onsdag, februar 18, 2004
IRAQ, THE LEFT AND THE 'RESISTANCE'
David McKnight, writing in the Australian, picks out some differences between the Iraqi left and some sections of the Western left:
"HAVING mobilised the biggest demonstrations seen in a generation against the invasion of Iraq, the Left and anti-war activists now face a dilemma as post-war Iraq unfolds. For multiple reasons many times recounted, the US invasion was wrong and hypocritical. But the invasion cannot be undone. And the reality is that Iraq now has the potential for a democratic future, as well as the potential for regression if the underground terrorist resistance assumes power.
But on this issue the Western Left is divided. Do the bloody actions of the so-called resistance constitute a war of national liberation, making them worthy of left-wing support? Are Saddam Hussein's thugs comparable to the Timorese fighting Indonesian occupation? Or to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress? Or to the French Resistance against Nazi Germany?"
David McKnight, writing in the Australian, picks out some differences between the Iraqi left and some sections of the Western left:
"HAVING mobilised the biggest demonstrations seen in a generation against the invasion of Iraq, the Left and anti-war activists now face a dilemma as post-war Iraq unfolds. For multiple reasons many times recounted, the US invasion was wrong and hypocritical. But the invasion cannot be undone. And the reality is that Iraq now has the potential for a democratic future, as well as the potential for regression if the underground terrorist resistance assumes power.
But on this issue the Western Left is divided. Do the bloody actions of the so-called resistance constitute a war of national liberation, making them worthy of left-wing support? Are Saddam Hussein's thugs comparable to the Timorese fighting Indonesian occupation? Or to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress? Or to the French Resistance against Nazi Germany?"
tirsdag, december 09, 2003
VIETNAM ANALOGY DOESN'T HOLD UP
"Despite the ongoing attacks and the growing antipathy toward the occupying forces, it is important to recognize the flawed nature of the analogy with U.S. involvement in Vietnam that many on the left have invested so much of themselves in. The conflict in Vietnam was inherited from French colonialism, not eagerly and unilaterally embarked upon. At its height, it involved a prodigious commitment of U.S. military personnel, while the Iraq war is remarkable for the relatively few numbers of troops involved.
The chief difference, however, lies in the nature of the forces combating the U.S. soldiers. In Vietnam, the U.S. faced both guerrilla and regular forces operating under a centralized leadership with one aim: to bring the country under a unified political rule that, however authoritarian, had considerable popular support. The combatants in Iraq are linked to a discredited political regime with little hope of making a comeback. Their persistent and bloody attacks seem focused on simply making Iraq as unstable and as close to ungovernable as possible rather than attempting to win the confidence of the country's people.
In this respect, the situation in Iraq much more closely resembles the current one in Afghanistan than it does Vietnam circa 1970. In Afghanistan the remnants of the Taliban are succeeding in making the south and east of the country dangerous places for humanitarian workers and UN representatives, but have little prospect of returning to a position of power over the whole country."
(Editorial, News & Letters, December 2003)
Iraq and the Third Camp
"There is taking place a triangular struggle for the world. Three responses to the ending of "the short twentieth century" and its political and economic architecture.
The first, emergent for over a century but unleashed since the end of the Cold War, is the United States of America. The U.S. is now the world's hyperpower with a grand strategy to reshape global political and economic relations in its favor and in the interests of global capital.
The second - which cannot be reduced to mere "blowback" -is an entirely reactionary and frequently terroristic Jihad fundamentalism seeking the defeat of the "infidel" world of women's rights, democracy, secularism, sexual self-determination and individual liberty.
These two forces crashed into each other, with the al-Qaeda terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The turbulence has capsized parts of the left. To right itself the left needs to turn toward the perspective of a "third camp": the burgeoning global working class leading the progressive social movements of global civil society.
During the Cold War the third camp opposed both Russia and the U.S. in the name of all the democratic forces struggling for peace and democracy. The contemporary meaning of third camp socialism is the refusal to be enlisted into some new "Great Contest" as cheerleader or critical supporter of either reactionary camp, and the elaboration of a positive and practical political alternative to both."
