The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist

 

War... recession...

We Won't Pay The Price!

WITH BATTLES continuing in Afghanistan and Bush's bellicose threats to Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and other poor nations, it is clear that the war is not over. US bombs are still raining down on Afghan civilians. More refugees are being created and food still not getting to the hungry who need it.

Now, we're told, the world economy is officially in recession. This will affect ordinary working people in this country as well as internationally. Declining tax revenues and growing payments for unemployed workers could leave the Treasury £4 billion short of cash.

Even before this recession the Institute of Fiscal Studies calculated that taxes would have to increase by £4 billion if current spending on health and education was to carry on after 2003.

As usual, we will be expected to pay for a crisis not of our making.

They can always find enough money for war but not for public services. Even if Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) are included, public investment in schools, hospitals, roads etc as a percentage of GDP will only be half the level it was under the Tories in 1985.

And yet, NHS waiting lists are growing. 60% of extra money for the NHS has already been spent with little sign of improvement. 58% of people are unhappy with the state of the health service. 50% expect their operation to be cancelled. Our transport system is one of the most expensive in Europe and our roads are the most congested.

We will also be expected to pay through attacks on our democratic rights. The new anti-terror bill which Home Secretary David Blunkett is rushing through Parliament is a serious threat to civil liberties and could be used in the future against anyone who stands up and challenges the system and how it affects our lives.

We have to struggle on several fronts. We oppose the war in Afghanistan and any attempts to extend military action to other countries.

We also fight to make sure that the working class and poor in this country and elsewhere don't pay the price for capitalist war or capitalist recession.

 

 

The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist

 

Fighting For Jobs And Services

PUBLIC SECTOR workers are having to fight to defend jobs and services against a government increasingly hell-bent on selling off everything to the highest bidder.

In some cases, like the Jobcentre Plus dispute the government has taken on the trade union in the hopes of scoring a victory over the workforce before they wheel out their privatisation plans.

In other cases such as local councils like Hackney, there is a wholesale sell-off of services which threaten the living conditions of millions of workers.

The trade union Broad Lefts' anti-privatisation conference held on 24 November was therefore an important step forward in linking up campaigns to defend jobs and services.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary elect of the PCS civil service union, who spoke at the anti-privatisation conference, told The Socialist about the Jobcentre Plus dispute:

"This strike is of fundamental importance because it is about the right of low-paid civil servants to be able to work in a safe environment. The government plans for Jobcentre Plus which will integrate benefits with Jobcentre work, include a predominantly unscreened environment.

"The government know there could be further battles about privatisation and pay in the future. Many members believe if they can take on the union and beat us, we will be severely weakened for future battles.

"For a long time our union has complained about the punitive benefits system. This will get harsher under Jobcentre Plus. Many groups of claimants - those on incapacity benefit for example - will have to go through 'work-focused interviews'. Many people will object and low-paid civil servants will be on the receiving end of the inevitable anger.

"The earliest the action can start is 11 December. The union executive is meeting on 5 December to consider the result. My view is that if there have been no further negotiations then action should be called as soon as possible.

"This would affect all workers in the Benefits Agency and Employment Service, rather than just selective action. This will put management under greater pressure, as indeed have events in Wigan where Makerfield benefits centre, which processes claims from up to a third of all London offices, have come out on three-week strike. That strike has been massively supported by the 300 members there.

"This ballot is one of the most important our members in ES and BA have held for years. It is essential to get the maximum yes vote to force the management back into talks but if they won't do that, to deliver the action which can shift them."

 

The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist

 

Not The End Of The 'Game'

BUSH AND the US military have now clearly stated their aims in this so called "endgame" in Afghanistan and the next phase of their "war against terrorism". They have sent in ground troops to help "finish off" the Taliban in Kandahar while Special US forces hunt Osama bin Laden.

However it is unlikely to be as simple as this. There is always the possibility of getting caught up in a messy guerrilla war against the Taliban or between feuding warlords.

The US may have reluctantly used the Northern Alliance to fight the war in the north but they are now working alongside them, overlooking their brutal murder of Taliban forces in Kabul, Mazar-i-Sharif and Kunduz.

Splits have already opened up within the Alliance. Two Northern Alliance leaders have been arguing over the spoils of Kunduz. Large areas of Afghanistan are being re-claimed by Northern Alliance leaders and local warlords with the potential for further conflict.

In some cases Taliban leaders are surrendering to the Alliance and being allowed to continue ruling their areas.

The US has also made it clear that it is running this show, much to Blair's embarrassment. British troops sent in to secure Bagram airport will now get no extra back-up and are likely to leave.

Those coming together in Bonn this week to try to form a provisional government are unrepresentative of ordinary Afghan people. Whatever the outcome, real power could still remain with the warlords who already control many parts of the country.

Neither the Northern Alliance, local warlords or an imposed UN government will serve the interests of the masses in Afghanistan. Ordinary Afghan people can only rely on themselves to determine their own future. This needs to be part of a wider struggle in the region and internationally for socialist change.

