I am sure
that most of the liberals and opportunists, that have called for, or
not opposed, imperialist intervention, in a series of situations,
across the globe, have done so with the best of intentions, though
some will have done so simply as apologists for Imperialism. But,
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The consequence of
these calls could well be that the world is heading for a serious
regional conflict in the Middle East that could spread into Europe
via the Balkans, if not into a much wider conflagration.
The liberals
and opportunists do not analyse the world, or events within it, on
the objective basis of historical materialism, as Marxists do.
Rather they operate on the basis of a bourgeois, subjectivist
methodology. Nor do they understand the world and events on the
basis of dialectical logic, which reveals the way processes unfold
via the interconnectedness, and feedback loops which reflects the
true reality. Instead, they operate on the basis of the syllogism.
The consequence is they do not see the world as a complex
interrelated whole, whose real nature cannot be observed purely on
the basis of superficial features and appearances, such as the nature
of political regimes, but only by digging down into the class
relations, and material conditions that form the foundations of those
political regimes. Instead of seeing the events within that world as
being merely moments within a complex process, whereby those
underlying class relations and material conditions play out over
time, they instead see each event as purely that, an isolated event,
to be dealt with as though it were completely isolated from
everything else that has happened before, or to come. Each event
occurs separated from all other reality, and occurring within its own
discrete block of time, rather than within the context of a
continuous historical process.
I have
recently been re-reading Trotsky's writings on the Balkan Wars, which
provide an illustrating example of how a Marxist analyses such
events, in contrast to the approach of the liberals and opportunists.
Trotsky's writings illustrate how the material conditions, existing
in the Balkans, of backward, historical economic development, had
left its assorted countries under the domination of the Ottoman
(Turkish) and Austro-Hungarian Empires. Economic development had led
to the beginning of the creation of a Balkan working-class. The same
conditions meant that the rational economic solution, for development
of these small states, was via the establishment of a Balkan
Federation, which could produce the kind of single market that was
essential to the economic development of the Balkans. But, the
bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie, of these states, was not strong
enough, and was, in any case, too divided, along national lines, to
bring about such a unification. The task would fall to the infant
working class, which needed to organise across nationalities, and
across borders. The same factors, of economic development, were also
breaking up the historic dominance of the region, by the old
colonial powers, but, even as that happened, other imperialist
powers, like Tsarist Russia, and Germany, stood ready to take
advantage of the situation, supporting one group or another to expand
their own influence, if not their territory.
In the end,
this development, and the complex of military alliances, which
required different countries to come to the aid of others, in the
region, if they were attacked, led to World War I. Looking at the
situation today, in the Middle East and North Africa, and the
proximity, and interconnection, via Turkey, with the Balkans, the
similarities, with this period, leading up to World War I, are
striking. It is a similarity I have pointed to before in relation to
the working out of the Long Wave.
Economic
backwardness had led to the domination of the Balkans by old colonial
powers, just as a similar backwardness led to domination of countries
in MENA. Economic development, combined with weak domestic
bourgeoisies, led to the establishment of various kinds of
Bonapartism in the Balkans, usually in the form of some kind of
“constitutional monarchy”. In MENA, the equivalent is, on the
one hand, the feudal Gulf Monarchies, and on the other Bonapartist
regimes that were established in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, and
Iraq, and including the clerical-fascist variant in Iran. Just as
imperialist powers sought to intervene in the Balkans, by open means,
or more frequently by supporting proxies, as the old colonial
domination began to disintegrate, so in MENA, the Imperialist powers
of the US and Europe have sought to intervene both openly, as they
did in Iraq and in Libya, or else by open support for rebel forces,
or else by more covert methods (including their own covert military
intervention), via their proxies in the Gulf tyrannies, who in turn
have intervened openly themselves, and via their own proxies within
the various Sunni, jihadist militias.
The real
solution for workers in MENA, and for the other oppressed classes, as
with the Balkans, lies in the creation of a single Federal State,
providing a high degree of national autonomy, creating a single
market and so on. But, as with the Balkans, the existing bourgeois
classes in those countries are unable to bring about such a solution,
because of their own weakness, their own divisions, and the extent to
which they are all subject to the pressure placed upon them by more
powerful external forces. But, for so long as the solutions for the
workers and oppressed masses of MENA are viewed merely in terms of
limited, bourgeois democratic demands and so long as part of the
achievement even of these limited, and inadequate solutions is seen
in terms of the intervention of powerful external i.e. imperialist
forces, the workers too cannot be organised around an adequate
program.
