such massive expenditure – a sort of‘Pearl Harbour moment’.

Obviously, 9/11 gave them that. After theattack on the twin towers, it was felt that theyhad the justification in popular discourse tobe able to argue for this new coursel

Glen Rangwala:US spends morethan the nearestten countriescombinedthe Cold War. There are three elements to

this.In the aftermath of the first Gulf war in the

early 1990s, there were a number of US fig-ures – particularly in the Pentagon, the de-partment of defence – who were determinedthat the regime of Saddam Hussein had togo and a new regime be installed that wouldbe friendly to Washington. It was the reluc-tance of the leading members of the Bushsenior administration – people such as ColinPowell – to undertake that which angeredmany elements in the defence department.

In 1992, a man who is now number two inthe pentagon – he was then number three –Paul Wolfowitz, circulated an influentialmemorandum amongst Pentagon officials,giving birth to what we now call the ‘neo-conservative’ trend in US ruling class circles.This essentially argued that US strategy ininternational affairs had to decisively changecourse. He outlined three policies:l First, the end of the idea of ‘containment’of enemy states, the policy on Iraq at the time.‘Containment’ consisted of sanctions on thecountry, attempts to isolate it, to essentially‘box it off’. Wolfowitz argued that this was afalse strategy – hostile regimes needed to beactively overthrown. Pre-emption rather thancontainment became the keyword. The in-stallation of pro-US governments should be-come the active and unilateral policy of theAmerican government.l The next element of the new policy flowslogically from this more aggressive stance.Pursuing an approach like this would inevi-tably mean that the US would not be able topull all its allies on board for pre-emptiveaction. Thus, America would have to makedo with whatever allies it could coherearound itself for particular pre-emptive ini-

C

as “coalitions of the willing”.The logic of this has been outlined in writ-

ten material since. If you put too much em-phasis on international alliances andinternational law, you are in effect de-legiti-mating your right to take unilateral action.Thus, there is a need to denigrate interna-tional institutions, denigrate the very idea ofinternational legitimation and law in order topress this approach through.

That has clearly become central to USstrategy since the 1990s, with periodic at-tacks on international institutions in the se-curity realm.

In this context, it is clear that Colin Powelldoes not belong to this neo-conservativetrend; he is a traditional realist. He has come

estingly, “they do this in the face of publicopposition”!

This was very revealing. It emphasised thateven for the more ‘moderate’ elements of theUS administration, international alliances areessentially deals between political elites; win-ning the majority of people in a particularcountry to support the course of action youare embarking on is an irrelevance.l The third element is the US’s presence in-ternationally. If the country is to undertakepre-emptive actions with nothing more thanad-hoc coalitions, then the US must havemilitary dominance. This applies particularlyin the core regions for US interests – the Gulf,east Asia, Europe.

The US must have such an extent of mili-

Wolfowitz argued that hostile regimes needed to beactively overthrown. Pre-emption rather thancontainment became the keyword. The installationof pro-US governments should become the activeand unilateral policy of the American government

9

AGGREGATE476 April 17 2003worker

weekly

n aggregate of CPGB members onSunday April 13 discussed the wayforward in the changed political en-vironment. Many comrades, includ-

being too slow to become involved. ComradeStröm said he hoped to see a reorganisationof anti-war forces on a global scale under theumbrella of the Social Forums.

Most debate focused on recent WeeklyWorker articles stating that we would havepreferred military victory for Saddam Hus-sein’s regime to that of the US imperialistforces. Comrade Cameron Richards called itan error, an adaption to the politics of lesserevilism, which overestimated the strength ofIraqi nationalism. Comrade Murphy agreedthat there was a danger in appearing to callon the Iraqi masses to side with their oppres-sor against our oppressor, but said we wouldwelcome the defeat of imperialism whateverits source.

Comrade Ström argued that it is possible toprefer one thing to another without calling forit, but comrade Stan Kelsey called this a verysubtle distinction. Comrades Lee Rock andSarah McDonald said some readers perceivedit to be pro-Saddam. But other comrades de-fended the slogan as a hard rejection of thepatriotism which the ruling class successfullyused to undermine support for the anti-warmovement.

Comrade Richards put forward the follow-ing motion: “This aggregate rejects the no-tion that calling for the defeat of one’s ownruling class in war automatically implies the

exactly what he meant, and withdrew it. Com-rade Bridge’s motion was accepted over-whelmingly with one abstention.

After lunch comrade Mark Fischer spokeon the current state of the CPGB. Recently afew members have resigned. Some have in-terpreted this as a crisis. Comrade Fischer re-minded comrades that at the Januaryaggregate he warned that as we move into amore challenging period we might lose mem-bers who were not capable of the necessaryincrease in commitment, and this is what hadhappened. Those who have gone had beeneither not contributing financially or not tak-ing part in actions.

Our main problem remains the weakness ofour national structure, which makes it difficultto integrate new contacts and members. Wehave attempted to address this problem bychanging the Weekly Worker to make it moreuseful to people new to political activity. Com-rade Fischer claimed that the leadershipshould be criticised for moving too slowly inmaking necessary changes.

In fact some members have criticised it foracting too quickly. Comrade John Pearson hadeven claimed that democratic centralism hadcollapsed, but nevertheless he has now saidhe accepts the decisions of the authoritativebodies such as the Provisional Central Com-mittee and aggregate votes.

End of Gulf War IIand our tasksing new members attending for the first time,contributed useful ideas and constructive criti-cisms of the Party and its work. This aggre-gate provided the opportunity to reflect onthe recent period of intense political activityand lessons for the next wave of anti-war pro-tests.

It is certain that the war with Iraq was onlythe beginning, as explained in the article byJack Conrad American power and the Bushproject for the 21st century (Weekly WorkerApril 10). US imperialism is open about itsplans and intention to use the “war on terror-ism” to neutralise any potential threats to itsdominance. There is mass opposition acrossthe world to this threat. We have moved outof the period of reaction of a special type, andinto a new phase of anti-imperialist struggle.The shadow cast over the whole socialistproject by the fall of the Soviet Union has beenleft behind.

