|
Israel:
Governing Coalition Splits
by
Judy Beishon, 4 November 2002
THE
ISRAELI 'national unity' government coalition has collapsed following
the withdrawal of six Labour ministers. Elections have been called for
early next year. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unstable coalition had
been ridden with infighting over budget plans for 2003, mainly over which
section of the population should suffer the worst cuts!
Right-wing nationalist parties in the government want more money to go
to Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. Labour leaders opposed
this out of fear for their electoral prospects in the imminent race for
leader of the party, rather than from any principled stance (the biggest
expansion of illegal settlements took place under Labour governments).
When the coalition collapsed, Sharon desperately tried to form a new one
based more heavily on small far-right parties, so his government could
finish its remaining year in office but this failed.
Now new elections have been called, as things stand, polls suggest that
Sharon's Likud party is likely to make gains. Such gains would be because
ordinary people see no viable alternative at present.
A majority detest Sharon's programmes of cuts and tax increases but there
is no mass workers' party yet to represent working-class interests and
to pose a socialist alternative.
Palestinians'
plight
Israeli
workers' anger against the government over the economy has not yet extended
to the military conflict. Although most think that negotiations leading
to an eventual Palestinian state are necessary, presented with no alternative
to Sharon's policy of brutal force to counter Palestinian suicide bombing
missions, they support this policy for now.
The latest suicide attack, in Northern Israel, was the 145th suicide bombing
in this two-year intifada. It once again showed, in a horrific way, the
Palestinian masses' sheer desperation in the West Bank and Gaza strip,
faced with deteriorating conditions.
Curfews, road blocks, arrests and killings by the Israeli Defence Force
(IDF) continue on a daily basis. Whole towns in the West Bank are, in
reality, huge prison camps with starvation conditions and there are now
increasing IDF incursions into the Gaza strip.
The Director of the UN Relief and Works Agency said that a higher percentage
of children in the occupied territories suffer from chronic and acute
malnutrition than in Zimbabwe and the percentage is similar to Congo.
The latest devastating edicts of the Israeli government are a ban on water
drilling in Palestinian areas and an effective ban on Palestinian farmers
being able to harvest their olive orchards, on the grounds that the IDF
cannot offer adequate protection from far-right armed Jewish settlers.
A violent clash took place recently between settlers at Havat Gilad and
the IDF, but generally settlers are given a free hand to harass and sometimes
shoot Palestinian villagers. Last month, an entire Palestinian village
was forced to flee following attacks by settlers.
Sharon's policy of increasing the settlements is designed to create 'facts
on the ground' to pre-empt future concessions. PA leaders recently complained
to US representatives that they see a 'two-states' solution to the conflict
as being jeopardised by new settlements.
Continuing
resistance
For representatives
of the Israeli capitalist class, nothing they do in this bloody conflict
will provide peace and security for Israelis. A lengthy period of re-occupation
would be very expensive and lead to an increasing number of IDF deaths.
A recent mass breaking of the curfew in the West Bank town of Nablus,
with thousands risking being shot, showed the Palestinians' will to fight
back and their feeling that they have nothing to lose.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah organisation has recently decided
against suicide bombings of Israeli civilians, but these continue to be
carried out by militias such as Islamic Jihad, and Fatah-linked militias
have now turned to increased attacks on Jewish settlers.
Neither would a future attempt by representatives of the Israeli capitalist
class to enforce a unilateral separation of the territories from Israel
or expel Palestinians from the territories altogether, be any solution.
Will there be another 'peace' deal? At present, Sharon is rebuffing proposals
by the US regime to set more talks in motion and the Palestinian masses
have little appetite for a new version of the failed Oslo agreement. However,
at some stage a new deal could be signed and lead to an ebb in the conflict,
but it would not be a deal that will satisfy the Palestinians' aspirations
for their own state and decent living standards.
A genuine Palestinian state would be seen as too great a security threat
by the Israeli capitalist class and in any case, world capitalist powers
would not be rushing in with adequate resources to ensure its development.
No
capitalist solution
A solution
that offers a decent future to the Palestinian and Jewish masses can only
be provided on the basis of working class people taking matters into their
own hands and ending capitalism in the occupied territories and in Israel.
Only on a socialist basis, with the construction of a socialist Palestine
and a socialist Israel as part of a socialist confederation of the Middle
East, can a 'final settlement' be reached that will end future bloodshed.
Maavak Sozialisti, a growing Marxist organisation in Israel, affiliated
to the CWI (Committee for a Workers' International), is promoting socialist
ideas in all its activities.