Bush, confident of victory in Afghanistan, is now looking to take his "war against terrorism" to other countries. Not only has Iraq been mooted as a key target but also another 12 countries. These include Somalia, Yemen and Sudan who are accused of nurturing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

Any further action against other countries could massively increase instability internationally.

In the West, many youth and workers have witnessed the brutality and oppression of US imperialism and the capitalist system it champions. A growing minority are prepared to challenge the system and its effects. This is reflected in the continuing strength of the anti-war movement and will be reflected in the Brussels anti-war/anti-EU protests of 13 and 14 December.

The US and other capitalist representatives have still to feel the strength of their most feared enemy; millions of workers fighting against the misery of capitalism made worse by this growing world recession.

 

 

The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist

 

World Aids Day

Warning: Drug Giants Can Seriously Damage Your Health

WORLD AIDS Day (1 December) marks two decades since the first AIDS cases were reported. 22 million people have since died from AIDS-related illnesses. 36 million are estimated to be living with the HIV virus that causes AIDS.

Lionel Wright

In South Africa, a quarter of secondary school students and a fifth of primary school children are HIV-positive and 1,800 teachers died from AIDS-related conditions last year.

Thirty-nine of the world's richest pharmaceutical companies took legal action against South Africa this year to try to block legislation which would let the authorities obtain medication without paying the full market rates charged by the multinationals.

These 39 firms own patents for the key drugs which can stop the virus spreading in an infected person (e.g. 'combination therapy') or stop HIV being transmitted from a virus-carrying mother to her unborn child.

But buying these drugs at full market rate prices for even a minority of their HIV-positive citizens would consume the national health budgets of most Third World countries.

States such as Thailand and Brazil looked into cheaper alternatives including purchasing from 'generic' (non-brand name) manufacturers at cut-down rates, or creating non-profit companies to produce equivalent products at a fraction of the market cost.

The US government exerted colossal pressure on countries which refused to deal directly with patent holders. Thailand abandoned a cheap drugs initiative when threatened with a US trade blockade.

In April the 39 drugs monopolies dropped their action after it became a public relations catastrophe for them. But this victory has yet to touch the lives of most HIV-positive South Africans. President Thabo Mbeki still denies that HIV causes AIDS and has told his health officials to spend less on the pandemic.

Some pharmaceutical firms tried to improve their tarnished image (and avert independent production of alternatives) by cutting prices on certain lines. But even at the new price these drugs remain beyond the pocket of most health ministries.

Life and death choice

THE RICHER capitalist countries use the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to impose their goods and services on poorer countries while preserving their own tariff barriers against potential Third World imports such as food.

But even the WTO's TRIPS agreement (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) provided for emergencies where a member state can grant itself a manufacturing license irrespective of the patent-holder's attitude.

Western states, though, refuse to acknowledge these provisions, although it was the US government which threatened during the recent anthrax scare to break the patent of anti-anthrax drugs-producing monopoly Bayer until it slashed the price.

However the last-minute agreement on drugs rules at November's WTO meeting in Doha appears to represent a victory for the poorer states. The WTO ignored US objections, declaring that TRIPS "should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health".

If the Doha decision bears fruit, it will mean the difference between life and death for millions with HIV and AIDS across the neo-colonial world. It potentially extends the scope for poorer countries to ignore patents long-term.

But this issue will come back before the 2002 WTO meeting. New Scientist reports that "rich industrialised countries are already gearing up to limit its impact".

A leaked European Commission document shows that Western states will try to limit the Doha agreement to the very poorest countries, block a government's emergency public health measures if the patent holder has offered "favourable prices" and forbid makers of generic drugs exporting to more than one country.

Socialists support any initiative which extends vital treatment for HIV/AIDS and other diseases to the masses of every country. But the working class and poor people internationally need to take over these multinationals as the only permanent remedy to drug overpricing and other problems caused by imperialist domination of the globe.

 

 

The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist

 

Anti-Privatisation Conference:

'We're Determined To Fight Back And Win'

ON 24 November 100 delegates from more than 13 different trade unions attended an anti-privatisation conference organised by six national, trade-union Broad Left organisations.

Opening the conference Glenn Kelly, national chair of United Left (UNISON) said that public sector workers face a common threat of privatisation of jobs and services. New Labour has a privatisation agenda that the Tories could only dream of.

The TUC and trade union leaders should have been organising the conference to channel the anger and discontent that public sector workers feel. The leaders have reflected this anger in words but not action. And since 11 September there has been a one-sided truce; Blair has pushed ahead in all areas with privatisation while the union leaders have suspended opposition.

The onus is therefore on activists and Broad Lefts to organise action. The conference, Glenn explained, was not to bemoan privatisation but to begin the process of co-ordinating action. Pressure has to be put on the trade union leaders to call a national demonstration as a first step towards national industrial action. But if they refuse, then trade unionists have to take initiatives using the structures and authority of the Broad Left organisations.

Trade Union Leader Addresses Conference

MARK SERWOTKA, general secretary elect of the PCS (civil service union) was the first conference speaker. Trade union members, he said, are desperate for co-ordinated campaigns against privatisation but this is not matched by commitment from most union leaders.