Comrade John Bridge gave an analysis ofthe current situation. Given that the fightingin Iraq has died down sooner than many pre-dicted, it was impressive that so many at-tended the April 12 anti-war demonstration.Over two million people came out onto thestreets on February 15. Yet so far the left hasfailed in its task of organising this politicisedmass. The Socialist Alliance had the poten-tial to channel the anti-war movement into aparty. Contrary to what some opponentsmischievously claim, we have not given upon the Socialist Alliance and at the May 10annual general meeting will continue to ar-gue for what is necessary - a paper and asingle party.

Had there been a Socialist Alliance party,people would have gravitated towards it, com-rade Anne Murphy agreed. She said the CPGBhas been criticised for appearing to have thesame attitude to the Socialist Alliance as therest of the left. That it is something to bedropped when there are other things goingon. Comrade Mike Macnair said a partyistproject should involve organising peoplearound local issues where they live and work,as well as on high politics. He also suggestedthat perhaps the CPGB should have sup-ported the organisational structure proposedby the Socialist Party in 2001. This idea wasfirmly rejected by other comrades, includingMarcus Ström. Comrade Ström added, how-ever, that if a new alliance of left forcesemerged to replace the Socialist Alliance, wewould work within it even if it had such a fed-eral structure.

A range of views were expressed regard-ing the Stop the War Coalition. Some com-rades had condemned it as a popular front thatcan never politically lead progressive forces.They criticised us for accommodating to it.Others criticised the CPGB’s leadership for

A

n Which road?The programmes of ‘official communism’ were designed toserve those in the workers’ movement who had no interest inrevolution, those who preferred compromise with capitalismrather than its destruction.

Jack Conrad also deals with the reformist programme of PeterTaaffe’s group and lays the groundwork necessary for draftinga revolutionary programme.

£6.95/�11n From October to AugustArticles by Jack Conrad, charting the rise and demise of theUSSR from Stalin’s monocratic dictatorship to the twists andturns of Gorbachev’s perestroika and Yeltsin’s counter-coup.Throughout there is a stress on the necessity of democracy.

£6.95/�11n In the enemy campExamines the theory and practice of communist electoral work.Particular attention is paid to the Bolsheviks’ anti-boycottismand their strategy for revolution. Vital for Socialist Alliance ac-tivists.

£4.95/�7.75n Problems of communist organisationWhat is the correct balance between democracy and central-ism? Jack Conrad explores this thorny issue in his historicallysignificant argument against a disgruntled minority who de-serted the CPGB in 1992.

£4.95/�7.75n A plan for minersThe Communist Party’s ‘anti-submission’ to the Tory govern-ment’s 1992 coal review. The case is made for working class self-activity and socialism. Arthur Scargill famously disowned it.

£1.00/�1.50n Towards a Socialist Alliance partyJack Conrad’s book argues for the Socialist Alliance to move toa higher organisational and political stage. Drawing on an ex-tensive study of history, this work presents the ways and meansof arriving at that end.

£7.00/�11

Buy all 6 books for £23/�36 and save £8.80/�14Delivery free within the United Kingdom

Please send me a copy of:

Which road? rFrom October to August rIn the enemy camp rProblems of communist organisation rA plan for miners rTowards a Socialist Alliance party r

I enclose a cheque, payable to CPGB, for

£/�_______________

Name__________________________________________

Address______________________________________

______________________________________________

Email____________________________________________

Please return to CPGB address

CommunistParty books

In his new book of essays Jack Conrad argues againstthose who view the European Union and the singlecurrency with trepidation. The unity of capitalist Europeis our opportunity to unite the working class into asingle combat party - a Communist Party of the EU. Animportant step in that direction would be a EuropeanSocialist Alliance.pp129, £5 or �����8

Europe: meetingthe challenge ofcontinental unity

Currently beingreprinted

We need to take a distinct position, andavoid slipping into the sort of Trotskyistidiocy that calls for a military blocbetween their non-existent forces andthe world�s least democratic regimesvictory of the opposing side.” He said revo-lutionary defeatism should mean calling fordefeat of both sides. We need to take a dis-tinct position, and avoid slipping into the sortof Trotskyist idiocy that calls for a military blocbetween their own non-existent forces and theworld’s least democratic regimes.

Opposition to imperialism should not in-volve support for reactionary anti-imperialism.Comrade Bridge proposed the alternativemotion: “This aggregate agrees that callingfor the defeat of the US-UK forces in the Iraqwar was a clear expression of militant opposi-tion against UK chauvinism. It in no way im-plies military or political support for SaddamHussein and the Ba’ath dictatorship.”

Some comrades argued that the two mo-tions were not incompatible and supportedboth. Others said that although they did notdisagree with the text of Richards’ motion,they could not accept the motivation behindit. Comrade Richards conceded that hewanted to express his concern about what hethought was a changing line. After some dis-cussion he agreed his motion did not express

Comrade Macnair appealed for patiencewith comrades who accuse the leadership ofbureaucratic practices. Such practices havedestroyed 90% of revolutionary organisa-tions. But he said the accusation that demo-cratic centralism had collapsed was being usedas a substitute for political content. ComradeSteve Cooke called for the decisions of theleadership to be more widely circulated to themembers, to make us aware of changes in thepaper and better prepared to defend them toreaders.

Member and supporter should be clearlydelineated categories, argued comrade Mur-phy. She criticised the delay in dealing withinactive people who were counted as mem-bers. Comrade Bridge argued against settingup barriers to membership. People who seri-ously wanted to join should be allowed to. Ifthey prove unable to fulfil the duties and ob-ligations of a communist then they should bedropped, hopefully with an amicable relation-ship remaining on both sides.

