20.12.2001

Political weaknesses exposed

On December 11, around 80 people attended a public debate, organised by the London Socialist Alliance, at Conway Hall. The subject - ‘War in Afghanistan: right or wrong?’ David Aaronovitch, journalist for The Independent and former leading Eurocommunist, spoke in support of the war; he was opposed by Mike Marqusee for the LSA.

Comrade Marqusee spoke first, and gave a wide-ranging presentation of an anti-war position that, in keeping with the comrade’s own political views, was from a frankly civil-libertarian and ethical perspective. While quite correctly condemning the September 11 attacks as “inexcusable atrocitiesâ€Â, he spoke at length about those elements of international law that the United States has ignored since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, about the standards of proof necessary before declaring war.

He spoke of the double standards of the United States and its allies regarding human life, with the lives of those killed in the US deemed to be worth more than the lives of the people of Afghanistan, for instance. He pointed out that the grounds on which the US attacked Afghanistan - that it was harbouring people who had allegedly committed criminal acts against other states - could also have been applied to such cases as the United States’ own covert sponsorship of terrorism against Nicaragua in the 1980s, or against Ireland and the United States vis-à -vis the latitude given to Irish republicans during the troubles, or many other cases.

Rather appropriately quoting the view of a school student - “If the United States makes itself the world’s policeman, then who will police the US?â€Â - comrade Marqusee pointed to the various “unsavouryâ€Â regimes throughout the world who were trying to jump on the bandwagon of the US-British ‘war against terrorism’, to aid them in crushing those they oppress, from Israel with the Palestinians, to Russia with Chechnya, to even Mugabe’s attempts to crush the opposition in Zimbabwe.

He pointed to the suffering of Afghan civilians, the 1,500 or so reported deaths that can be gleaned from reading the British press alone, the massacre at Mazar-i-Sharif, the fact that aid is being obstructed by the military action of the US and its allies. And he asserted that the promises of aid by the US were worthless, noting that the US federal government has already broken its promises of $20 billion worth of aid to New York after September 11 - after that anyone who thinks Afghanistan would stand a chance is obviously dreaming.

David Aaronovitch’s presentation in response was a textbook example of liberal military ‘humanitarianism’, as he would no doubt be pleased to hear. He began by quoting Tony Blair’s dictum that this conflict had three elements: military, diplomatic and humanitarian. Militarily, the goal was obviously to crush al Qa’eda and thus stop any further September 11s. Aside from the obvious nature of the coalition-building diplomacy surrounding this war, for Aaronovitch the ‘humanitarian’ element involved “dealing with the conditions that breed support for al Qa’edaâ€Â: he particularly referred to Israel/Palestine.

He went on to accuse the anti-war movement of refusing to take responsibility for its own pronouncements, and the consequences they would allegedly lead to - more terrorist attacks, in his view. He asserted, credibly, that enough evidence exists to pin responsibility for the destruction of the World Trade Center on al Qa’eda.

Aaronovitch went on to elaborate his own conversion to military liberalism around the atrocity in Srebrenica in 1995, the slaughter in Rwanda and latterly Sierra Leone, arguing that the consequences of western military intervention against Milosevic over Kosova has been “entirely benignâ€Â. He asserted that, far from the crime being western intervention, in some cases for him the crime is not to intervene, that intervention by imperialism was in many situations the only way to prevent various kinds of atrocity, and should therefore be advocated. He freely admitted to “doubtsâ€Â about whether the suffering caused by such wars outweigh the alleged benefits.

The discussion that followed the two presentations was pretty one-sided in that it was exclusively dominated by opponents of the war - brother Aaronovitch obviously sees debate with the anti-war movement as a personal endeavour related to his leftist past. His compatriots in the bourgeois mainstream evidently do not share his inclination to debate, which says something about Aaronovitch’s illusions in the ‘progressive’ potential of such ‘humanitarian’ militarism. Since the anti-war movements have thus far failed to gain the allegiance of real social forces, of the working class itself, the mainstream supporters of imperialism are only compelled to directly debate with socialist anti-war elements when they encounter the odd leftist celebrity on TV talk-shows. It has to be said that some at least of the debate at the meeting underlined why the bourgeoisie does not bother to debate with the anti-war movement (or, conversely, feel threatened enough to attempt to witch-hunt it in any serious way).

The first floor speaker, from the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, largely confined his remarks to a polemic against David Aaronovitch’s illusions in the UN and US imperialism - he pointed to the contradiction between the reality of the war - involving the use of military tribunals, summary execution and even an agitation in the US for openly state sanctioned use of torture, with the ‘new moral agenda’ pushed by Aaronovitch. A young Asian woman speaker, sounding otherwise quite naive and patrician, managed to make one telling point: that the US ‘war against terrorism’ will not defeat terrorism, simply because it will reinforce the hatreds that gave rise to September 11 in the first place.