The current
developments with the increasing conflict between Turkey (a NATO
country, which is entitled to support from NATO if attacked) and
Syria (behind which stands immediately Iran, and Hezbollah, and
further behind which stands Russia and China) is reminiscent of the
outbreak of hostilities in the Balkans, kicked off by the declaration
of War by Serbia, described by Trotsky. All wars are kicked off on
the basis of some deception, used to justify the first shots being
fired.
There seems
no doubt that earlier in the week, it was Syria that had fired
mortars into Turkey, as it sought to regain control of its border
post. Equally, there was little doubt that Turkey had a few weeks
ago probed Syrian airspace with its jet, that was promptly shot down.
The idea that Syria is trying to provoke a wider war, by attacking
Turkey, seems to me to be far fetched. If open war breaks out with
Turkey, NATO will back Turkey, and the war will be over in days
rather than weeks. Syria, must know that. At the same time, as with
the shooting down of the Turkish jet, it has to show that it will not
be bullied by Turkey. Otherwise, it risks Turkey continually
pressing on its borders. Turkey has already shown that it is
prepared to breach borders as it has done in Iraqi Kurdistan. Part
of the complex of relations here has to be the fact that Turkey,
shunned in its membership application for EU membership, whilst
seeing its economy grow extremely rapidly, even during the current
cyclical downturn, is keen to establish its own status as a regional
power. That is one reason, besides the coming to power of an
Islamist Government, why Turkey has changed its position from being
one of the strongest supporters of Israel, to become an opponent.
Turkey has
long sought to quash its Kurdish minority, and the ambitions of the
Kurds for their own state. There are significant advantages for
Turkey in being able to expand into the Kurdish areas of Syria, Iraq
and Iran not least for the oil resources in some of those areas.
Latest reports suggest that the mortars fired into Turkey on Saturday
came not from Syrian Government forces, but came from areas in the
control of the Syrian rebels. In other words, this is a “false
flag” operation launched by the rebels, with or without the
connivance of Turkey, designed to provide Turkey with an excuse for
intervention, which would create the potential for first establishing
“safe zones”, “no fly zones”, etc. as a preliminary to the
kind of armed intervention seen in Libya, if not that in Iraq.
We have
already seen the unintended consequences of some of these actions.
The US and UK invasion of Iraq, was intended to remove the
ineffective Saddam, with some more effective and controllable puppet.
Instead, the consequence was to strengthen the position of Iran,
which now has a significant ally in the Shia regime in Iraq. Some
years ago, I wrote that I thought that Iraq would be likely to break
into three parts – Iraqi Kurdistan, the Sunni Triangle, and the
Shia dominated rest. That didn't happen, but it is still a rational
outcome of current relations. On the one hand the Kurdish North
already exercises a high degree of autonomy, bringing it continually
into conflict with Baghdad, which is why the regime there does not
oppose the Turkish incursions. At the height of the sectarian
conflict, the Sunni Gulf tyrannies made it clear to the US that they
would not allow their Sunni brethren in Iraq to be subjugated by the
Shia Majority. The US responded, by reversing its policy of attacks
on the Sunni Triangle, erecting physical barriers between Sunni and
Shia areas, and instead providing the Sunni Sheikhs with large
amounts of largesse in return for them clamping down on the
jihadists.
But, as the
US prepares to withdraw from Iraq, effectively defeated in its
objectives, just as it is about to withdraw from Afghanistan,
similarly defeated in its objectives, and as it withdrew back in the
1970's from Vietnam defeated in its objectives, the Government in
Iraq is dominated by Shia Clerical-fascists, closely tied to Iran,
and the Sunni minority is marginalised. The same Sunni jihadist
forces that are backed by Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf tyrannies,
which have intervened in Libya, which are now intervening in Syria,
whose co-thinkers are already knocking on the door in Egypt, are now
once again increasing their sectarian attacks against Shia
populations in Iraq.
This is part
of a growing Civil War across the region, which takes the form of a
religious war between Shia and Sunni, but, just as was the case with
the English Civil War, is merely a religious cover, for very real
economic and material divisions between classes contending for power.
Here it is the ruling class of Iran, Iraq and Syria backed by
Russian and Chinese Imperialism, against the ruling class of the Gulf
Monarchies, of Jordan, and of Egypt backed by US and European
Imperialism.
Nor can the
economic and material interests of Turkey be disregarded in this
respect. Europe, as MENA developed, particularly along the southern
shore of the Mediterranean, was attempting to draw in those economies
as it had done with the Balkans 20 years earlier. The debt Crisis in
Europe has held that process back over the last couple of years.
