03.10.2001

Against Blair-Bush - Against Taliban terror

Fight on two fronts

The west is devising a new style of war for the new, post-Soviet world order. Its ?global war against terrorism? is in effect an attempt to exercise imperialist hegemony over the whole world. All opponents and critics are to be damned as the enemy of civilisation - whether they be islamic fundamentalists, anarchistic ?anti-globalisers? or internationalist leftwingers.

Tony Blair made this perfectly clear in his Tuesday address to the truncated Labour Party conference at Brighton (Thursday sees the emergency ?debate? in the House of Commons). Not for nothing did The Guardian?s parliamentary sketch-writer and wag, Simon Hoggart, entitle his article on the speech, ?Field-Marshall Blair rallies the troops for war - on socialism? (October 3).

?Let us reorder the world,? Blair declared, adding that we need dignity - ?from the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan?. After condemning anti-American ?prejudice? wherever it is found, Blair issued a threat to the counterrevolutionary regime in Kabul: ?As for the Taliban, they can surrender the terrorists, or face the consequences and again in any action the aim will be to eliminate their military hardware, cut off their finances, disrupt their supplies, target their troops - not civilians.?

Naturally, war does not come cheap. Given that the world now faces ?a time of adversity?, chancellor Gordon Brown has warned that millions may have to face higher taxes (primarily through national insurance contributions, it seems). This will be to pay for Labour?s spending programme if the economy slows down dramatically following the attacks on New York and Washington.

Significantly, Blair also chose this moment to make enthusiastic noises about a referendum on the euro: ?Britain needs its voice strong in Europe and, bluntly, Europe needs a strong Britain, rock solid in our alliance with the USA, yet determined to play its full part in shaping Europe?s destiny.?

This was no coincidence of course. The drive to euro entry can now be presented as a natural complement to the ?war against terrorism?. It is all about ?community?. Blair is banking on the fact that in the post-September 11 world the case for single European currency will be easier to advance as part of imperialist international cooperation.

The United States continues its strategic task of ?alliance-building?. As with everything, the key to what imperialism would consider a successful resolution of this crisis lies in politics - not B-52s and cruise missiles. From a strictly military viewpoint, the ?solution? is easy. The US could technically blast the Taliban regime - and hence by default bin Laden and his Al Qa?eda militants - out of existence. Literally. But Bush is smart enough - or at least his advisers are - to realise that such a ?terminator? approach would deeply alienate, to put it mildly, the Arab and muslim world, and end up creating far bigger problems.

This throws up the supreme importance of bringing Israel into line. The Jewish state?s continued oppression of the Palestinians is a constant threat to the global coalition. Hence Bush?s surprise announcement that, ?The idea of a Palestinian state has always been part of a vision, so long as the right of Israel to exist is respected.? Offering wise advice to imperialism, The Guardian commented: ?For if this crisis has crystallised one single reality, it is that the Palestinian struggle, not anti-American terrorist conspiracy, is seen as the primary, legitimate battlefront by Arab peoples and leaders alike? (October 2).

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, is now hotfooting it around Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt and Uzbekistan. All valuable potential pawns in the war against terrorism. In Jordan, the press is quoting King Abdullah to the effect that he has been told by US officials that Iraq - at least for now - has been removed from the American target list. An explicit move to allay Arab/muslim anxieties as to the US?s intentions.

But the big political headache for imperialism is dealing with Afghanistan. It seems almost certain that the first wave of attacks will come from the air and will target bin Laden?s camps attempting to knock out the command centres and any air fighting capacity possessed by his Taliban hosts. This will probably be followed by the unleashing of US-led special forces. These could retain a heavy presence in the region for years - striking whenever necessary against ?terrorism?. So maybe they are saving Iraq for later. However, this in no way confronts the question of who will rule in a post-Taliban Afghanistan ? the Northern Alliance? The ageing former king?

Trying to resolve this dilemma, various diplomatic-political shenanigans are in progress. This week a deal was struck in Rome between representatives of the Northern Alliance/United Front and the ex-monarch, the 86-year-old Mohammad Zahiur Shah. Purportedly, this will see the establishment of a de facto government. Under the terms of the accord, the two parties stated that a ?supreme council for national unity? would shortly convene a traditional grand assembly of Afghan leaders and elect a new head of state. Haron Amin, the NA?s representative in Washington, said his organisation wanted to see a ?free Afghanistan? and would support the exiled king as a ?unifying figure?.

In reality setting up such a regime is deeply problematical - especially when it comes to the ethnic question. The Taliban forces are overwhelmingly Pashtun, which constitutes the largest ethnic group. The NA, on the other hand, are drawn from the minority ethnic groups - mainly the Tajik and the Uzbek. The fact that the ex-king himself is a Pashtun will hardly help to cancel out this ethnic rivalry or imbalance.