Consisting mainly of young activists with great energy and determination,
Maavak Sozialisti is taking the vital first steps towards the building
of a real alternative to the present nightmare situation in the Middle
East.
Workers
face economic crisis - worst recession in 25 years provokes strike wave
Some
journalists have suggested that greater defence expenditure is the cause
of the present economic crisis. It has increased by around $2 billion
a year, so it has certainly worsened the public debt (standing presently
at 103% of GDP). But the economy was already in deep crisis before the
second intifada broke out.
The worldwide bursting of the 'dotcom' bubble hit Israel very badly, as
hi-tech industry had been the engine of economic growth, accounting for
70% of exports. A combination of the economic crisis and military conflict
has led to a two-thirds collapse in foreign investment and a halving of
tourism.
With unemployment at 11% and rising, young people are not looking forward
to the future. Many question the point of higher education as a large
number of educated people are on the dole. The saying going round is that
"it's only worth getting a degree because the queues for graduates
in the unemployment offices are shorter"!
Strike
action
Israeli
workers were told by their bosses and government that while the Palestinian
Intifada continues, now is not the time to take action and that nothing
new would be offered as a result of it. However, workers made it clear
that they are not willing to go on suffering from what is the worst recession
in Israel for 25 years.
Four weeks ago, mounds of rubbish piled up in the streets of cities and
towns across the country, stinking in the hot sun. This was the most visual
sign of an indefinite strike of municipal workers, struggling against
a wage freeze which has meant their pay has not kept up with inflation.
Government workers took 'go slow' action at the same time, also demanding
improved wages. The action is continuing as no agreement has been reached
on cost-of-living allowances in the private sector.
|
|
Theatre
Of War: Over One Hundred Dead in Moscow Hostage Crisis
by
Rob Jones, Moscow
PUTIN'S 'WAR against
terror' has brought terror to Moscow itself. A group of 50 heavily armed
Chechens drove through Moscow in two minibuses and seized a theatre full
of people in the middle of a popular musical show.
In the early hours
of Saturday 26 October, Russian special forces stormed the theatre after
pumping in a "special substance" - a gas which not only killed
a number of the terrorists but, at the time of writing, has also claimed
the lives of 120 of the hostages.
Hundreds of others are still in hospital suffering from breathing problems,
loss of memory and of course psychological shock. Now it has been admitted
that the Chechens had not been shooting hostages.
Russian president
Putin was quick to claim this as another attack by the "international
terror network". His actions have been endorsed by George Bush and
Tony Blair.
The hostage takers from Chechnya had close links to the Wahhabiite Islamist
sect. Many of them were young women, including several widows of Chechens
who had been killed by Russian troops in the two recent wars. But their
'fundamentalism' had a particular Russian tinge - hostages reported seeing
the Chechens drinking.
The demands of the
Chechens were blunt - end the war in Chechnya. Those world leaders who
rushed to support Putin forget that it is the war in Chechnya that has
caused the death of tens of thousands of Chechens and Russian soldiers.
The world has turned
a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Russian troops in Chechnya,
which include the shooting without trial of any males in the fighting
age group and the rape and murder of women. It is the very brutality of
Putin's war that has caused the desperation of the Chechens to carry out
terrorist acts.
What is significant
however is that the crisis has brought Chechnya back onto the political
agenda. For the first time for a long while, there have been burning political
discussions about the question with many saying it was time to stop the
war.
Despite Putin's almost tearful broadcast apologising to the relatives
of those that died, his representatives on the scene were widely viewed
as inflexible and insensitive. Members of his administration were noticeable
by their absence from the scene, leaving the negotiations in the hands
of opposition politicians and actors from the theatre.
Worse was the behaviour of the authorities after the storming. All the
hostages were whisked off to hospital while the authorities refused point
blank to admit that gas had been used. Doctors were left to treat the
patients not knowing what chemical agent they were dealing with and relatives
were in many cases refused permission to visit.
Officials underestimated the number of casualties only to be contradicted
by the health authorities, who by Sunday afternoon had upped the number
of dead to 118 hostages and 50 Chechens, with at least 50 still in intensive
care.
Distressed relatives were left outside the hospitals in pouring rain for
two days trying to seek information about missing people.
The real number of deaths caused by the use of this "special substance"
will probably never be known. Now criticism is growing that such a gas
could have been used.
End
the war
Could this siege have
been ended peacefully? In 1995 the first Chechen war was eventually brought
to an end after Chechens seized a hospital in Budyenovsk, in Southern
Russia. The then Prime Minister, Viktor Cher-nomyrdin, negotiated on live
television with the hostage takers, agreeing to call a ceasefire and the
withdrawal of troops.
