Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:17:03 +0000
Subject: Re: M-G: No war against Iraq!


I am struck by this post because I think there are real signs that
international communications, including through the web, may be able to
effect change.

Last night the BBC had an interview from Columbus Ohio, and there were
vocal and articulate sounds bites from people opposed to the war. The
overall effect of the bulletin was to relay back to the audience in Britain
that public opinion in the USA is divided. Such an impression is important.

The previous night the massive vote in the British House of Commons was
reported with substantial passages recognising the passion and commitment
of the small number of opponents of war and emphasising that even such an
important supporter of Blair as John Major (!) in his speech warned of the
dangers. The overall impression was that the government had won the vote
but that the debate was at best for them a draw.

It is not clear whether the way this contradiction unfolds is different
from previous ones. There is such emphasis on the fine detail of the
negotiating significance of every move, that this must have an effect. I do
not get the impression that the British press is gung ho for war. War is
presented as a necessary lever for negotiations, and while this has very
often been the case in history, the long drawn out nature of this argument
is recognised as weakening as well as strengthening the imperialist
politics of coercion.

Religious leaders are surfacing with complicated and almost materialist
arguments about what is a just war, that gives grounds for pause. The
impression is emerging that the popular virile stances of Blair and Clinton
may be raising their popularity rating as a gesture, but doubts are
beginning to surface among the great majority about what war actually means.

I am not clear how much marxists are putting a specifically marxist slant
on the opposition. Some groups can condemn imperialism straight out with
propaganda and agitation exposing its purposes. I suspect a fuller analysis
has to recognise that we are moving into a world in which intervention in
other countries internal affairs in increasingly inevitable, and part of
the opposition to imperialism has to be not about the principle but the
imperialist motives of the hegemonic imperialist powers. Thus what needs to
be emphasised in exposing these imperialist motives is the hypocrisy of
trying to "save" the various population groups of Iraq from Saddam Hussain,
while condoning and subsidising massive violations of civil rights in
countries like Israel, Turkey and Algeria. What these countries have in
common is the location on the borders of the developed christian capitalist
world in which contradictions are concentrated particularly sharply. It is
therefore logical that if there is any policy towards them, it should at
the very least be consistent and democratic. 

Whether this war can be stopped or not, the democratic left should be able
to increase effective pressure on imperialist countries and reactionary
regimes, in the course of this struggle.



Chris Burford

London.




At 12:33 AM 2/19/98 +0100, Hugh wrote:
>Yoshie wrote:
>
>>Are there any anti-war actions going on around you? We in Columbus, Ohio,
>>USA, where the bombing of Iraq is being test-marketed like a new brand of
>>breakfast cereal through a mediatized "townhall meeting," held an anti-war
>>rally of about 300 people today. People's spirits were high at the rally,
>>but, alas, probably not (yet?) high enough to mount massive resistance to
>>make this country ungovernable. Next Friday, there will be another rally in
>>front of the Federal Building (at 200 N. High) at 12: 00 noon in Columbus,
>>in case there are any lurkers from Ohio here.
>>
>>My personal thanks go to Justin for showing up at the rally despite being
ill.
>
>This is great news.
>
>What slogans are you putting forward and why?




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---