Meanwhile, Turkey with its growing economy, and its turning away from
Europe, has the potential to establish its own important economic
relations with the Islamist Governments in Egypt and elsewhere.
An analysis
viewed in these materialist terms that sees reality not as occurring
within discrete blocks of time, but as unfolding as part of a
complex, and continuous process of development, with many
interconnected strands demonstrates what is wrong with the policy of
liberal interventionism, advocated, or at least not opposed, by the
liberals and opportunists. After its defeat in Vietnam, US
imperialism was significantly set back. The confidence it had had
from WWII on to intervene, such as in Korea, was shattered. That did
not mean that it ceased to intervene, but that the intervention was
forced to assume other forms. In place of open military
intervention, CIA covert actions, and various other forms of dirty
war were adopted. Mercenaries were supported, various means of
encouraging chaos, so as to support the emergence of a strong man to
bring order were used. This could descend to ridiculous levels as
with the Iran-Contra Affair
during which the CIA provided arms to Iran in return for Iran arming
the Nicaraguan Contras.
In fact, it
was the ability of the US to once again engage in overt military
action against sovereign states under the cover of UN approval, on
the basis of liberal interventionism, which paved the way for it to
once again engage in overt military action against states without UN
approval as it did in Iraq. It is the fact that Imperialism has been
able to intervene under the cover of liberal interventionism that has
left it confident to intervene via the not very disguised use of
proxies in Libya and Syria, a strategy it will no doubt adopt in
Iraq, and Iran, and if it is successful, may well feel confident to
employ elsewhere to obtain its strategic interests including in Latin
America, Asia, the Caucuses etc. Already, the US, concerned about
the growing influence of China in Africa, is warning African States
about those links, and demonstrating clearly what it sees as being
its future relations with China, has begun moving the bulk of its
naval and military power into the Pacific. There is no shortage of
clerical-fascist forces in Asia, along with those
clerical-landlordist forces that stand behind the demands for
independence for Tibet, which could be used to cause problems for
China, just as jihadist forces have caused problems for Russia. When
such forces attack western Imperialism and its allies, they are, of
course, “terrorists”, as the AWL recently described the Kurdish
PKK, whereas when they attack the enemies of western imperialism,
they are “freedom fighters” or “rebels”, and even
“revolutionaries”, no matter how reactionary they might be.
Of course,
for a Marxist, there is no reason to support either Western
Imperialism or Russian or Chinese Imperialism in any of these
strategic battles, carried out either openly or via their proxies.
Nor should we provide the cloak of revolution for any of these
reactionary forces that, in reality, are enemies of the working
class, and frequently act either as proxies of Imperialism, or of
regional powers within these disputes. Our focus is the furtherance
of the real revolutionary forces within these areas, the
organisations of the working class, in opposition to these
reactionary rebel forces. That is not to say, in opposing these
reactionary rebel forces, we are not hostile to the existing
reactionary regimes either. Of course, Marxists want to see the
removal of regimes such as that of Assad, or Gaddafi, just as they
wanted to see the end of the Turkish regime in the Balkans.
But, as
Trotsky wrote in that regard, when he opposed the attitude of the
liberals and opportunists, who were the liberal interventionists of
his day, we are not indifferent about how the downfall of these
regimes is brought about! As he wrote, the fact that we want to
remove these regimes, does not lead us, as the opportunists do, to
criticise the atrocities of the existing regime, whilst remaining
quiet about the atrocities committed by its opponents!
In their
normal manner as epigones, the AWL have misused the statements by
Trotsky over the Balkan Wars to support their own opportunist
politics. They have argued, for example, that there is no reason to
oppose imperialist intervention if that intervention results in
something we ourselves desire, for example, the overthrow of some
vile regime. Trotsky completely rejects this opportunist approach,
which was adopted in relation to the Balkans by the liberal Miliukov.
Trotsky wrote,
“' And
yet, after all, the overthrow of Turkish rule over the Slavs is a
progressive fact,' says Mr. Miliukov, defending his attitude.
Undoubtedly
it is. But it is not at all a matter of indifference by what methods
this emancipation is being accomplished. The method of “liberation”
that is being followed today means the enslavement of Macedonia to
the personal regime in Bulgaria and to Bulgarian militarism; it
means, moreover, the strengthening of reaction in Bulgaria itself.
That positive, progressive result which history will, in the last
analysis, extract from the ghastly events in the Balkans, will suffer
no harm from the exposures made by Balkan and European democracy; on
the contrary, only a struggle against the usurpation of history's
tasks by the present masters of the situation will educate the Balkan
peoples to play the role of superseding not only Turkish despotism
but also those who, for their own reactionary purposes, are, by their
own barbarous methods, now destroying that despotism...