The only hope for
bringing this siege to a peaceful end would have been for the government
to once again announce withdrawal of troops. But this would have been
too big a blow to the prestige of Putin.
After the first war
(1994-96), capitalism in Russia and of course in Chechnya was unable to
solve any of the root causes of this conflict. Money earmarked for reconstruction
by the government was robbed by government officials. Chechens who had
fought in the first war were left jobless and turned to banditry and kidnapping.
Russian leaders again turned to military means to try and subdue the small
mountain republic.
Clearly,
alongside struggling to end this war, it is necessary to create a genuine
political alternative capable of opposing Putin and capitalism itself,
i.e. a workers' party with a socialist programme capable of fighting for
workers' rights throughout Russia and guaranteeing self-determination
to Chechnya and any other republic that wishes it. Only then will it be
possible to begin healing the wounds caused by the wars launched by the
new capitalist Russia.
Gang
of four
George
Bush, Tony Blair, Jaques Chirac and many other capitalist world leaders
have all congratulated Putin for his resolution of the hostage crisis.
They have justified the carnage caused by the Russian special forces using
deadly gas as part of Russia's 'war against terrorism'.
After
the 11 September al-Qa'ida attacks on the US, Western imperialism has
given carte blanche to the ongoing Russian state terror in Chechnya, with
barely a word of criticism.
"Non-lethal"deadly
nerve gas
According
to media reports, the gas used in the Moscow theatre siege is similar
to a nerve agent (called BZ) developed by the US military in the 1970s.
The agent affects the brain, paralysing its functions - hence the victims'
memory loss. Those people in poor health, the elderly and very young would
suffer the most from inhaling the gas. Clearly its concentration was enough
to kill over one hundred people.
Apparently this deadly gas has never been used before outside of the defence
laboratories in Russia and the US. Yet both powers are developing such
agents because - due to a loophole in the international chemical weapons
convention - such gases are classified as "non-lethal".
A
secret state
The Russian authorities
use of lethal gas and their subsequent refusal to tell doctors treating
the victims the chemical composition of it is an outrage. It underlines
that the Federal Security Service (FSB), following the restoration of
capitalism, has changed little of its secretive and sinister character
from the dark days of its Stalinist predecessor, the KGB. Putin, a former
head of the KGB, is now introducing even more draconian police powers
against 'terrorism'.
|
|
Latin
America Radicalises
by
Tony Saunois
A NEW wave of radicalisation
is sweeping through the Latin American continent. It is reflected in increased
support for radical populist movements in many countries and the landslide
victory of the Workers' Party (PT) candidate, Luiz Inacio 'Lula' da Silva,
in Brazil's presidential election.
The strengthening of radical populist movements follows a series of right-wing
capitalist governments which carried through sweeping privatisation and
opened the national economies to increased domination and control by Western
multinationals during the 1990s. These policies had a devastating effect
on the mass of the population. Poverty levels and misery increased alongside
a widening of the gap between rich and poor. The present radicalisation
is a sign that the working class and others exploited by capitalism are
beginning to seek an alternative to neo-liberalism and capitalism.
A recent electoral breakthrough of this populist revival took place in
Ecuador where Lucio Guitiérrez took the lead in the first round
of the presidential elections. Guitiérrez, a retired army officer
who is sympathetic to and comparable with Hugo Chávez in Venezuela,
led the January 21 Patriotic Society, and participated in the mass uprising
in January 2000 against the former president Jamil Mahuad. Like Chávez,
Guitiérrez is resting overwhelmingly on the poor and most downtrodden,
including indigenous peoples. His opponent in the second round is Álvaro
Noboa, a multi-millionaire who owns more than 100 companies in Ecuador.
These developments have an added significance in that they follow the
dollarisation of the economy which has failed to resolve the social and
economic instability. Between 1999 and 2001, 400,000 Ecuadorians left
the country - out of a population of 13 million.
Earlier this year in Bolivia, Evo Morales, a peasant farmer backed by
the working class and indigenous peasants, narrowly missed being elected
president. Throughout the continent there is a revolt against the neo-liberal
polices of the 1990s, the market and the establishment political parties.
