 |
|
|
 |
One More Saturday March
Meanwhile, It's 1914 Again |
|
Jack Straw |
|
|
|
On Saturday, October 20, i again hit the pavement against the war.
This time, the march made its way through downtown San Francisco,
winding along Market St. The numbers were much lower than the 9/29
before-the-bombs-fell march, though the enthusiasm and color were
again inspiring and uplifting. What is happening to the opposition?
To understand the current situation, one should look not at 1941,
but at 1914. True, there are some parallels to 1941, in that Pearl
Harbor was not at all a surprise attack it was made out to be at the
time, as shown by historians such as John Toland. The World Trade
Center mass murder likewise came after many warnings, and it's very
possible the U.S. government knew something was about to happen, and
let it in hopes of using it to rally public opinion, as did the FDR
administration. But 1914 shows a more significant parallel in terms
of the overall political situation.
The world's imperialist powers came close to war several times around
the turn of the 20th century, over the division of markets, spheres
of influence, resources and investment opportunities. The world's
socialist movement, particularly the Second International, asserted
over and over its member parties would go to any length to stop such
a war, resorting to general strikes to do so (at the time, socialist
parties had a huge influence among labor unions of all advanced industrial
nations save the U.S. and even here there was a sizeable socialist
presence).
But upon the beginning of hostilities in the Summer of 1914, the various
socialist parties decided to support their various nations' war efforts,
and called their moves steps justified by the interests of socialism.
This came in spite of massive opposition from the rank and file, which
eventually coalesced into a new radical opposition (and even a post-War
wave of rebellions, but that's another story). The Second International
was destroyed, and there has been no such unified world socialist
grouping since.
Fast forward to 2001. Sizeable segments of the Left are supporting
the war drive, putting forth Newspeak terms such as "cautious support",
"limited military response" and "careful targetting". People such
as Christopher Hitchens, Stanley Aronowitz, Richard Falk and Ruth
Rosen are advocating military action, and asserting that the 9/11
events are so horrific that everything else is irrelevant, be it the
history of U.S. policies, the nature of the (selected) Bush administration
or the overall capitalist system. They also assert it possible to
support a limited war and yet oppose the attack on civil liberties
(while giving up a "reasonable" amount of these) and support a continued
push for "justice". Some even claim to see a "moderate" tendency within
the Bush coup regime in people such as Colin Powell, whose record
of hiding or presiding over war crimes is long and checkered.
Heroes of the '60s counterculture put on police hats (Mick Jagger)
and sing about fighting for "freedom" (Paul McCartney). Feminist leader
Kate Michaelman, speaking on radio station KPFA's Flashpoints
show about anthrax attacks on abortion clinics, voiced support for
the war, saying "freedom" was attacked on 9/11, including abortion
rights, though she wanted more publicity for the abortion clinics
attacks. And gay rights organizations criticized the writing of anti-gay
messages on bombs being dropped on Afghanistan, voicing support for
positive messages instead (like what, "have a nice day"?). Organizations
such as the Sierra Club have dropped all criticisms of the ecocidal
Bush administration from their websites so as to not weaken "national
unity".
Others on the left oppose the war, yet accept the basic notion that
the US govenment is fighting "terrorism", and propose alternative
ways of doing so. They accept the parameters of the debate as set
by the media, which in general spout total obedience (Dan Rather says
he is willing to do whatever President Bush tells him to), but allow
for dissenting opinions that fit within the hegemonic framework put
forth by the power structure. The vast majority of dissenters accept
as fact the notion that the perpetrators of the 9/11 mass murder were
Islamic fundamentalists, particularly from the Al Qaeda network.
Those on the left who don't live for careers within the system as
it stands, and retain a critical faculty, should review their take
on the war. Many of them are given to feelings against the Taliban
and bin Laden, whose fundamentalist views and policies are indeed
reactionary in the worst way (yet some of this knee-jerk feeling is
just plain prejudice against people from Middle Eastern or Central
Asian and/or Muslim background). Yes, we should reject both the global
capital machine's current managers as well as the wannabe forces of
political Islam whose real goal is more influence within that machine.
But let's not lose sight of which of these two forces is by far dominant
at this point, by far a barrier to a new world. Have a look.
Let's begin with the supposed evidence against the Afghan-based political
Islam extremists. It is flimsy at best. What has been presented in
public has been torn to shreds by the likes of Robert Fisk of the
UK Independent. Items such as the passport that came floating
out of the WTC fire intact (while the planes' black boxes did not
survive) are just plain incredible. And the more one looks at the
available information, the more questions are raised. Among the latest
problems with the evidence is the discrepancy between the lists of
passengers on the hijacked planes published by the media and the numbers
of passengers announced by the same media
www.globalreasearch.ca/articles/NOR110A.html
. Why are questions being raised by so few people? Like many others,
i tend to shy away from conspiracy theories. But many of the actions
of the U.S. government over the past century have turned out to have
a huge amount of secret content, revealed only years later (e.g. the
Gulf of Tonkin incident, which in 1964 started massive U.S. involvement
in the Vietnam war, but was revealed as a hoax in 1970).