Pakistan - a central player in this unfolding crisis - has expressed strong objections to the idea of a Northern Alliance government on such grounds. Its support for the Taliban regime was partially based on the fact that the main ethnic group in Pakistan is Pashtun. The NA has ties to the India government, which only increases the military regime?s nervousness. On top of that, Pakistan is facing the potential prospect of millions of extra Afghan refugees flooding over the border - many potential saboteurs and subversives.

Therefore, the US is ?recalibrating? its strategy towards the Northern Alliance - which is asking for $50 million a month in covert US funding. But something has to be done relatively soon - before the gap between word and deed becomes too great and domestic public opinion starts to slip away.

On the home front repressive legislation is in the can - even if there has been a cooling of the idea of compulsory ID cards. Interestingly, Blunkett?s speech on Wednesday announced the government?s intention to extend ?hate crime? legislation so as to incorporate religious discrimination. Many muslim leaders have long complained that the Race Relations Act does not specifically cover religious believers - ie, islam. This, naturally, is all part of the UK state?s official anti-racism and institutionalised multiculturalism and - now - its imperialist war drive, for which it is advisable  to win over - or at least neutralise - domestic muslim opinion.

However, Blunkett?s proposed ?anti-hatred? legislation points to a truth which the left should take note of. In some respects, the war planned by Bush et al is a near ideal representation of the rearticulated bourgeois ideology of anti-racism. Only an idiot could fail to notice that both Bush and Blair have gone out of their way to reassure their ?own? muslims, and ethnic minorities in general. Meeting innumerable ?community leaders?. Visiting mosques. Giving speeches praising the civilised, and shared, values of the Koran and the Bible - and bemoaning how the bin Ladens of this world have ?corrupted? islam, and so on. Not to mention the furious condemnation of Silvio Berlusconi for his reported comments that western christian civilisation was superior to islam and all its works.

Therefore, it was plain embarrassing that the streets of Brighton on Sunday reverberated to daft slogans like, ?We don?t want your racist war?, as the left marched to protest outside the Labour Party conference. Exactly who is being ?racist? towards whom? Such empty phrasemongery and moralism - based on sheer ideological nonsense - makes the anti-war movement and the left look stupid.

Of course, in at atmosphere of war fever all manner of ignorance and prejudice will rise to the surface  - which can lead to violent attacks on perceived national enemies. Naturally, some of these attacks will also have a degree of racist motivation to them. But it is absurd to imply that such racists are in some way taking their ?orders? from either Bush or Blair. The left remains wilfully blind to the true nature of mainstream bourgeois ideology. Politically this disables us.

As does pacifism in all its guises. Alarmingly, the anti-war movement is awash in a sea of pacifistic sentiment - the ?hospitals, not bombs? line. From the Morning Star to The Socialist, to Socialist Worker you have the unified chorus of - ?Welfare, not warfare?. How depressing.

Instinctive social-pacifism has seen the left chase the CND so that it can hide itself behind a respectable front - to the point where it is sometimes almost impossible to tell who is the ?revolutionary socialist? and who is the peace-loving CND member.

The view of Carol Naughton, chairwoman of CND, that ?we need to look to the United Nations?, and that ?we cannot look to more violence?, is a recipe for disaster. The voice of the working class must separate itself from the middle class peaceniks. Yet both the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party are happy to lend uncritical left support to CND and pacifist forces (a lot of which, incidentally, suffer from a quite unpleasant, narrow, chauvinistic anti-Americanism).

It should be self-evident that communists are for fighting for peace using the most revolutionary methods objective circumstances allow. But what might begin as pure propaganda must seek resolution in the deed. Look at Afghanistan itself. The Taliban is not a popular-based regime - they hold onto power primarily through the use of terror. Fear rules Kabul. Resentment is deep. Opponents will inevitably find their opportunity as the Taliban regime starts to disintegrate under the pressure of the imperialist campaign.

This raises the prospect of urban insurrection. Good. Progressives, secularists and democrats should use the impending war as a golden opportunity to overthrow the counterrevolutionary Taliban regime - not to declare some ?anti-imperialist? truce with their oppressors. The idea mooted by some, thankfully small, left groups that the downtrodden Afghan masses - and the oppressed throughout the world - should form some sort of ?military bloc? with the Taliban is obscene. We must fight on two fronts.

Similarly if Blair or Bush are hit by unforeseen difficulties, that will give workers in Britain and the US their opportunity. That is why the Socialist Alliance needs to break from social-pacifism. It needs to stop tailing peaceniks and peacemongers and reject ?left? liberalism. We have to stress that communists and revolutionary socialists are as equally opposed to imperialist peace as we are to imperialist war. Under imperialism war and peace are two sides of the same coin. This is the message that the SA needs to be shouting out loudly and clearly.

Eddie Ford