All parties and institutions associated with capitalism and the ruling
elite have seen an erosion of their support. In the recent elections in
Ecuador while Guitiérrez took 20.3% of the vote in the first round,
Xavier Neira, the candidate of the Partido Social Cristiano (PSC), the
country's main political party, took a mere 12.2% of the vote and came
in a poor fifth! The same process took place in Venezuela when Chávez
won the presidency in 1998 and the vote for traditional parties of the
ruling class collapsed. The same loss of trust and confidence was seen
in Argentina following the uprisings which took place during December
2001 and January 2002.
A recent poll organised by the Santiago-based Latinobarometro, reflected
the new mood. It is shown in the contempt towards the established pro-capitalist
parties. In Argentina in 1996, 19% indicated that they had 'a lot' or
'some' confidence and trust in the political parties. In 2002 this had
fallen to 0%! In Ecuador it fell from 18% to about 8%. Paraguay, which
has recently experienced mass riots against privatization, saw the steepest
decline from 38% to 6%. The only exception to this trend is Venezuela
- reflecting the highly-polarised and politicised situation there - where
those responding positively to political parties rose from 10% to 20%.
The radicalisation was also reflected in attitudes towards the economy.
When compared to 1998 (the last time the poll was taken), support for
keeping the state out of the economy had dramatically fallen in all countries.
When asked if the economy should be left to the private sector without
state intervention, now 39% agreed in Brazil, 38% in Argentina, 36% in
Venezuela, and 41% in Ecuador (from 55% in 1998).
Behind the growth in support for radical populist movements are demands
for far-reaching change by the working class and the mass of the population.
The victory of Lula in Brazil reflects this process. Lula has adopted
a more 'moderate' stance, trying to reassure the ruling class by promising
to honour existing agreements with the international financial markets
and banks. Despite this 'PT-lite' stance, his victory will arouse massive
enthusiasm and expectations amongst the working class.
These developments have alarmed US imperialism. Constantine Menges, an
official in Reagan's administration, said the process was "tantamount
to the creation of a new 'axis of evil'."
The real threat to the interests of capitalism, however, is the mass movement
of the working class and oppressed which is behind such populist figures
as Chávez and Guitiérrez and, now, Lula's victory. They
have denounced neo-liberalism and the grotesque wealth, corruption and
power of the ruling elites in their respective countries. In the case
of Chávez, some of the privileges of the corrupt capitalist politicians
have been curbed and some reforms that benefit the poor have been implemented.
More than 3,000 new schools which distribute free school meals have been
built since Chávez came to power and state universities are now
free for students. Such reforms have won the enthusiastic backing of the
urban poor and oppressed. The reactionary campaign against him by the
ruling class and US imperialism has also helped maintain this support.
However, these populist movements have not attempted to break from capitalism
and carry through a socialist transformation of society. They have not
even gone so far as to nationalise sections of the economy. The deepening
crisis of world capitalism and the rising pressure of the working class,
however, may drive such regimes as Chávez in a more radical direction.
Significant blows could be struck against the interests of capitalism,
and in particular US imperialism - for example, the nationalisation of
important sectors of the economy or defaulting on foreign debt.
So long as the regimes remain with capitalism, however, and do not present
a socialist alternative, they will stay prisoners of the market system.
Chávez does not mobilise the mass of the working class and oppressed
to carry through a socialist transformation of society. Nor does he appeal
to the masses of Latin America and the United States to overthrow capitalism
and imperialism. As a result, his regime is facing an impasse.
The ruling class has carried through a policy of sabotage and destabilisation
and, in April, attempted to overthrow Chávez with the backing of
the USA. This was defeated because of a spontaneous movement from the
shanty towns and armed forces rank-and-file, along with some junior officers,
rallying to his defence.
However, the ruling class is mobilising a massive campaign against him,
fuelled by his inability to resolve the economic crisis which exists because
he will not break from capitalism. This has resulted in a massive polarisation
in society. In October, one million people took to the streets demanding
that Chávez resign. One week later, another million took to the
streets in his support! The polarisation is along class lines. The recent
'general strike' called by the employers and the corrupt trade union federation,
CTV, reflected this. The Spanish daily El País reported: "In
the popular zones few companies closed their doors and remained open…
in the petrol sector, the administration and the offices in Caracas were
paralysed but extraction, refinery and transport were unaffected".
(22 October)
How long this deadlock can last is an open question but it cannot continue
indefinitely. The economic crisis is slashing the standard of living of
the middle class on a daily basis. In the first quarter of this year,
$10 billion flooded out of Venezuela, the equivalent of 7% of gross domestic
product. This has given the right-wing reactionary forces the opportunity
to build a powerful opposition to Chávez.