Our
agitation, on the contrary, against the way that history's problems
are at present being solved, goes hand in hand with the work of the
Balkan Social Democrats. And when we denounce the bloody deeds of
the Balkan 'liberation' from above we carry forward the struggle not
only against liberal deception of the Russian masses but also against
enslavement of the Balkan masses.” (Trotsky: The Balkan Wars
1912-13, pp 293-4)
Could there
be a clearer refutation of the ideas of liberal interventionism, and
of the approach of the liberals and opportunists of the AWL type?
Trotsky's
analysis here is precisely that of a Marxist, examining the
underlying material conditions, and recognising the
interconnectedness of reality. On the same basis of his analysis
above, he would have had no difficulty in understanding the way such
intervention strengthens the reactionary feudal regimes of the Gulf,
or strengthens reaction within the Imperialist states themselves.
But, for the same reasons, it strengthens reaction in those countries
like Iran, which can point to that intervention as the basis of an
external threat to their own independence. Nor would Trotsky have
failed to point out that such intervention represents a “liberal
deception” of the Arab Masses.
Marxists
have no reason to defend the existing regimes, any more than they did
to defend the Turkish regime in the Balkans. They have no reason to
deny its own atrocities, but as Trotsky sets out here, as part of
setting out the reactionary nature of the intervention, we have a
duty to expose the atrocities of the interventionists and their
allies too. Those atrocities committed in Iraq, and Afghanistan have
become increasingly documented. But, the same kind of atrocities
have been committed in Libya where “liberation from above”
literally involved around 30,000 bombing runs, including the use of
depleted uranium munitions, which killed around 30,000 people
immediately, and will lead to the deaths of thousands more in years
to come. In Syria, the advanced weapons, probably including depleted
uranium munitions, supplied to the rebel forces, has similarly resulted in
thousands of deaths already, and humanitarian organisations like the
Red Cross and Human Rights Watch have documented many atrocities
committed by the clerical-fascist rebel forces. At this moment,
those forces are threatening to execute dozens of Iranian prisoners
in their custody.
 |
| The Battle of Cable Street demonstrated how workers need to organise en masse, and rely on their own forces, against those of the fascists and the Capitalist State, not engage in silly adventures with miniscule forces, which then rely on the Capitalist State to intervene from above to rescue them. |
Instead of
providing a basis for building a real, revolutionary, working class
movement of opposition to reactionary regimes, the liberal
interventionists and opportunists like their predecessors during the
Balkan Wars, do the very opposite. And, when those forces, or the
imperialists themselves commit atrocities, then like the liberals and
opportunists during the Balkan Wars, they keep quiet about it, and
apologise for it, as the AWL did in relation to Libya, for instance.
The AWL have quoted the statement by Trotsky,
“An
individual, a group, a party, or a class that ‘objectively’ picks
its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless
people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it
is still alive”.
But, as with
many of their quotes used to justify their positions, this statement
is taken out of context, chopped and bowdlerised to misrepresent its
meaning. The AWL present this statement as a justification for
supporting, or not opposing, intervention against brutal regimes.
But, what Trotsky was saying was the exact opposite! In fact,
Trotsky was attacking not the atrocities of the existing Turkish
regime in the Balkans, the existence of which he did not deny, but
precisely the approach of Miliukov, and other such liberals, who ONLY
attacked the atrocities committed by the existing Turkish regime, and
failed to condemn the atrocities committed by the opponents of that
regime, and of the imperialist forces that stood behind them!
As was seen
in the earlier quote in which he opposed such intervention from
outside to bring about “liberation from above”, Trotsky
was far from believing that these forces could simply be allowed to
intervene without socialists opposing it, and opposing the atrocities
they committed. In the part of that particular quote, which the AWL
conveniently omit, Trotsky goes on to say,
 |
| In preparing their defence of Imperialist intervention against Serbia, the AWl and other liberal interventionists, pointed to the undoubted atrocities committed, by the vile Milosevic regime, but remained silent about the atrocities committed against Serbs in the Krajina, and elsewhere. |
If Trotsky's
quote here were to be used at all to provide a guide to what we
should protest in Libya, Syria etc. it is that we should be loudly
protesting and condemning the actions of Imperialism and its allies,
which, “drunk with blood”, massacres defenceless people by
the use of its massive military firepower. More importantly, as was
the case with the Balkans War, and development into World War I, it
is the unintended consequences of such intervention that Marxists
must warn against. World War I was described as a war to end all
wars. It wasn't. World War III would be, but for wholly different
reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment