As European anti-war movement debates intervention
Thousands march in solidarity with resistance
By
John Catalinotto
Published Oct 15, 2006 10:59 PM
A protest demonstration
held in Rome on Sept. 30 illustrates an important political argument that is
taking place within the anti-war movement in Western Europe, and within the
workers’ and communist movements. This debate is also important for these
movements within the United States.
March in Rome opposed
sending troops to
Afghanistan and
Lebanon.
Photo: Indymedia
|
At
the roots of this debate are two questions: Can a NATO country make a
“humanitarian” military intervention? Should the anti-war movement
raise slogans and take political actions that are in solidarity with the
resistance movements in the countries occupied by the
imperialists?
Though these questions are
being debated in many European countries, their expression in Italy illustrates
the key issues most clearly. The central question there is what position the
movement should take toward the “center-left” Italian
government’s decision to participate in the occupation of Afghanistan and
in UNIFIL—the “United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon”—in southern
Lebanon.
One report from Rome said
10,000 people heeded the organizers’ call to march through the Italian
capital on Sept. 30 in solidarity with the resistance movements in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Lebanon. (Anti-imperialist
Camp)
The march was 100 percent opposed
to U.S. and Israeli military intervention in those countries. That position is
shared by most Italian and most European anti-war organizations. Along with its
open solidarity with the resistance, what distinguished this protest is that the
marchers also demanded the Italian government pull its troops back from both
Afghanistan and Lebanon. Washington has given the Italian government a central
role in UNIFIL in policing Lebanon to prevent arms from going to
Hezbollah.
The protest’s
organizers were a dozen left communist and anti-imperialist parties and groups.
Some independent labor unions also endorsed the
protest.
Much more massive anti-war
demonstrations have been called by the official anti-war movement in Italy. Yet
organizers rightfully called the action of 10,000 a “political
success”—or at least a “turning point”—because it
showed the movement could mobilize around a clear and strong anti-imperialist
position without the support of the “institutional peace movement.”
(Communist Network)
As some of its
organizers pointed out, the Rome protest directly confronted the Italian ruling
class and the new “center-left” government. This government recently
replaced the far-right regime of Premier Silvio Berlusconi, the pro-U.S.
billionaire media magnate, whom all Italian progressives despise.
Lenin’s
contribution
It is helpful to refer
to the historical analysis made by V.I. Lenin, leader of the party that led the
1917 Russian Revolution. The reversal of that revolution in 1989-1991 may have
made it less fashionable to read Lenin, but it has not changed his supremacy in
developing revolutionary strategy for the working class. Lenin made especially
strong contributions to understanding two key questions relevant to this current
debate.
One is the danger to communist
parties of accepting ministerial positions in a government that is in charge of
the capitalist state and that serves the interests of the capitalist ruling
class. Instead of capturing the office, the office can capture the
communists.
The second is the vital
importance of the working class in the imperialist countries acting in
solidarity with the struggle for self-determination of the colonies or oppressed
countries against imperialism, whether or not communists are leading these
movements. Lenin and the Bolsheviks made this a cardinal principle of the
revolution.
Regarding the
“institutional peace movement,” the most significant absentee at the
Italian protest was the Refoundation Communist Party (PRC). The PRC, with 41
seats in Italy’s 630-seat Chamber of Deputies, is an essential element in
the current Italian “center-left” government led by Prime Minister
Romano Prodi. The PRC holds some ministries and its leader, Fausto Bertinotti,
is president of the Chamber of
Deputies.
The PRC had the opportunity to
take a principled stand against intervention in Afghanistan and Lebanon and
allow the Prodi government to fall. But on July 28, the PRC broke with its own
record in four prior votes, this time voting along with the other government
parties to endorse and fund Italy’s military intervention in Afghanistan.
Some weeks later the PRC leaders also supported and argued for Italian
participation in the UNIFIL contingent in
Lebanon.
Support for UNIFIL is by no
means shared by all European communist parties. Some of the parties with the
greatest working-class support, like the Portuguese Communist Party and the
Communist Party of Greece, have strongly opposed their governments’
participation in UNIFIL.
Indeed, an
extraordinary meeting of 14 communist and workers’ parties from countries
of the southern and eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and Gulf region took
place Aug. 19-20 in Athens. In their statement condemning the U.S.-backed
Israeli attack on Lebanon, these parties “expressed their disagreement
with the provisions of the 1701/2006 UN Security Council resolution as it
represents a U.S. effort to give Israel what it could not achieve by its
assault.” (www.solidnet.org)
And
even in countries where the official Communist Party supports the military
participation in UNIFIL—as in France and Spain—there are tendencies
in the overall communist movement that protest it, just as the groups in Italy
did.