This impasse is also a warning to Lula's new administration. The mass
of workers will have tremendous expectations and illusions in the first
ever PT-dominated government. However, the swing to the right by Lula
and the party's leadership could result in these hopes being dashed. Sections
of the ruling class have swung behind him, intent on shackling the PT
government to the commitments made during the campaign not to adopt radical
measures and to support pro-capitalist policies. Nonetheless, the economic
crisis and workers' struggles will put the government under enormous pressure.
It is certain to provoke a political crisis at some point. Despite Lula's
promises to the ruling class, he could be compelled by the pressure of
mass movements to adopt measures which conflict with the short-term and
strategic interests of the capitalists and US imperialism.
As the experience of Venezuela and other recent developments show, there
is a need to build an independent working class and socialist alternative.
It needs to be based on a programme to break with capitalism and establish
workers' and peasants' governments which would begin to build socialism,
based on the nationalisation of the major monopolies, banks and financial
institutions and the introduction of a democratic plan of production.
The emergence of a new wave of radical populist movements represents the
first steps by the masses of Latin America to search for a socialist alternative
which is now an urgent necessity.
|
|
Bush's
'War on Terror' After Bali
Committe
for a Workers' International (CWI) statement
THE BLOODY BOMBING
of the Sari Club in Kuta Beach, Bali, on 12 October provoked shock and
outrage around the world, especially in Australia, home of most of the
victims. Nearly 200 died and at least 300 were injured. This was a completely
indiscriminate attack against young people, from Australia and Europe,
clubbing while holidaying in Bali. Some local staff and bystanders were
also killed or injured. We condemn this indiscriminate bombing, which
plays into the hands of imperialism and local reactionary forces.
The attack was probably the work of a right-wing Islamic group, possibly
linked with the al-Qa'ida network. Strong suspicions have also been raised
about the involvement of Islamic elements of the Indonesian army. Such
is the intense anger against imperialism throughout the neo-colonial lands,
however, that many are convinced that the CIA was behind the Bali and
other attacks, seeking to create a pretext for US intervention. But Bali
will complicate the situation for the US, cutting across its immediate
strategic priority - military intervention against Iraq.
There are several reasons why the Sari Club should have been targeted.
In Indonesia's sprawling archipelago of 17,000 islands (6,000 inhabited),
Bali is remote from the centre of state power. Moreover, a majority of
the island's population are Hindu. The Sari Club itself, with young men
and women dancing together and drinking alcohol, is no doubt seen by right-wing
Islamists as a symbol of 'Western decadence', for them a 'legitimate target'.
Those behind the bombing undoubtedly knew that most of their victims would
be from Australia, whose government is closely associated with US imperialism.
Australian forces, for instance, went into East Timor before independence,
and big Australian firms now dominate its economy. After 11 September,
Australia's right-wing premier, John Howard, fervently aligned himself
with Bush's 'war against terrorism', sending special forces to operate
alongside the US military in Afghanistan. It is evidently of no consequence
to the bombers that most of the clubbers at the Sari come from working-class
families and bear no responsibility for the policies of the Howard government
or Australia's regional imperialism.
Right-wing Islamic groups like Jamaah Islamiya and others linked to the
al-Qa'ida network are driven by reactionary theocratic aims. They seek
to establish states ruled under religious principles that prevailed in
the sixth and seventh centuries when Muhammad and his descendents ruled
in the Arabian peninsula. Right-wing political Islam has gained in strength,
however, not for theological but for social reasons - on account of the
catastrophic effects of globalisation - intensified capitalist exploitation
of the semi-developed and poor neo-colonial countries. Traditional forms
of social life have been thrown into a vortex of change producing extreme
inequalities of wealth and increased poverty. Bali itself illustrates
the process. Near to Kuta Beach whole villages are employed at a few dollars
a month to make luxury jewellery and designer silk garments which are
sold at fabulous prices in Europe and America. Land that once made Bali
self-sufficient in rice has been increasingly taken over for commercial
development linked to the tourist trade. A collapse of tourism as a result
of the bombing will have a devastating effect.
Support for right-wing Islamic groups has also been powerfully fuelled
by increasing imperialist domination of the world economy and military
intervention. Muslims in particular will not forget the deaths of innocent
Afghans when US war planes dropped bombs on guests at a wedding party.
Well over 3,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since the US intervened
in Afghanistan. There is also burning anger at the support of the US and
other Western powers for the Israeli state's aggressive policy towards
the Palestinian people.
