02.02.2006

Fight for soldiers' rights

Emily Bransom comments on demands by disgruntled British soldiers to form their own 'armed forces federation'

One hundred British soldiers have now been killed in Iraq. The Stop the War Coalition called for protests in city centres to mark this "tragic milestone", whilst defence secretary John Reid announced plans to send up to 6,000 combat troops to Afghanistan by the spring. Yet there is a crisis of recruitment to the armed forces as a result of the unpopular war and disastrous occupation of Iraq, complaints about poor conditions and equipment, and stories of army corruption, bullying and violence.

Against this background lies the significance of the call by soldiers for the formation of an 'armed forces federation' - a proposal that has been met with a mixed response from the establishment. Whilst some within the military have stated that soldiers from all ranks have reached "breaking point", a spokesman from the ministry of defence claimed that there are already a range of avenues available for soldiers to voice their concerns.

The idea was first mooted on an unofficial but influential armed forces website and is described by its supporters as "a specific British solution for the British armed forces" (www.arrse.co.uk).

Calls for some kind of representation for the armed forces personnel have become louder since the invasion of Iraq. Resentment is growing among troops over specific kit and equipment failures that have led to fatal mistakes. The family of a soldier who died in 2003 whilst driving an insufficiently armoured car described him as a "sitting duck". Supplies have been called "a joke" and the shortages "disgraceful".

Currently, complaints are poorly managed by the commanding officer or welfare officer in the barracks. Proposals for a 'more independent' complaints procedure for soldiers are included in the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill. These are pathetically inadequate attempts to placate soldiers, while keeping the lid firmly shut on any notion of democratic rights or collective representation.

Discontent and low morale have been added to by the violence, abuse and humiliation that underlies army training. According to a study by www.bullyingonline.org, soldiers are today 15 times more likely to die in their barracks than in combat. After inquiries into suicides at Deepcut barracks in Surrey, a report revealed a "culture of bullying, harassment, rape and beatings". As a member of a union, a civilian could report this abuse and take advantage of a system of support. Young army recruits, however, do not have this option. They live in a socially and geographically isolated community with no access to independent investigators.

However, from the point of view of the state it is essential that rank and file soldiers have no meaningful internal democratic rights. The nature of the standing army as a killing machine depends on a fixed, authoritarian hierarchy, capable of dehumanising soldiers in order to ensure they will obey without question every command, however much brutality and suffering will result.

In this context the demand even for a tame body akin to the Police Federation of England and Wales, which is banned from engaging in any form of industrial action, would represent a challenge to the status quo. But we must go further, and demand full trade union and democratic rights, the accountability of officers and the right to form soldiers' councils.

Not surprisingly though, a trade union is far from what is being proposed. The provisionally named British Armed Forces Federation would represent the interests of members of the army, navy and air force in everything from welfare to legal matters, but its 10-point document is at pains to emphasise that it "will never condone industrial action". It is not even viewed as a body for ordinary service men and women, but one that would be open to all ranks. Indeed some senior officers see it as a stick with which to beat the government over cuts, poor equipment and even military strategy.

As it stands, the 250,000 men and women in the armed forces are bound by the queen's regulations, which make it illegal for them to enlist in a trade union of any kind. The ministry of defence also prohibits troops from belonging to associations with political activities and, obviously, it is illegal for soldiers to strike.

As communists we are against the standing army and for the armed people. In principle we are totally against the monopoly of arms currently enjoyed by the bourgeoisie. Our slogan is to disarm the ruling class and arm the working class.

The people must have the right to bear arms not only to defend themselves and their institutions, but to have the ability to remove corrupt and dictatorial rulers. This should be a constitutional right, but only a fool would passively wait for some progressive government to come along and grant it. The right to bear arms has to be won.

We favour the formation of workers' militia "¦ and, of course, such a body grows out of the class struggle itself (defending strikes, demonstrations, etc). As our Draft programme explains, "Every opportunity must be used to take even tentative steps towards this goal. As the circumstances allow, the working class must equip itself with the most advanced, most destructive weaponry available" (Draft programme London nd, p12-13).

The use of arms during a mass, democratic revolution is entirely distinguishable from the invasion and occupation of foreign lands in the name of imperialism. A workers' militia is the democratic and organised expression of workers' power. Within it, workers will have their rights protected by trade unions with an elected and accountable leadership. In the immediate aftermath of the creation of the Red Army by the Bolsheviks, the old officer caste system with its privileged hierarchy was abolished and officers themselves were elected. Unfortunately a combination of crisis and degeneration soon led to the return of the old system.

But none of this is in contradiction to our championing of soldiers' rights in the armed forces as they exist in current society. We support every struggle for rights, for democracy, and oppose every act of oppression. In the fight for a socialist society, every step that can be made to empower the masses has to be taken.