The Dudley hospital workers for example, waged a tremendous fight-back against privatisation - taking 100 days of strike action. Unfortunately that was not seized on by the leadership as a building block for wider action.

We should be leading the call to stop privatisation and for renationalisation.

There is, he explained, a mood and determination to fight back and win. Since he was elected general secretary in January this year, there have been 147 separate submissions in the PCS for strike action.

Over 2,500 JobCentre workers have been on strike over safety for 12 weeks. Now all workers in the Benefits Agency and Employment Service are being balloted for action. This dispute is linked to preparing the way for more private sector employers to deliver welfare services.

Struggles such as these can lift the confidence and morale of other workers. We have to unite and work together on the Left to give confidence to workers to struggle against privatisation. We must win this battle; the consequences of losing are too dire to contemplate.

Delegates give examples of their experiences of privatisation

Education

Linda Taaffe, National Union of Teachers (NUT) national executive member speaking in a personal capacity pointed out that the schools budget is worth £23 billion a year. The private sector vultures are looking for the best ways of extracting profits from this pot. While some privatisation ventures, such as the Education Action Zones, fall by the wayside others are going ahead and are planned for the future.

Teachers, parents and governors don't want the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). But for many there doesn't seem to be an alternative. We're told PFI is the "only show in town". However Pimlico School in Westminster fought a five-year struggle and defeated PFI.

The problem generally is that the union nationally won't back action by local unions. This was the experience in the Waltham Forest campaign against privatisation of education services. Many workers have a lack of faith in themselves to take action.

The union leadership doesn't inspire confidence. But we can fill that gap. Rank-and-file teachers organised a campaign against performance related pay (STOPP), which held a very successful national demonstration, despite the fact that some - even on the Left - thought that the "time was not right" for a demo.

The conference, Linda explained, could help to organise a national demonstration against privatisation if the union leaders refuse to act.

London Underground

A member of the regional executive committee of the RMT London Underground said it was just a matter of time before the Paddington or Hatfield disasters were repeated on the underground. Under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) profit would come before safety.

It's been reported that on the Northern Line, private contractors fitted concrete sleepers without enough give. These are now breaking up due to vibration from the trains and will have to be re-laid .

In February RMT and ASLEF members on London Underground took strike action which was totally solid. They won one of the best deals in a struggle against privatisation. Even so, new staff will still be employed on different conditions and safety will be at risk under PPP.

London Underground workers don't have to be convinced of the need to take action. They have to be convinced that they can play a role. We have to see that we are crucial in forcing the unions to take effective action.

Local services

Hackney library worker, Brian Debus came from the picket line to speak to the conference. 96% of library workers voted for strike action over Saturday payments. Over the past 12 months Hackney council workers have taken six days of strike action against cuts of £1.8 million. Now the employers are coming back for another £50 million. This would mean the closure of four out of seven libraries and a cut in the social services budget of 7.8%. The privatisation of revenue and benefits and street cleaning has actually cost the council more money.

Further education

Andrew Price, Wales representative on the national executive committee of NATFHE (college lecturers' union) speaking in a personal capacity said that Further Education (FE) colleges were privatised ten years ago when they were separated from local authorities. There are now more than 360 employers in England and Wales and none of them are legally bound to implement national agreements. This has devastated pay and conditions. More than 50% of courses are delivered by staff on short-term contracts, most employed by agencies.

GMB

Mark Perkins from the GMB talked about the inspirational struggle of street cleaners in Brighton who, after four days of occupation, defeated multinational private company SITA and the service returned to the council. He explained how important it was to involve the workers' families and how support from other trade unions and organisations and the public helped them win their struggle.

Other delegates spoke about the need to link the struggle against privatisation with the struggle for trade unions to break with New Labour. Delegates also called for links with the anti-capitalist movement and urged trade unionists to set up local cross-union campaigns involving trades councils.

A speaker from the Northern Ireland public sector union NIPSA explained how the left now hold 11 out of 25 seats on the general council and a mood exists to fight privatisation. Other speakers emphasised the 'internationalisation' of anti-privatisation struggles.

A message of support was received from the Nigerian movement against privatisation. Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers' Union (CWU) also sent a message of solidarity, welcoming the conference.

Conference agreed to:

• Mobilise maximum support for all workers who are in opposition to privatisation and are taking industrial action in defence of their wages and conditions.
• Campaign for, and lobby a special one-day TUC conference on the public sector.
• Demand at the lobby that public-sector trade unions organise national action against privatisation - including a national demonstration in spring 2002.
• In the event that the TUC or any national trade union are unwilling to organise a national demo, the liaison committee will draw up plans for its own national event and campaign for the widest possible support in the unions, trades councils and community campaigns.
• Fight within our respective unions for national industrial action in support of members involved in struggles against privatisation.
• Co-ordinate a campaign across the unions for the official unions to organise a one-day, public-sector strike against privatisation.
• Set up a liaison committee consisting of up to three delegates from each trade union Broad Left. The committee will have the responsibility of organising the lobby of the TUC, circulating material about struggles against privatisation and co-ordinating future rank-and-file conferences against privatisation.