Neither right-wing Islamic theology nor terrorist methods offer a way
forward. On the contrary, they will provoke an even more brutal reaction
from imperialism and intensified repression by national rulers. Terrorist
attacks also provoke further communal struggle. In Bali, for instance,
there could be a violent reaction by Hindu groups against Muslim immigrants
to the island whether or not they have any sympathy for Jamaah Islamiah
or other groups. Terrorist actions carried out by small groups, funded
by sections of the local ruling class and wealthy sponsors in Saudi Arabia,
enormously complicate the task of mobilising and organising a mass movement
of workers and poor peasants to fight against the ruling class of capitalists
and landlords, and against their imperialist backers.
The promise of a new
Mecca, a blessed social order modelled on the prophet Mohammed's seventh-century
state, is a dangerous mirage. The masses of Indonesia and the whole neo-colonial
world need progressive change, not a return to the past. The 'earthly
paradise' will be achieved only through socialist transformation, the
end of landlordism and capitalism, the establishment of a planned economy
and workers' democracy. Mass working-class forces are required, not conspiratorial
groups. The weapon required is mass struggle, not indiscriminate terrorist
outrages. The appeal must be to international solidarity, not the fomentation
of religious, national and communal differences.
Australia's
own 9/11
For Australia, the
Sari Club bomb is their '11 September'. This was the country's worst peacetime
atrocity. Though Australian forces were killed in overseas wars (62,000
in world war one, 40,000 in world war two, 339 in the Korean war and 520
in Vietnam), Australians had generally come to see themselves as blissfully
remote from international conflicts. Bali, only four hours flight from
Perth in Western Australia, was seen as the 'safe abroad', a cheap holiday
paradise, especially for young people. With a population of 20 million,
there is hardly an area in Australia that has not been devastated by the
deaths and casualties at Kuta Beach.
People are angry that
John Howard's government issued no warning to Australians travelling to
Bali, despite the fact that the US State Department had issued an advisory
notice to Americans. Howard admitted that there was a warning but said
that it was too 'general' to warrant any action.
But the bloody event has not had the same effect as 9/11 in the US. Prime
minister Howard and his right-wing government have not been automatically
strengthened by anger at the Bali outrage. Many people are asking the
obvious question: are Australians paying the price for Howard's hard-line
support for Bush's policy on Afghanistan and Iraq? His foreign minister,
Alexander Downer, dismissed opponents of an attack on Iraq as 'fools'.
"Get the message", responded a letter writer to the Sydney Morning
Herald. "We don't want you to suck up to George Bush. We don't want
your phoney oil war with Iraq". (15 October)
Even after the bombing, an anti-war demonstration went ahead in Melbourne,
with 35,000 participating. Demonstrators observed a minute's silence for
the Bali victims, but their opposition to the war was in no way muted.
The consciousness of many sections of Australian workers is different
from the US, reflecting the greater weight of the labour movement.
Indonesian
instability
The Bali bombing will
unavoidably plunge Indonesia into a new phase of crisis. President Megawati
Sukarnoputri has been under intense pressure from the US for some time
to clamp down on rightwing Islamic parties such as Jemaah Islamiah and
paramilitary groups like Laskar Jihad, which are linked to terrorist groups
throughout South-East Asia and part of the al-Qa'ida network. Megawati,
however, resisted taking action. This was partly because, as a minority
party in parliament, Megawati's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle,
a bourgeois-nationalist formation, depends on the acquiescence of the
Islamic parties, particularly vice-president Hamzah Haz's United Development
Party, the country's main Muslim political group.
But Megawati has also avoided a confrontation with the right-wing Islamic
groups because they are still covertly backed by the military, which is
still a powerful force in Indonesia. Jemaah Islamiah, for instance, originated
under the dictator Suharto as an alliance between the military and right-wing
Islamic forces. Since Suharto's overthrow in 1998, the military has continued
to give undercover support to groupings like Laskar Jihad, who have played
a murderous role in launching communal struggle against Christian and
other minorities in the Moluccas, in Aceh, Papua, and other parts of the
archipelago. A conspiratorial web links reactionary sections of the army
with paramilitary Islamic groups.
Since being elected president in 1999, Megawati has only demonstrated
her inability to resolve any of Indonesia's deep problems. The economy
never recovered from the 1997 South-East Asian crisis, and the Bali bombing
will undoubtedly hit foreign investment and tourism. Elections provide
a flimsy cover for the continuation of state-sponsored repression and
corruption. Appealing to nationalism herself, Megawati cannot resolve
the continuing conflict or solve the explosive national question. The
emergency powers adopted by decree on 12 October will strengthen the military,
the very force responsible for decades of violent state terror. Bush was
quick to denounce the violence at Kuta Beach, but a succession of US presidents
were silent about decades of violent repression in East Timor.