The Weekly Worker remains our most valu-able asset. It has improved in the recent pe-riod, and become better integrated with therest of CPGB work. As ever, we need morewriters and there was discussion on the bestway to train comrades to become journalists.Calls for the leadership to spend less time onthe paper were flatly rejected.

Our total readership remains compara-tively high, just under 10,000 per week. In-ternet readership has remained more or lessstatic during Gulf Wat II. The print versionhas increased due to the numerous anti-warprotests and demonstrations. This may bebecause most of our main audience, peopleon the revolutionary left, already read it. Sev-eral comrades suggested including morematerial for less experienced comrades, al-though it was emphasised that this did notmean neglecting the requirements of exist-ing readersl

Mary Godwin

10

ELECTIONSApril 17 2003 476worker

weekly

ith only two weeks to go be-fore elections to the NationalAssembly of Wales, the cam-

posed the war and will use the word so-cialist in its rhetoric when it suits. Clearlyit has begun to win a base in industrialSouth Wales.

Yet its vision for Wales is little morethan mirroring the neo-liberal ‘tigereconomy’ approach of the Irish rulingclass. When Plaid has taken control ofcouncils, such as in Rhondda CynonTaff, its record has been a programmeof cuts seen all too often with other par-ties.

No vote should be advocated forPlaid. Bob Crow, general secretary of theRMT, would be well advised to thinkagain whether he really wants his mem-bers’ money going to this source.

What of ‘Welsh’ Labour? For all ofMorgan’s ‘red’ rhetoric he is nothingmore than an old Labourite of the right-wing variety. He has sat on the fenceduring the war, clearly showing his un-willingness to break from Blair. His La-bour colleagues in the assembly are notmuch different. Having done its best torid the assembly of dissident leftwingvoices in a rigged selection process in1998-99, Labour AMs have not beencharacterised by their propensity to de-fend the interests of the working class.Indeed the handful of the more inde-pendent AMs are either retiring from theassembly, have been deselected or havebeen ‘disgraced’ as in the case of RonDavies.

In these circumstances a blanket callto vote Labour is unwise. If a Labourcandidate were to come out unambigu-ously for socialist policies and defenceof working class organisations, whichwould place him or her at loggerheadswith both Morgan and Blair, then a criti-cal vote could be advocated. Yet thisseems unlikely.

However an interesting situation hasarisen in Wrexham, where the former MPand sitting AM John Marek is stand-ing as an independent, following his re-cent deselection by his local Labourparty. In fact the full title is the Inde-pendent John Marek Party, having beenjoined by the leading Cymru Goch sup-porter, Marc Jones, in a neighbouringconstituency and by an anti-war activ-ist in a third north Wales constituency.

The logic of this tactic is straightfor-ward. Even if Dr Marek fails to win hisconstituency, he is still likely to win aseat on the regional list. Yet a recentopinion poll for HTV suggests anotherscenario is now possible - not only willhe win his Wrexham constituency, it isjust possible that a second seat for IJMPcould be won on the list, with MarcJones squeezing through.

What approach should be taken tothe IJMP by socialists? The ‘party’ hasreally been conceived as simply a wayof ensuring Marek is returned to West-minster. It is really not much more than

a vehicle for a bourgeois politician to re-main in gainful employment. He is noleft-wing socialist. Dr Marek is best de-scribed as a maverick politician. With nohope of further advancement, he hasfound the Blair era too much to stom-ach and rebelled against certain NewLabour policies.

His opposition to the recent war hasbeen muted. In a recent interview in anew Cymru Goch inspired publication,SEReN, Dr Marek was asked about hisposition on the war and remarked that,“I do have strong views on the war, butam not saying anything that may in-crease casualties in Iraq. It is importantto remember that British armed forces arethere doing their duty under orders fromthe British government.”

More recently, he has made his op-position ‘clearer’, as he trawls aroundfor anti-war votes. Interestingly, BobCrowe has also pledged his support forDr Marek, an RMT member, and willspeak at an election rally on April 30.

What, then, of those to the left of La-bour, Plaid and IJMP? There will, in fact,be no shortage of left parties standingin the elections.

Attracting most attention so far is theSocialist Labour Party, with its leader,Arthur Scargill, heading the list in SouthEsat Wales. The SLP is also standing intwo other regions, as well as in theOgmore constituency.

The Communist Party of Britain willbe standing in two regions. Not con-tent to simply support Plaid or IJMP, BobCrowe is being billed as the star speakerat its main rally on April 28. Bob hasobviously completely severed his linkswith Scargill, since the CPB and the SLPwill be going head to head in the SouthWales Central region.

Of some curiosity has been the emer-gence of Vote 2 Stop the War, which isstanding on two of the regional lists.This appears to be some sort of ‘popu-lar front’ party, its candidates being amotley crew of Stalinists, peaceniks andthe odd former cold war stalwart, suchas Group Captain Kel Palmer.

The WSA is actually standing as the‘Welsh Socialist Alliance - Against thewar’. This may bolster the vote, particu-larly in areas, most notably Swansea,where the WSA has maintained somesort of existence between elections.

Yet it is already apparent that theWSA is not fighting a centralised na-tional campaign, but a set of local cam-paigns handicapped by their rankamateurism. The campaign website ofthe WSA remains largely dormant, withits manifesto still to be posted on thesite. It is not clear whether this is be-cause of dozy organisation or becausethe WSA does not actually have amanifestol

Cameron Richards

England

Futile opportunismmazingly the localelections in England onMay 1 see the anti-warparty poorly represented

in terms of candidates and barelyorganised. There are 158 SocialistAlliance candidates plus a smatter-ing of candidates for one oranother of the socialist sects and afew Labour candidates willing tostand on an anti-war platform.

A Clearly, we have failed to create aunited anti-war party - for carryingon the struggle after the war.