 

The Conference Was Supported By The Following Broad Left Organisations Left Unity (PCS civil service union) United Left (UNISON) Socialist Teachers Alliance (National Union of Teachers) CDFU (National Union of Teachers) Communication Workers' Broad Left (CWU, Communication Workers' Union) NATFHE Rank and File (NATFHE, college lecturers' union)

 

 

The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist

 

GEORGE BUSH'S 'war on terrorism' is a cover to expand the power of US imperialism. Aided and abetted by Britain, the US heads a loose and fragile 'coalition' which includes the G7 countries and Russia, joined (with varying degrees of reluctance) by Arab and Persian Muslim states and other neo-colonial states. MANNY THAIN examines how the US has temporarily bought their allegiance.

Western War Coalition:

Buying Friends And Influence

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, Vladimir Putin, took a historic step when, on 24 September, he allowed the US to use former Soviet military bases in Central Asia. In return, Bush has promised to reduce America's nuclear stockpile from over 6,000 warheads to between 1,700 and 2,000. The US administration is also pushing for Russia to be admitted to membership of the World Trade Organisation.

The secretary general of NATO (the Western military alliance), Lord Robertson, has proposed that Russia enjoy "a right of equality" with NATO's 19 members.

Putin has ensured a deafening silence on Russian army atrocities in Chechnya, where there have been tens of thousands of civilian casualties. This war against guerrilla fighters, some linked to Afghan groups, is Putin's own 'war on terrorism'.

But Putin's cosy relations with Bush could come unstuck if the US's war on terrorism is widened to other states.

Russia deals with some of the states on Bush's wanted list: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria. These are important markets for its arms and nuclear industries. Iran recently signed an arms contract worth $1.5 billion (£1.05bn) over five years and Russia is building a $800 million nuclear reactor in northern Iran.

Russia is Iraq's closest ally on the UN Security Council and has blocked US and British resolutions to tighten sanctions. Iraq owes Russia $8 billion in military debts and has promised it oil exploration projects once sanctions have been eased.

Russia has armed the Northern Alliance since 1996 and aims to cash in on its 'investment' by influencing post-Taliban Afghanistan.

Former Soviet republics

THE CENTRAL Asian republics of the former Soviet Union: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan and Tajikistan by providing facilities for US military forces are expecting to benefit from Bush's $20 billion war chest to fight 'terrorism'.

These are ruthless regimes based on rich first families, pervasive corruption and the abject poverty of their populations. In Uzbekistan, for example, doctors earn $15 a month and teachers $10. Farmers are often paid a year late and then with cooking oil or grain.

Uzbek president, Islam Karimov, wants Western help against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), formed in the early 1990s. Bush duly named IMU as a terrorist group.

The West is, however, reluctant to commit significant resources into the region. Indeed, security risks have led companies to withdraw staff and cancel visits. The stranglehold of most of the states on economic activity is also a turn-off to Western capitalists in search of quick profits and privatisation acquisitions.

Nonetheless, the Central Asian connection is increasingly important. Its oil and gas reserves are vast and the states are not tied to Opec agreements. US corporations would jump at the chance of extending pipelines across Afghanistan to exploit markets in South Asia and Southeast Asia - if conditions improve significantly.

Pakistan

PAKISTAN'S DIRE poverty, the proliferation of right-wing Muslim groups and its sizeable Pashtun population mean that the military regime of Pervaiz Musharraf is extremely unstable.

The Pakistan/Afghanistan frontier is 1,400 miles long. The North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan are ruled by autonomous Pashtun tribes who share many cultural links with the Taliban and have never accepted the authority of the Pakistani state.

The US gave Musharraf little choice but to back the war. But Pakistan's support for the Taliban - with the US in the past - has effectively put it into international isolation.

India and Pakistan have secured the ending of sanctions imposed in 1998 over the testing of nuclear weapons. Pakistan is hoping for relief on its $36 billion (£24.5bn) external debt. This could turn out to be small recompense for the looming social and political upheavals.

Saudi Arabia

SAUDI ARABIAN oil is an integral part of US foreign policy. The country has 25% of the world's oil reserves and accounts for 25% of the oil imported to the US. Saudi petrodollars are recycled back to the West through arms sales and construction contracts. The country's rulers rely on US military might for support.

The ruling al-Saud family has balanced a reliance on US military might with its endorsement of Wahhabi Islam - the sect from which Osama bin Laden draws his inspiration. This delicate balancing act, however, is a source of immense instability. It could be about to topple over.

The al-Saud clan numbers more than 7,000 privileged tribesmen who exercise absolute power. Corruption and excess have squandered much of the oil wealth and recent economic problems have led to cuts in welfare provision while unemployment has risen.

Whereas income stood around $16,000 (£11,000) a person in the early 1980s, it has fallen to $7,000 today. In the absence of a clear socialist alternative, the predominantly young population is increasingly attracted to right-wing Islamic groups such as Osama bin Laden's.

Destabilising

ALL THE Arab regimes have been destabilised by the conflict in Afghanistan. Impassioned support by workers and the poor for the plight of the Palestinians and against sanctions and bombing raids on Iraq threatens to undermine them. That is why these authoritarian rulers urge Bush to rein in Israel.