Suharto installed a dictatorship, with US support, through a bloody counter-revolution
in 1965-67 that massacred up to a million supporters of the Indonesian
Communist Party (PKI). Regrettably, the leaders of the PKI prepared the
way for this defeat, particularly through their mistaken policy of support
for supposedly 'progressive' nationalists led by the bonapartist Sukarno,
promoting the illusion that there could be a path to an 'anti-imperialist,
democratic national revolution' without the overthrow of the capitalists
and landlords. The crisis-torn state of the country today is the legacy
of that counter-revolution. Neither the nationalists nor the right-wing
Islamic parties have any answers. The problems of the workers and the
poor farmers, together with national conflicts, can only be solved by
a mass movement of the working class for a socialist change of society.
Al-Qa'ida
regrouping
Bali, though the most
devastating attack, was only one of a series since 11 September 2001 linked
to Islamic groups. In Pakistan, 14 people, including eleven French submarine
engineers, were killed in a suicide car-bomb attack on a bus in Karachi
last May. There was an attack in June on the US consulate in Karachi (killing
twelve Pakistanis) and several attacks on Christian churches (in Islamabad,
Karachi and Muree).
On 6 October a small boat caused an explosion on a French oil tanker off
Yemen (killing one crewman). In Kuwait, on 8 October, two gunmen attacked
US forces, killing one marine. These and other attacks suggest that elements
of al-Qa'ida have regrouped and changed their tactics. No longer an organisation
with a central core as before the overthrow of the Taliban regime, it
is operating as a widespread network, mounting local, small-scale operations.
Al-Qa'ida fighters who escaped from Afghanistan have in many cases returned
to their home or neighbouring countries, where they are working with local
right-wing Islamic groups. They have common objectives: attack Americans
and their allies; attack large economic targets symbolic of capitalism
or 'Western decadence'; attack pro-Western rulers and non-Muslim minorities
(Christians in Pakistan and Indonesia, Jews in Tunisia).
A US military attack on Iraq would multiply the number of attacks. Unfortunately,
there would be many more Balis. As a result of Bush's 'war against terrorism',
moreover, the US itself would be more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
The director of the CIA, George Tenet, recently told a congressional committee
(18 October) that "the threat environment we find ourselves in today
is as bad as it was last summer, the summer before September 11. It is
serious. They [al-Qa'ida] have reconstituted, they are coming after us,
they want to execute attacks". The CIA director, commented the New
York Times (21 October), was admitting that "in effect, all the national
effort to combat al-Qa'ida over the last year had left the country in
as much danger of internal attack as before the destruction of the World
Trade Center".
War
on Iraq
After five weeks of
wrangling (as we go to press), the UN Security Council is still deadlocked
over the US-British proposal for a single resolution on Iraq. Bush's enforced
detour via the UN has (as we predicted) created serious complications
for the US. Russia and France, two permanent members of the Security Council
with the power of veto, reject the US's new draft which warns Iraq of
"serious consequences" for its "material breach" of
existing resolutions. "They [the US] are trying to smuggle in language
that has already been rejected", commented one French diplomat. Bush,
moreover, continues to threaten the Security Council itself with "serious
consequences" if they do not support the US line. "I believe",
Bush said (25 October), "the free world, if we make up our mind to,
can disarm this man [Saddam] peacefully. But if not, we have the will
and the desire, as do other nations, to disarm Saddam".
The White House has been sending out apparently contradictory signals.
The US national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Bush's
comment that if Saddam complied with all US demands that might equate
to the 'regime change' sought by the US, allowing Saddam to remain in
office. Yet the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer (who previously openly
appealed to Iraqi officers to assassinate Saddam), said that the notion
of such total compliance was 'the mother of all hypotheticals'. In reality,
the US is pressing for conditions that would be impossible for Iraq to
meet to the US's satisfaction - and in any case they are not prepared
to take 'yes' for an answer. Paradoxically, it is now Saddam who is pressing
for weapons inspections and the US that is resisting. In a surprise move
Saddam released all political prisoners.
This seems partly to disarm US criticism and partly to appease the regime
in Iran, with a predominantly Shia population, as most of the prisoners
were Shia.
What do the mixed signals from the US administration mean? On one level
they are undoubtedly a diplomatic ploy to try to win Security Council
support for a US military strike against Iraq. Despite his deep impatience
with the Security Council, Bush desperately needs UN legitimacy for international
and domestic political reasons. Opinion polls show that a majority of
those in the US who support war believe that the US should act with UN
support. Even though Bush received decisive support from Congress, which
meekly handed to the president its war-making powers, Bush has been forced
to promise that he will work through the United Nations.
