|
Movement for a Socialist
Future condemns the US-British attacks on Afghanistan
The Movement for a Socialist Future denounces the military attacks by the United States and Britain on Afghanistan. In pursuit of their "war on terror", President Bush and "President" Blair have responded with their own state-organised terror. Raining down missiles from submarines and aircraft carriers on the poorest nation on the planet are the actions of governments desperate to reassert their weakened authority in the midst of an acute economic and political crisis. Bush and Blair have arrogantly assumed the right to overthrow the Taleban government of Afghanistan, as if that would solve any of the issues behind the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11. They are now judge, jury and executioner as they seek to impose a new imperialist world order. In doing so, Bush and Blair have opened a period that will engulf many states, intensify the global economic crisis and produce social upheaval in their own countries. Behind their so-called "war on terror'" Bush and Blair are irresistibly drawn into an agenda that goes far beyond the crude aim of killing those deemed responsible for organising the suicide plane attacks on America The United States and Britain have seized the events of September 11 to justify the introduction of increasingly authoritarian rule at home and a global alliance with a range of despotic regimes abroad. The media endlessly repeats the phrase "war on terror", as if by doing so often enough we will all come to accept it is as reality. An atmosphere that sometimes borders on a national hysteria, converts into a mounting pressure on people, especially those organised in trade unions or protest groups, to abandon or tone down their own justified interests, causes and actions. Make no mistake, these political changes, which have Blair ruling as an unelected and uncontrolled president, are not just for a few weeks or months. They accompany a "war" which is - conveniently - said to have no boundaries and no time limit. The conflict can last as long as "civilisation" is under threat from an unseen and undefined enemy. As terrorists are obviously not deterred by the passing of draconian new laws, we are obliged to ask ourselves why Bush and Blair have proceeded along this road. The answers lie in the economic and political crisis that was under way long before the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The real threat to the major powers comes not from random external terrorist attacks but result from acute economic and political contradictions internal to the capitalist system itself. As a result of the interaction between globalisation and the national state, existing political bodies and processes have lost much of their authority. Major economic decisions are now taken by bodies like the World Trade Organisation, themselves mouthpieces for the interests of the transnational corporations. These developments have contributed to the fact that political participation has fallen to record low levels in both the United States and Britain. Bush essentially bought the White House for the energy corporations while Blair managed to gain the support of only one in four electors in a 59% turn-out. Add to this the low regard many people have for the police, the judicial system and - in Britain - the monarchy and it not difficult to see why a "war on terror" has presented itself at a politically opportune moment. Bound up with and driving these political developments is the evident crisis of the global economy. The promise of endless expansion and riches for all from globalisation was always more hype than reality. For the last year, the global capitalist system has witnessed the collapse of the dot com speculative bonanza, the saturation of markets, falling prices and growing closures and redundancies. Airlines were already sustaining great losses well before September 11. Finally, the mounting evidence of environmental degradation proved to many that a profit-driven economic system was not sustainable. Throughout its history, capitalism has reacted to economic turmoil by destroying production and jobs, forcing those in work to accept lower conditions and, ultimately, resorting to military action to protect markets or create new ones out of the inevitable destruction. That is what we are witnessing today. Unable to exert influence on a social system lurching out of control, Bush and Blair resort to the one set of resources they do manage: the forces of political and military repression that will be deployed against domestic resistance to the slump and the threat to the environment as well as perceived external threats. In other words, their "war on terror" is essentially a capitalist war, fought on behalf of the corporations to preserve a discredited and unstable status quo. As it is inseparably connected with the future and fortunes of capitalism, we can only oppose their war plans by challenging their right to power. At the centre of the new world disorder is Blair, whose view of his own self-importance is truly staggering to behold. He has tied his political fortunes to the coat-tails of an American president who is a direct representative of the US military-industrial complex. Where Bush cannot string more than a few disconnected thoughts together, in steps a would-be president of Britain. Blair has removed himself from any semblance of parliamentary or Cabinet control and appointed himself a virtual head of state. As The Guardian remarked on September 29: "He is single-handedly taking Britain to war." The report added: "A senior Liberal Democrat this week complained: 'He's torn up the constitution and become far more presidential than any western leader. We don't even have the checks and balances they have in the US. We should recognise this and have direct presidential elections ourselves." This is the logical outcome of the transformation of Old Labour into New Labour. The Blairites see their role as a senior management team, ruthlessly "modernising" an old company, Britain PLC. At their head is a chief executive officer who fixes everything behind the scenes so that the "board" meeting is a rubber-stamp exercise. In fact, the Cabinet meets for no more than 30 minutes and Chancellor Brown spends the time doing his own paperwork, reports suggest. Blair's preposterous aim of remaking the entire world along the lines of some ambiguous moral code, which formed the content of his speech at the New Labour conference, is someone daydreaming of a world long gone when Britannia ruled the waves. Blair told the assembled and uncritical New Labour faithful: "The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder the world around us." One commentator rightly described the speech as "intellectual colonialism". These delusions of grandeur are typical of the arrogant New Labour regime. Home Secretary David Blunkett and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw are Blair's chief apostles. Straw accuses the BBC of undermining moves to thwart terrorism and tells a Radio 