Just as in the West, Middle Eastern regimes have used the 11 September events to clamp down on opposition.

King Abdullah of Jordan suspended parliament and postponed elections. He has introduced laws which make it an offence to disseminate information considered "defamatory, false, damaging to national unity or the reputation of the state, liable to incite crime, strikes, or meetings which are illegal or disturb public order". (The Guardian, 8 November)

Socialist solution

The Western imperialist powers along with regional nuclear powers such as Russia and Pakistan are carving up Afghanistan and Central Asia to benefit their own strategic interests - a sickening spectacle from an obscene system. And that is the view from here in Britain where we can't see the misery and destruction face-to-face. It's viewed though the TV screens and newsprint. We can't smell the stench of rotting flesh or hear the children cry.

This capitalist system means human misery. It is based on mass exploitation. Society has to be based on socialism - where the resources can be planned democratically in the interests of the vast majority instead of serving the purposes of a rich minority and we can all enjoy life in peace and to the full.

 

 

The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist

 

THE US-led attacks on Afghanistan, under the guise of 'fighting terrorism', has incensed the workers and poor of the Middle East who point out the hypocrisy of Bush and co in backing the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon - a regime that continues to oppress the Palestinians. DAVE REID looks at the historical roots of this Middle East conflict, while SIMON CARTER examines the prospects for achieving a "viable Palestinian nation".

 

Israel/Palestine: Imperialism's Bitter Fruit

IN MAY 1948 the state of Israel was formed by Jewish settlers in Palestine after a civil war. 580,000 Arabs who had lived in Palestine for generations were driven out of their own country and dispersed as refugees to neighbouring Arab countries.

The big powers - Britain, the United States, France and the Soviet Union - stood back, because it suited their interests to allow it. But the terrible injustice to the Palestinian Arabs and the failure to solve any of the social problems of the Arab nations has left an open wound that has festered ever since. There can be no peace in the Middle East until these questions are resolved.

At the beginning of the 20th century the Arab people, spread over an area covering the whole of the Middle East and North Africa, saw their chance to break free from the Turkish Ottoman empire and form an Arabic state.

But the British and French imperialists had their eyes on what was a strategically important area through which their trade with the rest of Asia passed.

They moved in, competing with each other to carve up the region into their own areas for exploitation. During the First World War the British government promised the Arabs national independence if they took up arms with the British.

But after the defeat of the Turks the British broke their promise. In 1920 the League of Nations supported the division of the area between Britain and France with France taking Syria and Lebanon and Britain Palestine and Iraq.

Divide and rule

The British and French, using the strategy of 'divide and rule' to consolidate their control, played off all the various national and religious groups in the region.

One group was the Jewish migrants who had settled in Palestine. Alienated by centuries of racist persecution many European Jews had aspired for a Jewish homeland where they could live in peace. The Zionist movement organised the movement of Jews to Palestine, the site of the Biblical home of Judaism.

The British saw the Jews as a useful point of support in Palestine. In 1917 the British government had promised in the Balfour Declaration the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine. They envisaged a Jewish statelet that could be used to divide Arab national aspirations and act as a useful point of support in area next to the strategically crucial Suez Canal.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s there were a number of mass movements by Arabs across the Middle East for national independence. The British and French responded with repression through puppet regimes and by balancing between the competing interests of ethnic minorities including the Palestinian Jews to divide the opposition.

Anti-Semitism in Europe and the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany opened up a flood of Jewish settlers into Palestine reaching 28% of the population by 1939. Fighting between Arabs and Jews broke out in 1938 leading the British to limit Jewish migration with a view to withdrawal from direct rule eventually.

In the aftermath of the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust and the mass murder of six million European Jews, hundreds of thousands migrated mainly to Palestine and the USA.

The British who had used Palestinian Jews as a bulwark against the Arabs were now concerned about Jewish migration destabilising the area and attempted to prevent Jewish immigration into Palestine.

Jewish terrorist organisations carried out attacks on the British Army. By 1947 the British had had enough and announced their intention to leave in May 1948.

A civil war began as both sides attempted to grab as much land as possible before the British left. In the war that followed British withdrawal the Jewish paramilitaries were better equipped, better organised and completely united. They won a decisive victory against an Arab force divided and badly led by the corrupt regimes surrounding Palestine. Over half a million Palestinians, 78% of the Palestinian population were driven from their homes. Those that were allowed to remain lost half their land.

The imperialist powers acquiesced to this seizure for a number of reasons including the support in Western public opinion for the right of the Jewish people to a homeland. But the crucial factor for imperialism was the existence of Israel in a strategic position in the Middle East, itself a crucial area in the world.

90% of the known oil deposits in the world were to be found in the Middle East in 1948. It was also the communications crossroads between Europe, Africa and Asia containing the Suez Canal through which most of the trade with the East was conducted by Europe.

To the Arab masses Israel was a Western colony supplanted in the middle of their areas and standing in the way of their aspirations.

Colonial revolution

THE DOMINANT forces in the world in 1948 were no longer Britain and France, but the United States and the Soviet Union. In the early 1950s American strategists were obsessed by the fear of the spread of Russian-style 'communism' or Stalinism.