Even in his most belligerent speeches Bush has carefully stated that war
may not be necessary and that 'regime change' may be achieved peacefully.
In reality, these are political 'escape clauses' which reflect the serious
obstacles in the way of a pre-emptive US strike against Iraq. A key factor
will be the outcome of the mid-term elections on 5 November. Because of
the cowardly failure of the Democratic party leaders to challenge Bush
on Iraq, the deep mood of unease among broad layers of workers and the
middle class at the prospect of war and further terrorist attacks in the
US has not crystallised into a firm mood of opposition (although there
has been a growing wave of anti-war demonstrations). But it is far from
certain that Bush's tactic of presenting himself as a 'war president'
and playing the patriotic loyalty card will produce Republican control
of the Senate and a bigger majority in the House of Representatives. Anger
is also growing among workers at the effects of the economic downturn
and business scandals.
Apart from difficulties at the UN, the Bush leadership faces growing complications
internationally. The French government's opposition to the US is privately
supported by many governments who dare not openly defy the US for fear
of the consequences. It is not just an issue of superpower bullying, but
fear of the catastrophic long-term consequences of US military intervention
in the Gulf. This has been reinforced by revelations of US plans to install
a US military government in Iraq. That would destabilise the whole region,
and aggravate the problem of international terrorist attacks. France also
fears a flood of refugees from Iraq and surrounding areas, and the impact
of US intervention in France itself (now home to five to six million Muslims
and some 700,000 Jews). Moreover, the Chirac-Raffarin government is feeling
the pressure of a strengthening anti-war movement, with a demonstration
of over 100,000 in Paris on 4 October.
Russia is also holding out against the US's draft UN resolution, demanding
(according to some reports) a guarantee from the US that it will cover
Iraq's $7 billion debts to Russia as the price for support or at least
abstention in the Security Council. However, the seizure of a Moscow theatre
with over 700 hostages (and over 70 dead as special forces stormed in),
which pulled Putin away from UN negotiations, underlines the unpredictable
and horrendous threat posed by terrorist attacks. The Russian state's
prolonged attempt to dominate Chechnya by military force has completely
failed to solve the problem.
The Bush leadership has also been shaken by the North Korean regime's
open confession that it possesses nuclear bombs and missiles capable of
delivering them. This, of course, has long been an open secret. But a
public admission from North Korea poses the question of how the US should
react, given that Bush designated North Korea part of the 'axis of evil'.
The US has indicated (with the approval of South Korea, Japan and other
regional powers) that it will seek a diplomatic solution to the problem.
But if the US is prepared to deploy diplomacy in relation to a state with
a nuclear arsenal, why is it threatening military invasion and occupation
against Iraq, a state that has no nuclear weapons? Bush's claims that
Iraq could be only months away from producing effective nuclear weapons
has been shown to be completely fanciful. Only if Iraq acquired significant
amounts of plutonium or weapons-grade uranium or the sophisticated processing
equipment required to produce it, could Iraq develop deployable nuclear
weapons.
Meanwhile, the US's key ally in Asia, the Pakistan military dictator Musharraf,
suffered a setback in the rigged elections he called in an effort to legitimise
the effective continuation of his military rule. Making gains in North-West
Frontier and Baluchistan, the right-wing Islamic parties now hold the
balance of power in Pakistan's parliament. This presages further political
upheavals in Pakistan.
Big demonstrations around the world are a foretaste of the massive anti-war
movement that will develop if the US launches a military attack on Iraq.
In the US on 8 October tens of thousands demonstrated opposition to a
war against Iraq, with over 20,000 in Central Park, New York, 10,000 outside
the Federal Building in Los Angeles, and rallies in many other cities
throughout the country. The anti-war demonstration in London on 28 September
was the biggest anti-war demonstration ever to take place in Britain,
with around 400,000 participating. Huge demonstrations have taken place
throughout Europe.
The Bush leadership still seems set on a course of military intervention
in Iraq. US and British air attacks have been stepped up since the summer.
Huge military forces are being mobilised, and plans are being drawn up
for US military occupation. Given the serious complications facing Bush
internationally and at home, however, it would be a mistake to conclude
that war is inevitable. It still seems likely, but nothing is more complicated
or unpredictable than war or the path to war.
|
United
States: Bush Wins Stunning Political Victory