A Socialist Workers Party comrade pointed out, in response to the Aaronovitch view that imperialist military action had progressive consequences in Serbia, that it was the working people of Serbia that had overthrown Milosevic, not the western powers. In a way, this tried to prove too much, especially given the pro-Serb nationalist stance the SWP took in 1999, failing to champion the Kosovar struggle for self-determination during the war for fear of seeming to line up with imperialism. It certainly is true that the engine of the overthrow of Milosevic was ordinary Serbian people; however, it was the defeat of Milosevic’s regime in war that opened up the possibility of that overthrow. One did not need to be a supporter of Nato’s deceitful ‘humanitarian’ war to notice that.

The comrade’s observation, like so many arguments used by the left, is only a half-truth, and leaves us open to ridicule at the hands of pro-war liberals like Aaronovitch. As indeed did the contribution of prominent SWP cadre Paul Holborrow, whose angry anti-war speech, replete with militant anti-war demands, included the Arab nationalist call for a “democratic secular Palestineâ€Â. Brother Aaronovitch noted that this demand leaves no room for any national rights of Israeli Jews - something that may not particularly bother those influenced by the softness on Arab nationalism prevalent on the left, but which appears to many ordinary people to have a genocidal logic.

And indeed, comrade Holborrow’s complaint that Aaronovitch did not use his speech to denounce poverty in Britain and the US, that money should be spent on welfare and not warfare, was dismissed by the speaker as irrelevant to the debate - if he had been asked to speak about the NHS, he would have done so. The argument itself is economistic and, in the face of the imperialist pretence of going out and fighting ‘humanitarian’ wars, sounds to many ears suspiciously like a form of national selfishness - if only our rulers weren’t spending money on ‘foreigners’ and their wars, we could have a better standard of living at home.

This will cut little ice with people who are convinced by the imperialists’ arguments on the terrain of high politics - most people place the security of life and limb, as they perceive them, and also questions of political democracy at home and abroad, above ‘economic’ questions. The prerequisite for waging an effective struggle around ‘economic’ questions is a convincing refutation of imperialism’s ‘democratic’ pretensions on the level of politics, of democracy itself, which does not belong to the bourgeoisie, but to workers and the oppressed. As a second AWL speaker argued (against heckling) later in the discussion, criticising the record of much of the left in cheering for ‘anti-imperialist’ despots from Galtieri to Milosevic to the Taliban, “Unless the left takes up issues of democracy and justice, it will be marginalised.â€Â

CPGB supporter Marcus Larsen attacked Aaronovitch’s “pessimistic, despairing view of the worldâ€Â and pointed to the “moral mazeâ€Â of liberalism, seeking to reorder the world through the agency of the great powers. He noted that David Aaronovitch was right in saying that we must be “morally sureâ€Â of our views on just and unjust wars, and that the world is interdependent and all such issues should be approached, as Aaronovitch had stated, on the basis of “human solidarityâ€Â. But he questioned the content of this “human solidarityâ€Â, noting that Aaronovitch’ s version of it was alienated: that it came from above, and not from below - from real solidarity.

In this regard, he noted that comrade Aaronovitch, for all his talk of such things, was not proposing the west should bring “human solidarityâ€Â to the people of Saudi Arabia, for example. He criticised the “great weaknessâ€Â of the anti-war movement for simply saying ‘Stop the war’ without addressing issues of democracy and secularism, and for its refusal to directly address the issue of islamic fundamentalism.

Comrade Tina Becker (CPGB) expanded on this, pointing out that the legalistic arguments around ‘proof’ of the responsibility of bin Laden for September 11 disarmed us: what if proof is produced? We must be careful not to appear in the Taliban camp, nor must we fall for ‘lesser evilism’ - the Taliban was a reactionary movement funded originally by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the US-backed interim government will no more bring democracy and secularism than the Taliban.

Other speakers of note included Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group, who predicted that since Bush has concluded that ‘bombing works’, there will be much more of it, the only question being ‘when?’

The summaries from the speakers covered little new ground. Aaronovitch called for an enquiry into the killings of Taliban/al Qa’eda fighters at Mazar-i-Sharif, and expressed his faith that Afghanistan would not be abandoned to its fate by the imperialists: “If I am proved wrong, then call me a silly bastard.â€Â

Comrade Marqusee expressed distaste at criticisms by the AWL and CPGB of the mainstream positions of the anti-war movement, especially its political softness on islamic fundamentalism. He defended his own civil libertarian orientation and focus on formal legality in his anti-war writings and oratory with a brusque statement to the effect that in a period of war when civil liberties are under such attack, you cannot be too meticulous over civil rights and liberties. Which is of course true, but misses the point about the coherence of political argument against the war and the need for our own answers to the very real reactionary threat to ordinary people, at ‘home’ and in the muslim world, posed by the islamic ultra-right.

All in all, the debate was a useful endeavour for the SA, in debating with a prominent ‘left’ supporter of the war, but it also underlined the enormous distance that we still have to travel.

Ian Donovan