Palpably, the Socialist Alliancefailed during the war. The SApresented itself as merely one ofthe SWP�s numerous �unitedfronts�, not an alternative to thesectarian divisions that haveplagued the left for far too manydecades.

Merely tacking �Against the war�onto our name smacks of futileopportunism. It shows we are notserious about building a crediblepartyist project. Even in blandmarketing terms it is useful not tomess with your �corporate image� -especially as the war is all butover.

Nevertheless, the CPGB recom-mends a Socialist Alliance vote

abour in Scotland is runningscared. A low turnout, due to voterapathy, is on the cards. Latest opin-

description of their leader. They mischie-vously concluded that McConnell hadbeen branded a ‘Nazi’. Other party lead-ers also added their voices of disap-proval. These deliberate distortions werefurther compounded by an article in theLabour friendly Sunday Mail (March 30)in which the first minister accusedTommy Sheridan and the SSP of “de-lighting in the bombing of Baghdad”.

Slurs directed at the SSP suggest thatMcConnell and the Labour Party feel theyhave something to fear. Nevertheless SSPsupport has grown to 6% on the firstround vote and 10% on the second.Under the partial proportional represen-tation system, this would signal an in-crease of an additional seven MSP’salongside Tommy Sheridan. A prospectJack McConnell does not savour.

However, unless the SNP gain an over-all majority (unlikely), McConnell mightjust scrape through. It is extremely im-probable that SNP leader John Swinneywill seek a coalition with the Lib-Dems.Unless they get rid of Jim Wallace. It isalso improbable that Swinny will try towoo the SSP, in light of scathing com-ments made by Roseanna Cunningham(SNP deputy leader) on the funding ofthe SSP’s manifesto “200 steps to a newScotland”.

Sheridan has drawn the support oftrade union leaders at the Scottish TUCin Inverness this week. He shared a plat-form with Bob Crow (general secretaryof RMT) and Mark Serwotka (of the civilservice union PCS). Comrade Sheridansaid the SSP’s anti poverty policies ofscrapping the council tax, universal freeschool meals and a decent wage for pub-lic sector workers address the real needsof people the Labour Party has long sinceturned its back on. SSP support for demo-cratic public ownership stands in starkcontrast to New Labour’s obsession withprivatisation. No wonder thousands oftrade unionists and disenchanted Laboursupporters are turning to the SSP.

Comrades Crow and Serwotka agreedthat the SSP is the only party in Scotlandthat now best represents the interests ofthe working class. Bob Crow called fortrade union political funds to be divertedfrom their traditional home into parties likethe SSP, “which support our policies”.Comrade Crow described the relationshipwith Labour as “a rocky marriage head-ing for divorce. We did not walk awayfrom the Labour Party. They walked awayfrom the working class.”

Mark Serwotka said, “If I lived in Scot-land, I’d be a member of the SSP and I’dbe campaigning right now. These are ex-citing political times. What the SSP is do-ing in Scotland acts as a genuine beaconof hope for the working class in Englandand Wales.” Socialist Alliance pleasenotel

Ronnie Mejka

ScotlandPolitics of divorce

WalesElection? What election?

where possible. It is a project stillworth defending against totalliquidation. Nothing else has comeinto existence to replace it - as yet.It might still act as a step towardsother, higher, developments in theworkers� movement. But as avehicle of class struggle it hasshown itself totally inadequate.

Our overall strategy in theseelections should be to build the

largest vote for the inchoate andnow ebbing anti-war party. Wherethere is no Socialist Alliancecandidate, other candidates shouldbe supported - if they oppose theneo-colonial occupation of Iraq, ifthey support the campaign of thefirefighters� union, if they willdefend the rights of asylumseekers l

Marcus Ström

ion polls show the Scottish NationalistParty neck and neck on 31%. The possi-bility of Jack McConnell (first minister)and his coalition Liberal Democrat lackeyJim Wallace (deputy first minister) losingcontrol of Holyrood on May 1 hasprompted a flurry of electioneering activ-ity, which resembles panic.

Addressing the Scottish Trade UnionCongress in Inverness on April 14,McConnell warned that the SNP woulddivorce Scotland from the UK and as aresult, threaten jobs, mortgages and pub-lic services.

Rushing up north, in order to galva-nise Labour’s apathetic membership, wehave Helen Liddell (Scottish secretaryand erstwhile personal aide to RobertMaxwell). The national question hauntsher too. She attacked the SNP’s strategyfor a breakaway. A major election plankis the pledge to hold a referendum on in-dependence with the ‘break’ coming in2007. This referendum plan was a “sham”because “we would have to sign up forthe costs of a divorce settlement beforewe knew what those costs were actuallygoing to be”. This from a former Maxwellemployee!

Tony Blair also is troubled. Taking timeout from carving up the economic and‘democratic’ future of Iraq, and con-cerned by the prospect of a low poll andSNP victory, he attended a stage-man-aged meeting in Glasgow on April 15. Hisarrival was greeted not only by loyal sup-porters but also by an anti-war demon-stration organised by the SSP. Ignoringthe protestors, he warned his carefullyselected audience that they had a choicebetween “devolution or divorce, invest-ment or cuts, and stability and certaintyor instability and isolation.”

As the war in Iraq splutters on, the pos-sibility of targeting another ‘rogue’ statebecomes a real possibility. Labour isacutely aware that in Scotland, althoughpolls indicate that 48% support militaryaction, this is due to support for thetroops rather than the war itself.

At a press interview on March 26, SSPpress officer Hugh Kerr suggested thatthe SSP stood to gain from the imperial-ist invasion of Iraq because of its anti-war position. Labour attacked this andcalled for his resignation. McConnell’ssupport for the neo-colonialist occupa-tion of Iraq corresponds to the paltry 15%of the electorate who accepted invasionwithout United Nations backing.