Role of European imperialist
powers
The Rome protest debunked a
false argument that some sectors of the European ruling class would like people
to believe and that the PRC expounded. That is, that the European powers are
somehow kinder, gentler players on the international arena than the United
States is, and that this means that the progressive and anti-war movement should
support these countries’ role in interventions like UNIFIL as a counter to
U.S. intervention.
While no one on the
left, and certainly no anti-imperialists in the United States, can deny the
exceedingly aggressive character of U.S. imperialism, it is still true that the
European NATO powers have the same class character as the United States. This
character has not changed simply because these countries were driven out of
their former colonies all over the world and no longer rule most of them
directly. Just like U.S. capitalists, those in Europe—and
Japan—exploit the resources and labor of much of the world through their
investment, their banks, their control of technology and communications, and
their participation in military occupations, often under the Pentagon’s
leadership.
Even where there were sharp
conflicts of interest between the European Union and the United States, on
almost all key issues the imperialists have closed ranks against colonial
uprisings, socialist countries and any nations defending their independence.
Think of Yugoslavia, which they bombed and now occupy, as well as the
condemnations of socialist Cuba, today’s hostility to Iran and especially
to the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea.
It’s true that some of the
EU powers—France and Germany—opposed what they considered a foolish
and dangerous U.S.-British assault on Iraq, but only because they could gain
nothing from it. They have joined the occupations of Haiti and Congo and the
fighting in Afghanistan. Despite their economic rivalry, they cooperate
militarily to assure they get a share of the loot. It is completely unreasonable
to argue that they could carry out a “humanitarian” or progressive
occupation.
Solidarity with the
resistance
The other key question is
whether the movements in the West should welcome the victory of the resistance
movements over the imperialist
interventions.
Except for the secular
part of the resistance in Iraq, the struggles against imperialist domination in
Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq are now being fought under the banner of Islam.
There is no doubt that the European and U.S. ruling classes have stirred up and
exacerbated hatred against the Islamic-led movements and even against the
religion itself—from Bush’s phony charge of
“Islamo-fascism” to the slanders from Pope
Benedict.
This anti-Islamic campaign
comes not from the religious prejudices of the rulers—although they are
prejudiced and racist to the core—but because they fear that the
liberation struggles taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon under the
banners of Islam will awaken broader sections of the Islamic masses across North
Africa and half of Asia to struggle against
imperialism.
When the liberation
struggles were led by communists, the campaign of demonization was just as
vicious. Indeed, Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il are still slandered daily, but
they are attacked for being godless rather than worshiping in the
“wrong” way.
The truth is
that the resistance movements have exposed the weaknesses of the U.S. bully that
has been attempting to intimidate the whole world into submission.
Anti-imperialists in the Western countries should see these movements as an
important cutting edge in the current struggle to do away with oppression and
exploitation on a world scale. Their struggles must be supported, regardless of
ideology.
In addition, as a Pakistani
progressive wrote in 2003, the mass movement in the West against the Iraq War
and solidarity with the oppressed of the region create an opening for secular
and Marxist movements in countries like Pakistan to more easily reach out to the
masses.
In the U.S.
movement
The anti-war and especially
the communist movement in the imperialist countries—and that includes the
United States—should not only fight against anti-Islamic prejudices.
They should do all they can to assure
the withdrawal of the imperialist forces from the occupied countries with, as
the Italian anti-imperialists say, “no ifs or
buts.”
In the United States there
is no question of the Bush government being “kinder, gentler.” The
problem is more to avoid being deceived by those politicians, mostly Democrats,
who argue that “Iraq is stretching the Army to the breaking point”
or that “Iraq is making it impossible to face the U.S.’s real
enemies and intervene in Iran and North Korea.” They criticize the war on
Iraq because it has become a disaster for U.S. imperialism, not because it is
slaughtering Iraqis. And they offer no way out because, they say, “We
[U.S. imperialism] can’t afford to
lose.”
It is not the
responsibility of the anti-war movement to improve the tactics of U.S.
imperialism. Anyone interested in the liberation of humanity from imperialist
subjugation, who wants to end the bloody occupation of Iraq, who wants to stop
U.S. youths from killing and dying for the sake of big capital, has nothing to
fear from the U.S. military’s inability to police the
world.
The movement here should fight to
deny funds to the Pentagon, support resisters inside the U.S. military and those
who refuse to fight, and discourage young people from joining the armed forces
while fighting to offer them viable economic alternatives. In addition it should
support all those progressive struggles, from the rights of immigrants to the
right of return for Katrina survivors, that make it more difficult for the
ruling class here to wage wars abroad.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email:
[email protected]
Subscribe
[email protected]
Support independent news
DONATE