30.06.2010

State propaganda day

Jim Gilbert looks at the establishment's 'non-political' mobilisation behind the Afghanistan war effort

Armed Forces Day was held on Saturday June 27 this year, the second time that it has been celebrated since its inception in 2009. Ostensibly the date was chosen as closest to the anniversary of the first investiture ceremony for the Victoria Cross, which was held on June 26 1857. Primarily, the day serves as a propaganda vehicle for the state.

Cardiff, which is home to the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Welsh at Maindy Barracks, hosted the main event. But there were also around 300 others in towns and cities around Britain and the Six Counties of Northern Ireland.^[1] Next year the central event is due to be in Edinburgh.

While opposition to the war in Afghanistan may have so far seen fewer on the streets of Britain than over Iraq, tens of thousands have nonetheless demonstrated for troop withdrawal. But the organisation of overtly political marches or demonstrations is not usually the way of mainstream parties and their governments. Instead, by holding an annual event, backed financially and politically by the state, on this newly created Armed Forces Day, they have attempted to garner support for the Afghan war - and for imperialist adventures in general - by more oblique means.

Under the patriotic banner of supporting those thrust into harm’s way - ‘our’ troops - the entire population is supposed to salute a military machine that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, to name but two of the peoples recently fallen victim to British imperialism, as well as hundreds of servicemen and women - the overwhelming majority of whom are, of course, working class.

Set up by the ministry of defence, the Armed Forces Day website bit the propaganda bullet. Its opening page lauds the “current main UK military effort” in Afghanistan: “We are operating there successfully, with lots of other countries, to provide a more stable and secure Afghanistan to help ensure a safer Britain and world.” This is, of course, beyond arguable: it is palpable nonsense. Iraq shows us the kind of stability and security that is all too likely to be in store for Afghanistan under British and US ministrations.

But where were the crowds? Pride of place in The Daily Telegraph was a photo showing a maximum of 50 civilians at the military parade in Cardiff. This accompanied the assertion that, “A 50,000-strong crowd lined the route from Cardiff Castle to Cardiff Bay to watch more than 200 march past ...” (emphasis added).^[2] Even town carnivals at this time of year usually have more than 200 marching. Other pictures from Cardiff show narrowed views of the crowd in Plas Roald Dahl and I have been unable to find any images of the large crowds claimed (50,000 appears to be the consensus).^[3] But the attendance seems to have already been agreed in advance: before it even happened, Saturday’s Daily Express told us: “Over 50,000 people are expected to join a national event in Cardiff ...”^[4] What an amazingly accurate prediction!

In the same article the Telegraph also reported: “In a private speech to troops and their families,” secretary of state for defence Liam Fox said, ‘Let’s silence the negative voices that attack our armed forces, but gladly enjoy the security and freedom our armed forces provide.’” If he meant that those voices should be shamed into silence by sheer force of numbers, then the day was probably not as successful as he would have liked.

The Telegraph went on to quote Fox barking out xenophobic Victorian values: “While those who criticise our armed forces have a right to do so in a democracy, we too, as the moral majority, have a right to take pride in the flag of our nation, an emblem of the freedom we hold dear as the true British patriots, and the freedom that most races, cultures and faiths will aspire to.” Presumably these ‘others’ would aspire to it if only they could grasp what heady heights of cultivation and refinement British civilisation has reached.

Elsewhere, commemorations were far more modest. In the Royal Navy’s own backyard of Portsmouth, for example, only 1,000 veterans and members of the public turned up for a free event in the Historic Dockyard, where entry normally costs £19.50. Indeed, many local newspapers failed to report attendance figures or even the events themselves, despite previously publicising them in their Armed Forces Day editions.

Scepticism about the occasion is not confined to the usual suspects on the left and among peaceniks. As one of the bloggers on the armed forces’ website Army Rumour Service puts it, “Am I being cynical or is this a helpful diversion to draw focus away from the continued debacle in Afghanistan, chronic underfunding and an impending defence review, which we all know will be a series of capability cuts dressed up in a strategic reviews clothes? Let’s not worry about anything serious: the masses love a good party.”^[5]

Some soldiers have taken courageous steps in making a stand against the war in Afghanistan. Lance corporal Joe Glenton of the Royal Logistic Corps was put in a military prison after a farcical court martial for going absent without leave (awol); he argues that the war in Afghanistan is illegal under international law. At any one time, according to ministry of defence statistics, around 1,000 soldiers are considered long-term absentees^[6], or awol. To highlight the Glenton case and the political issues around it, Justice Not Vengeance recently organised a five-day walk from London to Colchester, where Joe Glenton is being held, concluding with a rally outside the prison on our day of publication, Thursday July 1.^[7]

Despite the low turnout on Armed Forces Day, the fact that the bourgeoisie wanted the masses on the streets in the first place speaks volumes. Something has certainly rattled our rulers. It is pretty clear, of course, that polls for some time have pointed out the obvious slippage - nay, chasm - between the governments’ official optimism about Afghanistan and public recognition of the truth. Most of the electorate sees the war in Afghanistan as unwinnable and thinks the troops should come home. There is little or no support for liberal imperialist notions such as nation-building.

For these reasons the establishment called for parades: it is a device to encourage wider backing among the population for ‘their’ armed forces. Most people realised they were being sold a pup. However, that does not take us very far. What this relative failure highlights, however, is how limited is the strategy of the Stop the War Coalition. While STWC no doubt could manage greater turnouts against the war in Afghanistan under particular circumstances, what else can it do? Under its (now former) Socialist Workers Party leadership STWC has turned the movement against the war into a routine of two or three demonstrations a year. The comrades reject the possibility of winning the movement to a particular political strategy, as this would conflict with their popular frontism. What is important is attracting the largest possible numbers and the broadest possible support - which, apparently, precludes the adoption of anything more than minimal agreed slogans appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Under the continuing regime of John Rees and Lindsey German (now Counterfire), STWC persists with this bankrupt, ‘the broader, the better’ policy. This completely blunts the message, since no politician of any stripe positively advocates the death of either troops or civilians or wants the inevitably negative political fallout that goes with it. After all, just a week ago prime minister David Cameron told us he wants the troops out of Afghanistan by the next general election, which could be in 2015.

The problem is that the UK is bound to the USA in this, as in so much else in foreign theatres, due to the special relationship of junior to senior imperialist power. Challenging the UK’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan and calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of British troops challenges the basis of this relationship, which is intimately bound up with the future of the City of London, employing one million, since that only exists as a prime world financial centre thanks to US acquiescence. As the 1960s Wilson government found when it failed to support the USA in Vietnam to the extent demanded, the UK’s economic fragility can easily be exposed should the USA decide not to wrap it to its bosom.

However, campaigning to end not just this war, but war in general, means going a lot further than campaigning against the ‘special relationship’. It means pointing the finger at the system of capital itself. But that is something that Rees, German and co have never done from an STWC platform, whether as SWP members or since. To do so would surely alienate anti-war campaigners who are wedded to capitalism, and where would that leave us? That is not to say that such elements should be excluded, but it is pretty obvious that running a popular front precludes the forceful propagation of socialism by its leaders. Yet war is a class question: it involves challenging the UK state from a standpoint of working class politics.

The left must ditch its class-collaborationist popular frontism and stand forthrightly for a sharply delineated working class fight against the war in Afghanistan.

Notes