When Tommy Sheridan (SSP con-venor) branded McConnell a “quisling”at the anti-war demonstration in Edin-burgh on March 29, this was too muchfor the sensitivities of the first minister.Various Labour luminaries fell over them-selves in attacking comrade Sheridan’s

Lpaign seems hardly to have registeredwith most voters in the principality.Whilst undoubtedly this has some-thing to do with the blanket coverageof the war, apathy also reflects the highdegree of indifference with an institu-tion which is frequently viewed asmerely a talking shop.

Yet it would be a mistake for social-ists to tail this apathy and view the elec-tions as irrelevant. In fact, the electionresult on May 2 could well force social-ists in Wales to take a hard look at them-selves and consider whether presentstrategies only consign the Welsh leftto the furthest margins of politics.

Unlike Scotland, where there is a realbuzz about the prospect of the ScottishSocialist Party becoming a significantforce, no such excitement exists inWales. Consequently politics will belargely viewed as a choice (let us leaveaside the Tories) between three parties- Labour, Plaid Cymru and the LiberalDemocrats, whose policies a cigarettepaper would find difficult to separate.

Such an approach to the elections istaken in an article by Daniel Morrisseyin the latest edition of Workers Action.This article is worth commenting on asit represents one of the very few at-tempts on the left to write seriously onWelsh politics.

Yet the vision comrade Morrisseyhas for the working class is a feeble one.Despite first minister Rhodri Morgan’stalk of putting ‘clear red water’ betweenWelsh Labour and the party nationally,Morrissey recognises that the policiesof Welsh Labour and Plaid amount tolittle more than warmed-over social de-mocracy politics. But he seems to sug-gest that the approach of both partiesis rather different to the neo-liberal poli-cies of Blair.

Consequently, comrade Morrisseycalls upon the working class to vote forLabour with their first vote and cast theirsecond vote for Plaid. Since Labour isunlikely to win more than one seat onthe regional lists this will maximise thevote of the ‘left’ parties. Indeed in theevent of Labour again failing to win amajority in the assembly, the comradeadvocates a Labour-Plaid Cymru coali-tion instead of the present Lib-Lab one.

Thus, the tactics employed by Dan-iel Morrissey amount to little more thanauto-Labourism with a ‘twist’ - votingPlaid where a Labour vote will bewasted. Unfortunately such tactics canonly sow illusions in the working classthat these parties represent an alterna-tive to neo-liberalism.

First, let us look at Plaid Cymru. Thisparty is nothing more than a petty-bour-geois nationalist party. True, it has op-

W

11

UNIONS

Printed and published by: November Publications Ltd (020 8965 0659). Registered as a newspaper by Royal Mail. ISSN 1351-0150. © April 2003

n Our central aim is the organisation of communists, revolu-tionary socialists, anti-capitalists, anti-war activists and allpolitically advanced workers into a Communist Party. With-out organisation the working class is nothing; with the high-est form of organisation it is everything.n The Provisional Central Committee organises membersof the Communists Party, but there exists no real Commu-nist Party today. There are many so-called �parties� on theleft. In reality they are confessional sects. Members whodisagree with the prescribed �line� are expected to gag them-selves in public. Either that or face expulsion.n Communists operate according to the principles of demo-cratic centralism. Through ongoing debate we seek toachieve unity in action and a common world outlook. Aslong as they support agreed actions, members have theright to speak openly and form temporary or permanentfactions.n Communists are fully committed to building the anti-warmovement but constantly strive to bring to the fore thefundamental question - ending war is bound up with endingcapitalism.n Communists are internationalists. Everywhere we strivefor the closest unity and agreement of anti-war, workingclass and democratic parties of all countries. We opposeevery manifestation of sectionalism. It is an internationalistduty to uphold the principle, �One state, one party�. To theextent that the European Union becomes a state then thatnecessitates EU-wide trade unions and a Communist Partyof the EU.n The working class must be organised globally. Without aglobal Communist Party, a Communist International, thestruggle against capital is weakened and lacks coordina-tion.n Communists have no interest apart from the workingclass as a whole. They differ only in recognising the impor-tance of Marxism as a guide to practice. That theory is nodogma, but must be constantly added to and enriched.n Capitalism in its ceaseless search for profit puts the fu-ture of humanity at risk. Capitalism is synonymous with war,pollution, exploitation and crisis. As a global system capi-talism can only be superseded globally. All forms of na-tionalist socialism are reactionary and anti-working class.n The capitalist class will never willingly allow their wealthand power to be taken away by a parliamentary vote. Theywill resist using every means at their disposal. Communistsfavour using parliament and winning the biggest possibleworking class representation. But workers must be read-ied to make revolution - peacefully if we can, forcibly if wemust.n Communists fight for extreme democracy in all spheresof society. Democracy must be given a social content.n We will use the most militant methods objective circum-stances allow to achieve a federal republic of England,Scotland and Wales, a united, federal Ireland and a UnitedStates of Europe.n Communists favour industrial unions. Bureaucracy andclass compromise must be fought and the trade unionstransformed into schools for communism.n Communists are champions of the oppressed. Women�soppression, combating racism and chauvinism, and the strug-gle for peace and ecological sustainability are just as muchworking class questions as pay, trade union rights and de-mands for high-quality health, housing and education.n Socialism represents victory in the battle for democracy.It is the rule of the working class. Socialism is either demo-cratic or, as with Stalin�s Soviet Union, it turns into its oppo-site.n Socialism is the first stage of the worldwide transition tocommunism - a system which knows neither wars, exploita-tion, money, classes, states nor nations. Communism is gen-eral freedom and the real beginning of human history.n All who accept these principles are urged to join theCommunist Party.

