File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0111, message 94


From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: AUT: Re: More thoughts on war and self-determination and states
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:18:11 +0100



-----Original Message-----
From: cwright <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Date: 8. november 2001 3:19
Subject: AUT: More thoughts on war and self-determination and states


Chris writes::
"I am not for supporting the Taliban, as many Leninists are
calling for."

If this is true, it only goes to show the complete level of absurdity
they have reached. Unsurpisingly it also shows how they've
emptied the concept of self determination of any contents. Taliban
may be about many things but self-determination is something
they utterly oppose. What is next support for the Ku-Klux-Klan. It
seems to be the only ting left that Leninist have not supported.

There is something essentially wrong in the way you pose the
questions, I think. Why make things that are simple difficult. In
the case of Afganistan the easy thing is to know who to be against:
The Pentagon,Taliban, Afghan-Arabs, Northern Alliance war-lords,
religious parties, the governments of Pakistan and other neig-
bourhood states, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc..  Plague on all their
houses. The real question is who we can support. The only
organised force of some significance on the ground working
towards a greater degree of self-determination – a lower level
of oppression and exploitation – is as far as I know, the RAWA.
We must globalise our struggle both when it comes to seeking
out allies and enemies.

[The funny thing when it comes to Afganistan is that that among
the contenders for power, the king might very well be the most
progressive force.]

Full self-determination can only exist within the context of
anarchism/lfree communism: These are social relations that by
defintion cannot be imposed. What we should be talking about
now is degrees of self-determination versus degrees
of oppression and exploitation.

As for military annexations there is nothing to discuss. I have
hard to see why you bring it up. As an anarchist I have aways
taken it for granted that freedom cannot be imposed. Neither
do such annexations seem to be much on the agenda today,
with the possible exception of Israeli settler colonialism.

The question of past annexations is interesting. For what do
you include in defining these? Do you count in the movement
of people which generally, if not always, throughout history
have accompanied conquests? In case, I am certainly opposed
to sending all arabs back to the Arab Peninsula, of throwing
all Turks out of Turkey, or Slavs out of what used to constitute
Yugoslavia...  Yes I am generally all for letting history be history.
I am certainly opposed to the ongoing Israeli settler
colonialism, even if it is certainly historically true that jews
lived in what today is called Palestine prior to arabs, if you
just go long enough back in history.

Again, I do not think the term right is of much use in these
questions. As for Afghanistan there is one think we can be pretty
certain of, it is very unlikely that out of the present situation there
will emerge anything even close to self-determination with or
without US intervention. We can support forces like the RAWA,
who work for lesser degrees of oppression and exploitation
and a greater degree of self-determination. Realistically, given
the weakness of the anti-war movement, the best Afghans can
hope for now is a short a war as possible, which translates
into the sooner the defeat of the Taliban the better. For the
working classes of other countries that "harbour terrorist" the
opposite might be true. As such the current anti-war movement
must be seen as a movement to prevent the next war to
happen. We might have a better change here, as even Blair
does not seem to happy about the thought, and we have more
time to build up a momentum.

                                            * * *

You ask: "Does our position as member of the annexed territory
or the annexing state matter?" Not to what political positions to
take. As always, somethings are seen better from within other
things better from without, which makes a great case for critical
dialogue.

Of course the length of time may matter. It does not make much
sense to wage a stuggle for the breaking up of France, Italy,
Norway, India, Pakistan or Iraq today, for instance. Or for the
Norwegian state to reclaim parts of Sweden. Luckily, anybody
who suggested this, would be met with laughter. But these
things must be viewed concretely. At times it might make sense
to pose the question of autonomy, and on a more general level:
a greater degree of political decentralisation. The latter pro-
bably would make sense within Russia, rather than reactionary
nationalism.

All states have been created through the use of force. There
are no natural borders, only imposed ones. They are all artifical.
Those who come closest to having natural borders are
islands like Island.

The whole set of questions can be posed in terms of what
brings more freedom, less oppression and exploitation, more
power to the working classes.

You ask "what is the real reason for the current conflict?" If you
with that mean why bombs are now falling over Afghanistan the
answer remains September 11. I do not understand why it is
so hard to accept the obvious. Just as it obvious that the US
will use the opportunity to advance a wider geopolitical agenda.
Then you can go on to question why the September 11, which
is an interesting question? Or why the United States of America
is what it is? You can also say that the answer to all these
questions and many more is capitalism. But what really would
have been sensational, given September 11, was if bombs
were not today falling over Afghanistan. Why some talk as if
September 11 never happened is a case for psycologists.
We must build a movement against the "war on terrorism" on
the basis that the twin towers were turned into a graveyard
not on illusions and not on the stupefying repetion of old slogans.

We will support people on the basis of what they are fighting
for not who they are fighting against. To choice between pest
and cholera is not a question, it is a trap.

Harald













     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005