Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:33:15 +0100 (MET) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: 1/3 Rwanda - comparing "Ang's" document to VP, '94 1/3 Rwanda - comparing "Ang's" document to VP, '94 [Posted: 07.12.96] Part 1/3: INTRODUCTION - i.a. on "Who can be trusted?" The document on Rwanda posted in 4 parts by Ang to this list on 04.12 was a valuable contribution and I at least learned several things from it that I didn't know before. It brings forward some aspects of the present conflict and of history which no doubt need to be taken into account. Nevertheless, I think that the (implicit, as different from the stated) conclusions of that document, an article by Barry Crawford (BC for short), Africa Direct, London, in the main are *not* correct. I've tried to check out what it's saying by comparing this to what was stated in some 1994 issues of "Partisan", organ of the Voie Prolétarienne (VP), France, in the first place, and to what has been said about recent events by "solidaire", the weekly of the Parti du Travaille de Belgique (PTB), and by (openly) bourgeois media, in the second place. Here I shall compare BC's article above all to what the VP said in 1994. The question here of course arises, as in many other places: Whom should you trust as a source of information? I hold, as before, that the answer must be: In general, practically nobody. This includes also those organizations existing today that call themselves "Marxist" - at least those existing here in Europe and for instance in the USA. Experience has shown that they to a greater or lesser extent in reality are controlled by some bourgeois forces or other, and not seldom are saying what is in the interest of reaction in the world, today led above all by US imperialism. I've come to see this during, and largely because of, a long-time close association with a party that once was genuinely Marxist-Leninist, i.e. really did its best to represent the interests of the great majority of people, the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) in Germany (since the late 1980:s, unfortunately, likewise a *phoney*"Marxist" party). A party's stated adherence to Mao Zedong Thought ("Maoism"), with its rejection of modern revisionism as represented above all by the social-imperialist Soviey Union of yesterday, of course is a first requirement for its being trustworthy, but is not sufficient either. There are phonies camouflaging themselves with such a - purported - standpoint too. As for the Voie Prolétarienne, it does state that it's for the ideology of Mao Zedong. But on some points it opposes it, for instance by opposing nuclear energy, which is a completely anti-Marxist standpoint and one which actually suits ultra-reaction to a tee. (Only in part can such a standpoint, by an organization stating its adherence to Marxism, be explained by ignorance.) So when below I'm reporting what it said on Rwanda in 1994, such a general reservation concerning the character of the VP should be borne in mind. Both the VP and the PTB of course are organizations in countries, France respectively Belgium, which historcially have had ties with (parts of) Africa, because of the whole history of colonialism and imperialism, which the country I'm writing from, Sweden, never has had, and therefore, it's logical that they have writers with much more direct knowledge of some African countries than have I and others here. It will at least be of interest to hear what these writers have to say. One of them is the chairman of the PTB, my namesake (no relation) Ludo Martens, from whose earlier writings Barry Crawford in his article also quotes on a couple of points. But the PTB, at least today, in direct contradiction to BC, squarely supports the present government in Rwanda, that of the RPF in English or FPR in French (which has practically all abbreviations "backwards") - the Front Patriotique de Rwanda. It even calls on people to give money to it, and has invited its ambassador to speak at PTB meetings. I on my part (still) judge that the PTB is basically right in this support and that Barry Crawford's and others' assertion that the FPR is essentially a tool of US and other Western imperialism is incorrect. (See part 1/2 on this.) Recently, the Rwandan government has opposed the proposed "Western" intervention in Congo/Zaire, has (at least in words) welcomed the returning refugees and appears sympathetic to the insurrectionists under Kabila in Congo (eastern Zaire), whose cause I believe is just, as I've stated before, and who for instance were "warned" last Wednesday (04.12) by the US imperialists *not* to create a state of their own, as reported in the media here. This recent "warning" is a fact that seems to confirm what I've been advocating as far as Congo/Zaire is concerned, that the AFDL insurrectionists should be supported (and "Class Struggle" has advocated support of them too, only stressing that it should be condtional support), and to speak against the contention of Karl Carlile, for instance, who judged those rebels mainly to represent the interests of the US imperialists and their allies. In general, when the US and other imperialists "are shifting their allegiance", this may be for three reasons, two of which are basically opposed: 1) They want to contend with other imperialists (and so are backing a/ either some reactionary forces, which is bad for the majority of people in the world of course, or b/ actually some progressive forces, in which case "we're in luck" - as when, for instance, they opposed Hitler fascism and thus in fact gave support to the struggle of the peoples, when the Soviet social- imperialists gave some support to the Vietnamese people fighting their rival US imperialism in the late 1960:s and early 1970:s, or when Nixon went to shake hands with Mao Zedong in 1972 - basically against Soviet social-imperialism, then, which was becoming the most dangerous source of war at that time and was being backed in this by the other group of US imperialists.) [NOTE: On one expression used also by Barry Crawford in his artilce on Rwanda and by many other writers on other subjects, "since the end of the Cold War" - as meaning, one understands, "since approximately 1989-91", I'll make a separate posting, since that expression is so misleading and confusing, concerning recent history and concerning the entire situation in the world today. See subject line: "When did the Cold War end? In 1964, *not* 1989!"] 2) They're backing a reactionary group since the one they were associated with before has become "too progressive" and they now want to combat it. (Bad for the people) 3) They've been *forced* to shift to recognizing the more progressive group, since those (worst) reactionaries which they used to back in fact have been beaten to the extent of their becoming "impossible". (A good thing of course, and similar to the case I called "1)b/" above.) Here in case 3), the imperialists of course are also doing their best to subvert the (more) positive forces and try to draw them over to their side. Anyway, in my judgement - and I'd like to repeat that I'm not all that certain that I'm right - it's case 3) that applies to the present Rwandan government and its being supported (?) or at least accepted by the main imperialist forces of today. In parts 2/3 - 3/3 I shall bring the actual comparison between Barry Crawford's article (the one brought by Ang) and what the writers of the Voie Prolétarienne said in 1994. [Continued in part 2/3] --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005