Already the biggest nation on earth, China, had been lost to capitalism. Across the ex-colonial world capitalism was teetering and while the working class was not able in these undeveloped countries to take power new elites were taking over who were looking to move to a Russian-style state of nationalised, planned economies without workers democracy - 'deformed workers states'.

The USA calculated that Israel would be a useful counterbalance to any movements of the Arab nations in the colonial revolution.

In 1956 Israel in conjunction with Britain and France attacked Egypt. Israel wanted to seize land as a bargaining chip and Britain and France wanted to remove the Egyptian nationalist leader, Nasser, who had nationalised the Suez Canal. But the Egyptians put up a huge struggle and Britain and France were forced to withdraw and Israel to give back the land it seized.

In 1967 tensions between Israel and the Arab states Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq exploded into the Six Day War in which Israel won a resounding victory and seized even more land including the whole of Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan.

Egypt and Syria captured back small areas of land in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, but this merely confirmed to Sadat, the Egyptian president, that there was no chance of the Arab states defeating Israel militarily. In 1978 he signed an agreement with Israel to get back the Sinai and allow the possibility of autonomous areas for Palestinians.

In 1982 the Israeli Army invaded Lebanon to attack Palestinian and Lebanese militias who had launched attacks on Northern Israel.

The Israeli Army led by General Sharon, now Prime Minister of Israel, attacked the Palestinian camps causing terrible casualties and allowed its Lebanese allies to massacre hundreds of Palestinians at Sabra and Chatilla.

Palestinian Intifada

IN 1986 the first Intifada or Palestinian uprising broke out in the Israeli-occupied territories. After the defeat in the Six-Day War the leaders of the Palestinian Liberation organisation (PLO) had encouraged Palestinian militias to increase terrorist attacks on Israel and foreign aircraft.

The tactics of terrorism pushed the Israeli population towards the Zionist hard-liners who used increased repression against the Palestinians. But the Intifada was a mass uprising of the Palestinian people that shook Israeli society to its core.

Although the military response of the Israeli armed forces was brutal against youth armed only with rocks and sling shots, the Intifada split Israeli society and placed enormous pressure on the Israeli government to reach some kind of settlement.

By the mid-1990s the United States, fearing further instability, pressurised the Israeli government into accepting the Oslo Agreement allowing a Palestinian Authority in Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that the ability of the ex-colonial world to use the Soviet Union as a support to counter-balance the USA was gone. Arafat and the PLO leaders capitulated to imperialism while the Arab states failed to show any way forward. Moreover a mass socialist force in the region was absent.

But the settlement agreed by the PLO leadership was a travesty of national autonomy. The Palestinian Authority has been shut into tiny poverty-stricken ghettos while Israel has refused to implement many parts of the agreement.

The whole experience of the 20th century has demonstrated conclusively that the only solution for the oppressed masses of the Middle East is a socialist revolution against the reactionary Arab states linking up with a movement of the Israeli working class to reach a solution to the national oppression of the Palestinian people.

 

A 'Viable Palestinian State'?

USING THE language of George Bush and Tony Blair, Israel's right-wing Prime Minister - Ariel Sharon - has launched a series of armed assaults into Palestinian Authority areas "to fight terrorism".

The resulting clashes between the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Palestinian militias has led to scores more deaths - mostly Palestinians, including children, but also Israeli settlers - to add to the hundreds already killed over the last year. So far, the attempts by the US secretary of state Colin Powell to get a ceasefire and restart peace talks have failed.

Ariel Sharon, even before the assassination last month of the reactionary government minister Rehavim Ze'evi by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was determined to military crush those he deemed 'enemies of Israel' who operate within the 'terrorist entity' of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA). This state terrorism policy involves the assassination of Palestinian leaders.

The US administration, conscious of the need to keep the leaders of its 'friendly' Arab states in the West's anti-terrorist coalition, has promised to pursue a Middle East policy that includes the creation of "a viable Palestinian state".

However, despite US pressure, Sharon is refusing to play ball and negotiate with Arafat unless there is a complete cessation of violence in the PA areas for one week. (An impossible demand in the context of IDF repression and the economic stranglehold of Palestinian-controlled towns and villages which is causing massive hardship and food shortages.)

However, despite paying lip-service to a 'viable Palestinian state' George Bush too is refusing to meet with Yasser Arafat. He is determined to avoid making concessions that can be seen as rewarding Osama bin Laden and thereby justifying al-Qa'ida's terrorist campaign.

The US and British governments are pressuring the beleaguered Arafat to restrain Palestinian militants, which include the Islamist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad and also the more secular PFLP.

After Ze'evi's assassination Arafat, who had returned from a diplomatically successful tour of European capitals, suddenly found all his efforts dashed.

In response he rounded up various members of the different militias. But even this proved futile since Sharon then made the impossible demand that Arafat hand over to Israel these militants. If carried out it would have meant Arafat signing his own death warrant as the mood of the masses in the PA areas was overwhelmingly one of no compromise with Sharon.