Then we have the question of what are the real objectives of the U.S.
decision makers. Are they merely concerned with getting rid of a terrorist
regime in Afghanistan and rooting out a particular terrorist network?
We can begin with the fact that the U.S. government via the CIA financed,
armed and trained both the bin Laden organization and the Taliban
in an operation that began in 1979, precipitating (not responding
to) the Soviet intervention (admitted in January 1998 by Carter's
National Security Adviser Zbig Brzezinski), and worked with them right
into the late '90s, breaking with them only after a proposed contract
between Unocal Oil and the Taliban fell through.
More fundamentally, a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy since the
early days of WWII has been the control of the world's major oil fields,
thus placing American capital in a dominant position within the world
market. Control of the Middle East oil fields began with the move
into Saudi Arabia in 1943, continued with the CIA coup which restored
the Shah in Iran in 1953, and was solidified between the early '70s
and the 1991 Gulf War. Middle East oil actually accounts for a relatively
small portion of U.S. oil imports, but a huge portion of the oil that
goes to Europe and Japan, and American control of the fields means
American domination of its trade rivals.
Since the Gulf War, the new target has been the growing fields of
Central Asia and the Caspian Basin. In 1994, Dick Cheney, then president
of Halliburton, the world's leading producer of oil drilling equipment,
acting as the adviser to the government of Kazakhstan, arranged a
deal with Chevron. He spoke to an industry gathering in '98, talking
of the region as the coming thing. The Bush family also has deep connections
to the region's business . And National Security Adviser Condoleeza
Rice was until early this year a member of the board of Chevron.
Plans for American bases in the region were already being floated
in '98, as U.S. troops took part in regional "exercises". In February
of that year, Unocal representatives informed a congressional hearing
that construction of a pipeline through Afghanistan from Central Asia
to the Pakistan coast "cannot begin until a recognized government
is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our
company".
www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap.wsap212982.htm In
addition, Afghanistan is a strategic location, offering locations
for bases from which a military power can dominate not only Central
Asia and the Middle East, but with access to much of western China.
U.S. interests include not only controlling Central Asia oil fields,
but keeping out Russian and Chinese interests, and domination of oil
markets in India (which is emerging as a major capital accumulation
center) and Pakistan.
commondreams.org/views01/1023-10.htm
Capital, however, does not run on oil alone. It needs a world-wide
network of production and circulation to facilitate its accumulation
process,and this network needs to be extended both in space as well
as into every facet of human living. This is what the current globalization
drive is about. The growing opposition to this drive has made for
problems to the managers of capital. With 9/11, the managers have
new tools to crack down on such opposition, and the repression which
took a large-scale jump during the Genoa G-8 summit in July '01 will
now get even more ferocious as civil liberties are curtailed. The
managers are also moving on pushing ratification of their various
trade agreements via the W.T.O. And this perhaps is the most important
aim of the new war.
Any illusions about a "limited military response" should have been
dispelled by now. The air raids on Afghanistan are killing lots of
civilians, many more civilians than either Taliban or Al Qaeda members,
and threatening famine for millions. The food drops that come with
the bombs have been denounced by all international aid agencies as
a cynical PR move. Feelings about U.S. policies are increasingly hostile
all over the world, especially in the Muslim world. Meanwhile, many
within the U.S. government (including Senator Joe Lieberman) and many
commentators are calling for attacks on Iraq, Syria and /or Lebanon,
U.S. troops are headed to the Philippines, and noises are being made
about linking the war to the U.S. "war on (some) drugs" in Colombia
and the rest of the Andes, with Venezuela being tagged as a nation
hostile to U.S. interests in the region www.narconews.com
. And back at home, the slashing of civil liberties is proceeding,
as Congess has overwhelmingly passed draconian legislation, and more
and more mentions are made of national I.D. cards. Any attempted discussion
of U.S. war tactics, of policies which framed 9/11, or of attacks
on civil liberties usually end with "WE were attacked. WE WERE
ATTACKED. DON'T YOU GET IT?"
Those of us who know better, who know history and who can see where
this is going, have an obligation to step out and act. We need to
reach out beyond the usual left constituency. We need to communicate
to the other working people of this country and the world, because
until they start stirring, little will happen to change the basic
course of events. Reforms are more insufficient now than ever, and
they know it intuitively, they know that their lives are not getting
better. But they have little idea on what to do to make things better,
and in fact don't even think things could be better, or any different.
Ultimately, that's the perception that must be challenged, and this
needs to begin by addressing the contradictions that affect them,
be they the lowering living standards, the deteriorating environment,
the destruction of any semblance of community, and the steady march
forward of the police state. And we have to get going, the hour is
getting late.
(November 2, 2001)
|
|
|
|