(Alan Johnson, New Politics)
Occupation of Iraq: What happens now?
"We opposed the war and we opposed Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime; we "take sides" only to support movements for genuine liberation. Iraq is sinking into chaos and the rule of fiefdoms and mafias. Now feminist groups are demanding a say in the new government and denouncing U.S. attempts to court religious leaders by holding out the possibility of an "Islamic democracy." The U.S.'s claim that its war on Iraq will bring democracy is as big a lie as its claim to have "freed the women of Afghanistan."
(Editorial, News & Letters, Juni 2003)
"Despite the ongoing attacks and the growing antipathy toward the occupying forces, it is important to recognize the flawed nature of the analogy with U.S. involvement in Vietnam that many on the left have invested so much of themselves in. The conflict in Vietnam was inherited from French colonialism, not eagerly and unilaterally embarked upon. At its height, it involved a prodigious commitment of U.S. military personnel, while the Iraq war is remarkable for the relatively few numbers of troops involved.
The chief difference, however, lies in the nature of the forces combating the U.S. soldiers. In Vietnam, the U.S. faced both guerrilla and regular forces operating under a centralized leadership with one aim: to bring the country under a unified political rule that, however authoritarian, had considerable popular support. The combatants in Iraq are linked to a discredited political regime with little hope of making a comeback. Their persistent and bloody attacks seem focused on simply making Iraq as unstable and as close to ungovernable as possible rather than attempting to win the confidence of the country's people.
In this respect, the situation in Iraq much more closely resembles the current one in Afghanistan than it does Vietnam circa 1970. In Afghanistan the remnants of the Taliban are succeeding in making the south and east of the country dangerous places for humanitarian workers and UN representatives, but have little prospect of returning to a position of power over the whole country."
(Editorial, News & Letters, December 2003)
Iraq and the Third Camp
"There is taking place a triangular struggle for the world. Three responses to the ending of "the short twentieth century" and its political and economic architecture.
The first, emergent for over a century but unleashed since the end of the Cold War, is the United States of America. The U.S. is now the world's hyperpower with a grand strategy to reshape global political and economic relations in its favor and in the interests of global capital.
The second - which cannot be reduced to mere "blowback" -is an entirely reactionary and frequently terroristic Jihad fundamentalism seeking the defeat of the "infidel" world of women's rights, democracy, secularism, sexual self-determination and individual liberty.
These two forces crashed into each other, with the al-Qaeda terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The turbulence has capsized parts of the left. To right itself the left needs to turn toward the perspective of a "third camp": the burgeoning global working class leading the progressive social movements of global civil society.
During the Cold War the third camp opposed both Russia and the U.S. in the name of all the democratic forces struggling for peace and democracy. The contemporary meaning of third camp socialism is the refusal to be enlisted into some new "Great Contest" as cheerleader or critical supporter of either reactionary camp, and the elaboration of a positive and practical political alternative to both."
(Alan Johnson, New Politics)
Occupation of Iraq: What happens now?
"We opposed the war and we opposed Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime; we "take sides" only to support movements for genuine liberation. Iraq is sinking into chaos and the rule of fiefdoms and mafias. Now feminist groups are demanding a say in the new government and denouncing U.S. attempts to court religious leaders by holding out the possibility of an "Islamic democracy." The U.S.'s claim that its war on Iraq will bring democracy is as big a lie as its claim to have "freed the women of Afghanistan."