What wefight for

476 April 17 2003workerweekly

Return to: Membership, CPGB, BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XX

Name________________________________________

Address _____________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Town/city _____________________________________

Postcode ____________________________________

Telephone __________________________ Age ______

Email _________________________ Date _________

Become aCommunist Party

supporter

ast week Unison’s health groupconference voted to recommendacceptance of the ‘Agenda for

MARK SKELTONHow do you assess the outcome of theFBU�s conference?I am very pleased that conference voted sostrongly against the “final offer”, which fellquite a way outside of what our dispute wasoriginally about - ie, a demand for a wage in-crease of 40%.

This offer had to be represented to confer-ence, because at our previous conference onMarch 19 delegates overturned the EC’s rec-ommendation to accept. As a result, we hadto take the offer back to the membership, thistime with the official recommendation to re-ject. And everybody did, including the lead-ership.

Unfortunately, the proposals presented byFrank Burchill then muddied the waters. TheFBU executive committee recommended con-ference accept the proposals put to the FBUand the employers. There was talk of the lead-ership even cancelling the recall conferenceon the basis of these new proposals.In your opinion, do these proposalspresent any great improvement com-pared to the employers� offer?They contain some minor improvements, butthat is not saying much. Burchill is being pre-sented by the media and employers as totallyindependent. However, he still really operateson the level of management and is not on ourside - that is quite clear from the proposals.

I was dismayed to see the EC present thoseproposals as a forward-looking strategy. Theemployers would find it easy to negotiatedown, but it would be almost impossible forthe FBU to negotiate up from an offer that ithas accepted.

Unfortunately, many branches followed theEC line and conference voted 2:1 in favour. Ihad some reservations whether delegatescould vote on these proposals without aproper mandate. Members had seen them, butthere was no time to properly discuss them.

These proposals have to go back to thebranches now, so that the rank and file canlook at them. The fact that the regional del-egates accepted does not mean giving up. Ihope members will see through what theseBurchill proposals are all about: that the lead-ership has lost the heart.Would you have to wait until the �end ofhostilities�?Unfortunately, there was an overwhelmingvote on this motion, which came from GreaterManchester branch. This is very unfortunate,because it actually gives legitimacy to this war.And only yesterday I heard some US officerdeclaring the war over. For us to be hinderedby such a motion is totally wrong. Will indi-vidual acts of terrorism be included under thisformulation? What if the US starts an attackon Syria? The leadership seems to be pander-ing to New Labour rather than looking afterthe interests of the membership.

There were a number of emergency resolu-tions, which called for strike action even dur-ing war. However, the Greater Manchestermotion was taken first and all the other mo-tions fell automatically when it was accepted.But what about the membership? Havethey accepted defeat?I don’t think so. There are a number of emer-gency motions being prepared in some re-gions, which challenge Andy Gilchrist and therest of the EC, but I am not sure how strongthis will be.

Also, there are some beginnings of rank andfile organisation. An anonymous firefighterfrom Greater Manchester who calls himself‘Simon’ has set up the website www.30kfire-pay2.co.uk, where FBU members and thepublic are airing their views.

The leadership does not like this at all -Andy Gilchrist launched a big attack on it atconference - and have argued against “wash-ing our dirty linen in public”. Actually, it is

quite an interesting site that has helped tofurther cooperation and organisationamongst firefightersl

IAN FOULKESIs it one step forward, two steps back?I was very disappointed by the attitude ofmost delegates. They seem to think that wehave gone through a hard fought battle. Ibelieve we have not really started the fight.

I do not believe that this is purely the faultof the leadership. I think they have reacted tothe messages that they have been gettingfrom members. If there had been a way for-ward supported by all members, I am sure theleadership would have gone with it.What about the war?People are just not willing to strike during awar. For example, I have attended eight branchmeetings in the last couple of weeks, wherewe have had a very mixed response for strikeaction during a war. Merseyside is normally aquite militant area, so I would suggest that theatmosphere in other parts of the countrywould have been even more negative.The shadow defence secretary BernardJenkin accused the FBU of being �Sadd-am�s friends� when a strike date was setfor March 20. The strike was cancelledby the leadership. Does the FBU nowhave to be accused of being �Tony�sfriends�?I definitely think the acceptance of this mo-tion lets the EC off the hook. It allows them tonot call any more strikes for another month orso. It takes the pressure off them. There is nomomentum in this dispute anymore. We aredead in the water in that respect.

Unfortunately, I very much think memberswill vote for the Burchill proposal, because ourconference has voted overwhelmingly to ac-cept the offer.What do you think of the proposals?

They almost exclusively deal with the disputeprocedure. The employers’ offer was basedon bilateralism - ie, both sides would have toagree that there was a dispute, which wouldgive the employers a veto. The new offer al-lows any party to bring a dispute forward, soit allows for unilateral action. That is the realdifference.

The whole problem with all of these pro-posals is that they are not fully on the table.All the way along you deal with so-called‘heads of agreement’, which means you donot see the full terms. It is signing a blankcheque.

I think the basis of both proposals is thatwe would be selling jobs to get a pay rise.During the strike it has become obviousthat there is almost no effective rank andfile organisation in the FBU. Has thatchanged?Unfortunately there are very few membersinvolved at a rank and file level. An exceptionis London, where people have done somesterling work. The comrades have come un-der heavy attack at the recall conference, be-cause their whole region is fighting militantlyagainst the Burchill proposals. They havebeen the most vocal brigade in opposition toa deal. They also spoke against the motionthat suspends any strike action during the war.And they have got a well functioning rank andfile structure, which has paid off. They havegot their membership well on board and welleducated, whereas other parts of the countryhave failed to do that. I was especially aston-ished by the Scottish delegates present, be-cause they were on the right wing of theconference all the way through.Do you think there is a potential for aleadership challenge after this confer-ence?Not a chance. The EC are now much betterorganised than the members and in a farstronger position than they were beforel

FBU votes for actionTwo hundred and fifty Fire Brigades Union delegates unanimously voted to reject the employ-ers� �final offer� on pay and conditions at their recall conference on April 15 in Brighton. Del-egates accepted proposals to renew industrial action after �the end of hostilities� in Iraq. TinaBecker spoke to Mark Skelton, a rank and file militant from Finchley in London, and IanFoulkes, chair of the Merseyside branch

UnisonStruggle and acceptance

union activist around it. In part, UUL is aresult of the belated turn towards standingin union elections made by the SWP a fewyears ago.

