Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 05:44:50 -0500 Subject: M-NEWS: Iraq, U.S. imperialism and the call for 'negotiations' Comrades, compas, et ???, What follows is a contribution to a discussion that has been taking place on the Food-Not-Bombs mailing list, but which -- if it isn't -- should be taking place among all anti-imperialists. - Solidarity, - Aaron >Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:06:54 -0800 >To: Aaron <aaron-AT-burn.ucsd.edu>, fnb-l-AT-tao.ca >From: Andrew Rose <arose-AT-macromedia.com> >Subject: negotiation analogy was re: mom's letter > >could you please elaborate a bit about what you would prefer to >'negotiation' or even better what 'anti-war activists' should be asking >for? What do want activists to do? Any negotiation involving the United States rulers in the affairs of Iraq and the 'Middle East' [Southwest Asia] is in itself a victory for U.S. imperialism. Even a consistently anti-imperialist government in Iraq might be coerced into such negotiations because of the power of the U.S. death machine. But for people to call on the U.S. government to 'negotiate' a 'solution' to the 'problem' legitimizes U.S. interference. The job of anti-imperialists is to do as much as possible to make it politically and materially costly for the U.S. to try to impose its will on Iraq or on anybody else. Legitimizing the idea that the U.S. has anything to negotiate there has the opposite effect. Mass demonstrations and various actions to disrupt business-as-usual in the U.S. or by U.S. businesses around the world are also to be encouraged. And -- although as part of the open, legal left I can't involve myself in such things -- I certainly won't be unhappy to see actions take place that the U.S. ruling class labels 'terrorist', especially if those carrying out such actions make an effort to minimize 'collateral damage' to persons who are not responsible for the crimes of imperialism.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005