Edging toward war

UNDER CAPITALISM a peaceful resolution of the Israel/Palestine national question is proving impossible. The prospect of the current armed conflict degenerating into an all-out war, leading to a wider regional conflict, is edging ever closer.

This perspective doesn't however rule out a tentative ceasefire agreement between Israel and the PA, leading to a certain relaxation of the IDF blockade. (Sharon, for example, has agreed to a meeting with George Bush in two weeks' time). But the likelihood of creating a Palestinian state, agreeing the final status of Jerusalem, the return of Palestinian refugees, resolving the issue of Jewish settlements, etc, looks impossible.

The prospect of a war igniting the Arab masses against the corrupt and rotten regimes in the Middle East is a nightmare prospect for US imperialism. One reason for the lukewarm support of Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the US-led 'coalition' is the fear of their working masses whose poverty and oppression is fuelling mass discontent.

Stalled uprising

THE INTIFADA (uprising), which began 14 months ago, is losing momentum and also its mass character. Partly this is due to arrests of militants by Arafat's PA police but it also reflects the lack of progress combined with the deepening economic hardships of Palestinians.

Last month, in a poll by the Palestinian Centre for Public Opinion taken in the West Bank and Gaza, 75% of Palestinians supported the uprising. This month a poll showed that support had gone down to 58.6%, with nearly 30% wanting it to end.

This does not mean a lessening of the desire for an independent Palestinian state. In the same poll 63.2% said George Bush's and Colin Powell's recent statements did not go far enough. Nonetheless, it shows the current impasse of the Intifada which in reality is now groups of gunmen pitched against the IDF.

Socialist solution

ISRAELI CAPITALISM is facing acute problems and it's the working class who are paying the price of this failing system. The unemployment rate has soared to 9.3%, with a record 235,000 Israeli's officially unemployed. Some 155,000 have lost jobs this year due to 'downsizing' - double last year's total.

However, workers have been fighting back with a wave of strikes over the last month. Strikes could increase in the public sector after 21 December if the Treasury does not concede a 2.4% pay increase for workers.

What is happening to both the Palestinian and Israeli working masses shows the inability of capitalist politicians to resolve any of the fundamental social, economic and national issues in society.

Only if both working classes begin to build genuine independent parties around a programme of a socialist transformation of society can there be an end to the horrors of poverty, conflict and war.

This task set against the background of historical enmity between Jews and Arabs is not an easy task. But there is a growing realisation in Israel that peace and security cannot be achieved through repression of the Palestinian masses and equally among Palestinians that neither suicide bombings in Israel nor the corrupt PA can advance the struggle for an independent state.

Only a socialist Israel and a socialist Palestine as part of a voluntary socialist confederation of the Middle East could guarantee democratic rights for all.

Socialists in Israel under the banner of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI - the socialist international to which the Socialist Party is affiliated) by linking the class issues to socialist change will continue to build support for such a programme.

www.maavak.org.il

 

 

The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist

 

Socialist Alliance Conference:

The Issues At Stake

THE SOCIALIST Alliance (SA) meets this weekend for a critical conference to discuss its future structure. SA executive member CLIVE HEEMSKERK answers questions about the Socialist Party's constitutional proposals.

Q. Hasn't the SA reached the limits of its effectiveness as a federal Alliance?

We agree completely that the SA needs to develop its structures but it can do so while still retaining its federal character, its ability to bring together different socialist organisations, individuals, community campaigners and trade unionists, without them having to give up their own independent organisations, activities and views.

There has been a smokescreen put up in the debate, counterposing this federal approach to the idea that the SA should be a 'party'. Yet internationally, organisations with incomparably greater social weight than the SA, such as the Italian Rifondazione Communista, the Portuguese Left Bloc or the Spanish Izquierda Unida, have been able to retain different degrees of 'federalism' in their structures.

The early Labour Party also was a federation - until 1918 individuals had to join via one of the affiliated organisations - yet are people really saying it wasn't a 'party'?

On electoral activity, in fact, the early Labour Party had the approach that the affiliated organisations were to be "left free to select their own candidates without let or hindrance, the one condition being that, when returned to parliament, the candidate should agree to form one of the Labour Group there". We're not proposing that minimalist structure but are going well beyond it in our constitution.

Q. So you don't agree with the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) when they say in their conference submission that the SA's federal approach was revealed as having 'major weaknesses' in the general election campaign?

The SA's relatively modest election performance, confirmed in the Ipswich by-election, was primarily due to objective factors, the level of consciousness at this stage, rather than subjective weaknesses, least of all its federal approach. In fact, its inclusive approach was its 'major strength' - the fact that it could allow different forces to stand under one umbrella, to contest 98 seats in England and Wales.

'Federalism' also worked electorally. The Socialist Party, for example, contributed a higher percentage of SA votes (15.5%) than it did candidates (12%), while other organisations, such as the SWP, contributed a higher share of candidates than votes. Are those who criticise the SA's election campaign really saying that it would have been better if the Socialist Party wasn't on board?

But again, our proposals go beyond what happened in the general election. In fact, our controversial 'consensus rule' for local alliances is an attempt to compel the different parts of the SA, including ourselves, to reach agreement, making principled compromises where necessary to reach an outcome which, if not what everyone wants, is at least acceptable to everyone.