However, one argument that was notsuccessfully won was that ‘Agenda forchange’, as it stands, contains the funda-mentals of performance related pay. If thisis introduced it would result in a shift inculture in the NHS and make it easier forthe government to impose further privati-sation measures. In this way the packagehas implications that run far deeper thanits initial appearance would suggest. Ineffect, it represents a threat to our class asa whole.

Encouragingly, about a quarter of theconference delegates were attending forthe first time. Together with a tentativeincrease in disputes nationally, this maybe a sign that health workers will see the‘modernisation’ package for what it is.

Therefore, what is needed now is notonly for activists to take a lead at locallevel but initiative from above. It seemsunlikely that this will come from thebureaucracy. So responsibility falls toUUL. However, there is a danger thatsome will translate this into mere leftposturing. After two decades of defeat forthe working class as a whole, a demo-cratic and political culture that can feedinto and enrich the process below isdesperately neededl

Ethan Grech

change’, a so-called modernisationpackage. There will be a national member-ship ballot in May.

This is unfortunate. ‘Agenda for change’represents an attack on pay and terms andconditions for health service workers.Even though the package involves areduction in unsocial hours payments andoffers a very poor protection agreement forthose who would lose basic pay - at least80,000 workers - the union bureaucracywas keen to see the package endorsed byconference. They got their way by convinc-ing delegates that they had managed tosecure a commitment to on-going negotia-tion from the government.

At the height of the FBU dispute lastNovember, the government announced thatunions representing health workers hadagreed to a 10% pay increase over threeyears. No such agreement had beenreached. Rather, this manoeuvre was anattempt to undermine the firefighters byportraying health workers as progressiveand amenable to change.

Delegates seemed to understand this, asthey did the argument that 10% over threeyears is effectively a pay cut or, at best, apay freeze. The organised left in the shapeof Unison United Left was successful inmobilising a number of good speakers andwas able for the first time to draw a core of

L

Kurdish peopledemand self-

determination

www.cpgb.org.ukPaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain

wor k erweekly

Paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain www.cpgb.org.uk

Thursday April 17 2003No 476

Subscription£ _______ � _______

Donation £ _______ � _______

Cheques and postal orders shouldbe payable to �Weekly Worker�

Return to: Weekly Worker, BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XX, United Kingdom

Subscribe! Name____________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

Town/city _________________________________________

Postcode ___________________________

Email _____________________________________________

Telephone ________________________ Date ___________

Special offer for new subscribers

3 months for £5

6m Inst.1yrUnitedKingdom

Europe

Rest ofworld

£15/�����24 £53/�����85£30/�����48

£20/�����32 £70/�����112£40/�����64

£40/�����64 £140/�����224£80/�����128

US neo-colonialismand democracyThe defeat of Saddam Hussein’s

regime has, as many have ob-served, opened up a Pandora’sbox for the US-British coalition.

Now that Saddam has gone and the Iraqicentral state effectively disintegrated,Kurdish national aspirations, brutalitysuppressed by the Ba’athist regime, nowconfront find the new occupiers.

In the hands of the imperialists, the op-pression of the Kurds in Iraq was, withthe utmost cynicism, made to play the roleof a propaganda weapon against SaddamHussein. But that is not possible anymore; the US imperialists themselves arenow responsible for administering Iraq,and they will have to deal with the Kurd-ish question. The expectations of theKurdish population are understandablyhigh in this situation. They expect theimperialists to provide them with effec-tive self-government at the very least, orthat the process of ‘democracy’ theAmericans are promising will give themthe possibility of seceding from Iraq com-pletely and establishing their own stateof Kurdistan, something the nationalis-tic-minded among them certainly see asessential.

The problem is that the Kurdish ques-tion does not just affect Iraq. It also af-fects Syria, Iran and Turkey, all of whichcontain distinct areas, contiguous toeach other, where the dominant popula-tion is Kurdish.

The Kurds have a linguistic unity, adistinct territory where they clearly arethe dominant group, and a national con-sciousness formed by many years of per-secution in the states that controlKurdish territory. For the Americans,Kurdish self-determination is problem-atic because the largest chunk of Kurd-ish territory by far is situated in Turkey,one of America’s most important re-gional allies.

The modern Turkish ruling class hasferociously oppressed the Kurds eversince a distinct Turkish national statewas founded in the aftermath of the de-feat of the Ottoman Empire in World WarI; before then they were one of manysubject peoples of that decaying multi-national empire.

Indeed the denial that Kurds are evena distinct people at all has historically beenregarded as central to Turkey’s stabilityand viability as a nation. The large areaof Kurdish territory that makes up East-ern Turkey is complemented by the of-ten large Kurdish minorities thatconstitute militant sections of the work-ing class in some of Turkey’s major cit-ies. (The same, to a greater or lesserextent, is true in the other states thatoverlap Kurdistan.)

The prolonged guerrilla war waged inTurkish Kurdistan by the Kurdish Work-ers Party (PKK), in which many thou-sands of Kurdish civilians wereslaughtered mainly by the Turkish state,only came to an end with the capture ofPKK leader Abdullah Ocalan. Indeed,many believe that American intelligence

helped them to ensnare him and bring himback to Turkey. Certainly, US (and Brit-ish) imperialism has characterised thePKK as a ‘terrorist’ organisation, some-thing which was given a certain credenceby the PKK’s often brutal reprisalsagainst Turkish civilians for the acts ofthe Turkish army. But in any case, thisrecord ought to be enough to clarify thatUS imperialism is no friend of the Kurds.