4 presenter: "You are often a mouthpiece for prevailing non-government organisations" Blunkett, whose moral injunctions are almost as absurd as Blair's, warns human rights lawyers and the courts not to obstruct new anti-terror laws which attack basic democratic rights. Meanwhile, it is business as usual for New Labour and the corporations. In the weeks after September 11, the government decided to press on with cuts in disability benefit provision, the privatisation of the London Underground and an expansion of the nuclear reprocessing industry. Meanwhile, the spook agencies MI5 and MI6 are getting extra cash following their recent successes. There are absolutely no concessions when it comes to giving business a direct entry into public services. The feeble trade union leaders, who shamefully abandoned their annual Congress in the wake of the plane attacks, were easily fooled into thinking that New Labour's plans would be put aside in deference to the "war on terror". Iain Duncan Smith, the new right-wing Tory leader, stands shoulder to shoulder with Blair, who in turn stands "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush. There are few dissenting voices in British establishment or political circles. A synthetic unity embraces the entire media, trade union leaders, 99% of Labour MPs and religious leaders. From their point of view, there is definitely a war to be won - and it's not primarily against terrorism. The ideological, political and military campaign is directed towards re-establishing the tarnished authority of a capitalist system in crisis. Behind this manufactured war, the full burden of the economic slump is to be carried by working people. It does not take a genius to work out that the "war against terror" is not winnable, no matter how many would-be hijackers are killed as the US and Britain take the law into their own hands, as judge, jury and executioner. Decade upon decade of imperialist oppression and exploitation from the Middle East to Africa, to Latin America and Asia created the conditions for terrorism. Deaths at the hands of Western bombs and guns will without doubt lead to more volunteers. And more terror attacks will further justify the emergence of dictatorial rule in the US and Britain. There are those who appeal to Blair to "find another way", and to redistribute the wealth of the major economies to the poorer nations. This is a classic case of self-delusion and a failure to understand what is happening here. The apparatus of authoritarian rule is, as we have shown, the expression of underlying and insoluble problems within capitalist society. Far from being a "defence of democracy", the new world order under construction brings with it the final nails in the coffin of liberal democracy. That's what Blair's "presidency" is all about. There is no going back in history. Old Labour has gone, turned into a party that sponsors and is sponsored by big business. The globalisation process has reduced national governments to relative insignificance. Emerging dictatorial rule is, therefore, an expression of deep historical processes which show that capitalism in its old forms is unsustainable. Military action is certain to add to political and social instability around the world. The vast majority of people in the developing countries are inevitably hostile to the new form of imperialism; in the developed states, many see that the real threat to their lives is not from a terror attack but from a system that throws them out of work, destroys the value of their pensions and degrades the environment. Our responsibility is to turn this anger back against the governments and corporations responsible for bringing the planet to this grave point. Our objective is to stop them and their war plans by taking political and economic power out of their hands and transferring it to the majority in society. The Movement for a Socialist Future totally opposes all military action taken by Bush and Blair's war machines, either to kill alleged terrorists or overthrow governments. We stand on the side of those attacked and any military actions they take to defend themselves or their country. At the same time, we condemn terrorist actions like those in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The slaughter of thousands of working people was deeply reactionary and played straight into the hands of the White House and racists everywhere. Terrorism only offers mindless destruction and has no view of progress or a future. We reject the Blair government as a stooge of the transnational corporations. We should link the growing opposition to the "war on terror" to the mounting economic and political crisis and make it a movement that can defeat and bring down this capitalist government. To those who say that would let the Tories in, we answer: make the opposition to New Labour a struggle for power itself. Show that the alternative to Blair is not another round of parliamentary elections but a transfer of power that is entirely possible and necessary. The MSF has launched a Charter for Basic Democratic Rights that we can use to rally those who in their different ways oppose New Labour and the "war on terror". It declares: We believe
that the existing system of government at European, national and local level
does not represent the interests of the vast majority in terms of public
services, health, transport, education, housing and the environment. The system
is democratic in name only. Parliament and the New Labour government act simply
as rubber stamps for the powerful business and financial interests which impose
their will through the World Trade Organisation. Therefore,
the time has come to defend our right to vote by extending it to every area of society.
We call for new, truly democratic bodies to represent the views and interests of
the majority. These will guarantee basic rights to assembly, to organise and
strike, to justice and to asylum. These bodies
will: q
Put people
directly in charge of decision-making through local, regional and national
Peoples' Councils. Delegates to be elected on an annual basis to represent
different sections and groups in society, from workplaces and
communities q
Democratise ownership and
control of major corporations to put their resources at the disposal of society.
Place the NHS, public transport, education and other key services under the
control of those who work in and use them q Make the protection of the environment a top priority to save the planet from destruction. End the abuse of science, technology and agriculture. We are confident that such a movement can and must succeed. A peoples' government of this kind will easily find a solution to terrorism. It would hold out a genuine hand of friendship and economic assistance to poor nations and support the self-determination demands of the Palestinian and other peoples. Support our charter and make the struggle for power top of the agenda. |
Movement for a Socialist Future condemns the US-British attacks on Afghanistan
Movement for a Socialist Future Sun, 07 Oct 2001 13:13:10 -0700