(Editorial, News & Letters, Juni 2003)
fredag, juni 06, 2003
ARTIKLER OM IRAK
WORKER-COMMUNIST PARTY OF IRAQ:
ALLIANCE FOR WORKERS' LIBERTY:
NEWS AND LETTERS:
WORKER-COMMUNIST PARTY OF IRAQ:
- The State of the Islamic Movement in Iraq's Political Future (WCPI)
- A Short History of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI)
- Iraq: Achilles' Heel of the USA Government (WCPI)
- No to Political Islam's Violations of Rights and Freedoms in Iraq (WCPI)
- We must firmly oppose both poles of terrorism (WCPI)
- The political situation in Iraq after the fall of the Ba'ath regime (WCPI)
- After the terrorist attacks in Riyadh and Casablanca, What is next? (WCPI)
- Green Banner Carriers Commits a Bloody Massacre and Ignite Rotten Nationalistic Conflicts in Kirkuk (WCPI)
- Workers demand control (WCPI)
- Baghdad's fall to US military
"For the people of Iraq the US victory over Saddam's regime, which the US and European governments themselves maintained in power, is not the route to achieve freedom and prosperity. A government that is to be put together by victorious US generals with the aid of tribal heads and religious mullahs has nothing to do with the demands, desires and shattered hopes of the deprived people of Iraq. None of the just and progressive demands of the people of Iraq are represented in the post-Saddam regime.
The most appropriate and immediate solution is the urgent withdrawal of US and British troops and the introduction of UN forces for a transitory period, as well as the recognition of people's political and civil rights in order to allow them to determine their preferred government under free and secure circumstances. The progressive struggle of the people of Iraq on the one hand and the continued struggle of the people of the world on the other is the necessary precondition for its realisation and imposition on the US and UN."
Worker Communist Party of Iraq - April 2003
ALLIANCE FOR WORKERS' LIBERTY:
- Iraq: what next?
- Solidarity with Iraqi workers now!
- Let Iraq's peoples decide!
- After the fall of Baghdad - Who will win the peace?
"It is good that Saddam's totalitarian regime has been broken. It is bad that it was done by the US/UK invaders, in their own way, pursuing their own interests. Out of the anti-war movement we should now build a movement in solidarity with the working people of Iraq, upholding the democratic rights of the peoples of Iraq and, especially, the struggles and the rights to organise of the workers of Iraq. Iraq has the raw materials for a powerful workers' movement, which could be leader in organising a democratic accommodation between the different communities in Iraq, and which could upset all the USA's plans.
Solidarity with the Iraqi workers' movement - in the first place, with the right to organise trade unions and political parties - should be a priority." - A working class answer to US imperialism and Saddam Hussein (september 2002)
"When we campaign against the threat of US war on Iraq we should not do so in any way that implies credence to or support for Saddam Hussein's "anti-imperialist" claims. Cheap agitation such as that which declares Bush and Sharon to be "the real axis of evil" and the "real terrorists" should be rejected. Whatever about Bush's hypocrisy, Saddam's regime is "really" as evil and as terrorist as any on earth. We oppose the US war plans, not in the name of support for the Iraqi regime, but in the name of international democracy and working-class solidarity."
NEWS AND LETTERS:
- Tasting the bitter fruits of occupation (maj 2003)
- Nationwide opposition to war on Iraq (maj 2003)
"All along, we Marxist-Humanists have condemned the Hussein regime for its crimes against humanity, yet do not believe that the current war is at all justified for many reasons. We support the aspirations of the Iraqi people to be free of all forms of oppression, whether from the Saddam Hussein regime, from other internal conservative forces such as religious fundamentalism, and from the attempt by the U.S. and Britain to incorporate Iraq into their version of globalized capitalism". - UN paves the way for U.S. invasion of Iraq (dec. 2002)
"The failure to present a liberatory alternative - not only to U.S. imperialism and global capitalism, but also to those whose opposition to the U.S. is on a reactionary basis - has given U.S. imperialism, in addition to its immense economic and military power, a major ideological weapon. It has allowed the Bush administration to claim that it supports both democracy and women's rights in the Middle East and the Muslim world. This has immeasurably strengthened Bush's hand as he prepares to go into Iraq." - Bush's war against Iraq threatens global disaster (okt.2002)
"At the end of the Gulf War the Kurds and Shi'ites rose up against Hussein, only to be betrayed by the U.S. The anti-Gulf War movement which had emerged in this period proved totally unable to deal with the situation. It failed to take a firm stand against Hussein or in defense of the Kurds, Shi'ites, and others. The notion that the crimes of Hussein need not be discussed for the sake of focusing everything on a critique of U.S. rulers left the anti-war movement unprepared to deal with the great betrayal that was visited upon the Iraqi people."