Despite this, however, the leaders ofthe two main Kurdish organisations inIraqi Kurdistan, the Kurdish DemocraticParty (KDP) and the Patriotic Union ofKurdistan (PUK), are pro-western andwillingly collaborate with US imperialismagainst Iraq. While Saddam Hussein’sterrible regime survived, many of theirfollowers, understandably in many ways,believed this was the only policy thatcould ensure Kurdish survival as a peo-ple, particularly with the bloody terror andgenocidal mass repression that wereused to put down Kurdish rebellion atthe end of the Iran-Iraq war (including ofcourse the chemical attack on Halabja)and again after the Kurdish rising at theend of the 1991 war with America. Butnow those political conditions are gone.A continued alliance, given the Ameri-cans’ plans for Iraq, will simply meanKurdish nationalist leaders betraying theKurds’ national aspirations to a US-runpuppet state.

So the Turkish rulers are very afraid ofthe coming into existence of any kind ofKurdish state in Northern Iraq; theyhave been threatening to use militaryforce for quite a few years to make surethis never comes about. But with theAmericans in charge in Baghdad, andgiven the propaganda use of Halabja andthe Kurdish question in prosecuting thewar, for American troops to simply sup-press Kurdish aspirations to keep theTurkish rulers happy would be very dam-aging to America’s fraudulent pretenceto have ‘liberated’ Iraq.

The Iraqi Kurds’ struggle for liberationhas enormous prestige around theworld; the US would suffer a major propa-ganda defeat if it were to treat them as

they recently treated the Iraqi armedforces, for example. Conversely, not tosecure Kurdistan against the Kurdishpeople themselves would damage USinterests in a different way, by damagingrelations with Turkey and perhaps lead-ing to some kind of three-way militaryimbroglio, if Turkey were to intervene.

The only thing the American neo-colonialists are able to rely on at themoment is the pliable leadership of theIraqi Kurds. After the taking of Kirkuk bythe peshmerga guerrillas on April 10 (ap-parently without consulting the US mili-tary leadership on the ground), underAmerican pressure and Turkish threatsthe KDP/PUK leaders of the peshmergaagreed voluntarily to vacate the city. Aday later, Mosul was taken by thepeshmerga, apparently acting in unisonwith some American special forces,though the upshot of this victory maywell be that control of the city passes tothe Americans and the peshmerga sim-ply end up playing the role of a surro-gate American police force.

The problem with this kind of thing is,again, now that Saddam has gone it isnot just the Kurdish nationalist leaders

who are face to face with the Americans.So are the Kurdish masses and, in thecurrent climate of raised expectations, ifthe pro-American leadership do not de-liver real and tangible political gains forthe Kurds, in terms of self-governmentand at least the possibility of real self-determination (ie, the right to independ-ence), then such leaders could easily bepushed aside from below.

The Kurdish right to self-determina-tion is a democratic question, one of manycomplex democratic and national ques-tions that provide a particular challengefor Marxists when trying to address theproblems of the Middle East. The fact thatthe Kurdish population, though beingcentred in the distinct territory ofKurdistan that overlaps four MiddleEastern states, also has a large semi-dia-spora population that often constitutesmilitant sections of the working class inmajor cities in Turkey particularly (butalso elsewhere), means that the Kurdishquestion is not just going to be solvedby separation.

In fact, while Kurdistan must befought for in terms of its elementary rightto unify and constitute a distinct na-tional entity of some kind, socialistsshould not be in favour of separationfor separation’s sake. Such a thingcould severely damage the workingclass in Turkey, potentially damagingworking class organisations and tearingapart hard-won unity between Kurdishworkers and the workers of those coun-tries that each rule part of Kurdistan.

National borders, in the Arab worldparticularly, have an artificial aspect,where such countries as Iraq and Syriareally are the product of lines arbitrarilydrawn on a map by colonial dignitaries(the Sykes-Picot agreement duringWorld War I). These somewhat artificialdivisions have acted in the last centuryas a serious impediment to the creationof a viable Arab nationalism, as evi-denced among other things by Nasser’sill-fated project of the ‘United Arab Re-public’. But paradoxically, this could

also have benefits, in giving a certainpotential plasticity to national relations,and in particular in making more possi-ble some kind of federal solution for theMiddle East, which could resolve theKurdish question without tearing apartthe interpenetrated sections of the pro-letariat.

Turkey, of course, has a consolidatednational existence and a relatively coher-ent form of nationalism, courtesy of thelegacy of the Young Turks and Ataturk.Iran less so, particularly with the rise topower of the Shi’a form of political islamtwo decades ago; though at a popularlevel who knows what is happening nowthat the hold of the Ayatollahs is in de-cline among the masses. Objectively,however, given the dispersal of the vari-ous populations throughout the region,a federal solution would be the most pro-gressive in terms of giving real rights tothe various fragments of each peoplethat inhabit the nations dominated byothers.

It seems to me that not only are theKurdish workers often the most militantsections of the proletariat of the coun-tries in which they are an oppressed mi-nority – their shared consciousnesscould, harnessed to a socialist project ofdemocracy for all peoples, act as a bridgeto the formation of such a federation. Abridge that could be reinforced by theplasticised national existence of the Arabpeople, divided into states whose objec-tive national character is problematic andunconvincing, and thereby crying out forsome kind of broader solution.

On a region-wide level, of course,these questions will be necessarily inter-twined with a consistently democraticresolution of the Israeli-Palestinian ques-tion (among others). But in this regard agenuinely broad democratic-federal en-tity in the Middle East, acquiring stabil-ity and then transcendence under aglobal socialist order, finds importantpoints of support in the relations betweenthese peoples in the here and nowl

Ian Donovan

Kurdish peshmergas