Q. But doesn't the 'consensus rule' deny democratic rights to individual members, who are not members of the component political organisations of the SA, such as the Socialist Party and the SWP?

Our constitution actually enhances the rights of individual members. For example, we are proposing a section on the national executive to be elected by individual members only, so they can choose their own representatives and not have them chosen for them by the political organisations.

Locally the 'consensus rule' that we're proposing is effectively an 'electoral college', where agreement has to be reached between those political organisations with significant support in a locality plus the majority of individual members. That's real power for the individual members over the political organisations.

Q. But under your consensus rule won't six people be able to veto decisions made by an SA of 200 members?

Another smoke-screen. Firstly, let's not exaggerate how many members of the SA there are. There are 1,690 members nationally (with at most an additional 1,000 or so who are local SA members only) organised in 60 or so local SAs - there can't be, and there aren't, that many local SAs with 200 members!

The figure of six (or 10% of the SA membership, whichever is the greater), which a 'Members Platform' needs in a constituency before it can invoke the consensus rule, relates to the minimum membership requirement we're proposing before a constituency or borough Alliance can be formally recognised.

We're proposing that this should be ten, so a Members Platform of six would constitute 60% of its membership! In fact, if today there were SAs up and down the country with memberships of 200, 300 or 400, there currently wouldn't be that many 'Members Platforms' that would be big enough to invoke the consensus rule.

Ultimately though, all constitutions involve a 'veto'. In the existing situation where the SWP have a numerical majority, 'one member, one vote', (OMOV) gives them, the majority, a 'veto' over what minorities can do. That contrasts with our consensus rule where no one organisation can dominate.

Q. But are the SWP really intending to turn the SA into a new Anti Nazi League-type front organisation?

Unfortunately, it appears so - and that's why our constitution has attracted support from many independents, such as Steve Godward, an FBU official and chair of Birmingham SA, the Preston Independent Labour councillors group, and the Leeds Left Alliance.

Of course, there's no easy answer to the central problem the SA faces of how to conciliate the rights of different groups and individual members. We didn't claim that our proposals were the only answer - we looked forward to discussing any alternative proposals that came forward.

Yet, while we've made it completely clear all along that the SWP's 'majority-takes-all' approach, summed up in their constitution, was unacceptable to us, the SWP have made no effort to discuss this with us.

For example, if there had been genuine concerns that the threshold we proposed (before a 'Members Platform' could invoke the consensus rule) was too low - at six members or 10% of the SA membership, whichever is the greater - why couldn't they have proposed another figure? Yet they have said nothing about the rights of the political organisations at local level, promising only a non-binding 'protocol' for national executive elections to ensure a 'balanced' 'leadership slate'.

This is typical of their top-down approach - they actually say in their conference submission that powers to resolve local problems over candidates, boundaries etc "should in the first instance reside with the national executive". But it also seriously misses the point. Their 'protocol' is just another pledge that, with their majority position in the SA, they will use their 'veto' over everybody else 'responsibly'. We don't want 'wise rulers', we want democratic rights.

We want to participate in an alliance of equals, with the right to conduct our own activity with our own ideas and methods, while working in common where we can.

We believe that the new forces that will emerge to fill the vacuum created by the crisis of working class political representation - community campaigners, trade unionists fighting privatisation etc - will also wish to preserve their autonomy, while working with others. But that means we need an Alliance, with a federal constitution, and not a structure that allows the domination of any one organisation.

By-Elections Test For Socialist Alliance

THE SOCIALIST Alliance's biggest electoral test since June took place on 22 November in the Ipswich parliamentary by-election and two council by-elections in Burnley.

With turnout in Ipswich down to 40%, Labour's total vote fell by over 8,000 compared to the general election. Yet the Socialist Alliance (SA) candidate, the SWP's Peter Leech, also lost support, polling 152 votes (0.55%) compared to the 522 votes (1.34%) the SA and the Socialist Labour Party together had polled in June (this time the SA was the only socialist option on the ballot paper). The Greens, in their first parliamentary campaign in Ipswich, polled 255 votes and the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, 236.

In the Burnley council by-elections the SA candidates polled 50 votes in Trinity ward and 32 in Lowerhouse. Although Burnley is one of only four councils with a Socialist Alliance councillor (along with Coventry, Lewisham and Preston, where the Socialist Party has SA councillors), the higher than normal profile for the SA didn't stop its vote being squeezed by the call to 'vote Labour to stop the BNP' - the neo-Nazi British National Party who had polled over 4,000 votes in Burnley at the general election. The BNP failed to make a breakthrough, although they came second in Trinity ward with 181 votes (18.9%) and polled 283 votes (23%) in Lowerhouse.

Overall, the by-elections show that a sense of proportion is necessary when discussing the prospects for the Socialist Alliance. There is still no authoritative force yet in existence capable of pulling together those disenchanted with New Labour - trade unionists, public services users, environmental campaigners and young people - into a mass alternative, a new workers' party, to represent their interests.

 

The Socialist 30 November 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] 

Join the Socialist Party   For the full story subscribe to The Socialist