INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WILL ESCALATE NOT STOP THE KILLING
Perceptive article by Seumus Milne in Guardian today: EXTRACT
The Syrian crisis operates at several levels. Part of it is a popular uprising against an authoritarian nationalist regime, which still retains significant public support. In the face of sustained repression that uprising has increasingly morphed into what the Arab League mission’s leaked report described as an ”armed entity”.
The conflict has also taken on a grimly sectarian dimension, as the Alawite-dominated security machine trades on minorities’ fear of a predominantly majority Sunni opposition. On the ground, that has fed a surge of Iraqi and Lebanese-style confessional cleansing and killings.
But the third dimension – Syria’s role as Iran’s main strategic ally – is what has made the crisis so toxic in a region where the west and its Arab clients have tried to turn the tide of the Arab awakening to their own advantage by ramping up conflict with Tehran.
The overthrow of the Syrian regime would be a serious blow to Iran’s influence in the Middle East. And as the conflict in Syria has escalated, so has the western-Israeli confrontation with Iran. Even as US defence secretary Leon Panetta and national intelligence director James Clapper acknowledged that Iran isn’t after all “trying to build a nuclear weapon”, Panetta has let it be known there is a “strong likelihood” Israel will attack Iran as early as April, while Iran faces crippling EU oil sanctions over its nuclear programme.
Western intervention in Syria – and Russia and China’s opposition to it – can only be understood in that context: as part of a proxy war against Iran, which disastrously threatens to become a direct one. There is little sign, meanwhile, of either the Syrian regime or opposition making a decisive breakthrough.
If the opposition can’t shoot its way to power and the regime doesn’t implode, the only way out of deepening civil war is a negotiated political settlement leading to genuine elections. To stand any chance of success, that would now need to be guaranteed by the main powers in the region and beyond. The alternative of western and Gulf-dictator intervention could only lead to far greater bloodshed – and deny Syrians control of their own country.
read the whole article here
The organised working class in Syria needs our solidarity and support. This situation could be solved by a non-sectarian class based movement. Something that would offer all the the ordinary people of Syria a decent future without the fear of oppression.
A typically sharp and incisive piece by Seumus. I agree with every word.
I haven’t followed every bit of news so I am not sure what you refer as the organised working class.
Does the CWI still define Syria as a deformed workers’s state btw?
#2 As far as I can agree with anything on the subject fully in the absence of sufficient information it certainly makes sense to me.
Overall, the opposition movement is dissipated and without a programme that can unite working class and middle class people and provide them with an organised strategy of mass struggle and general strikes – encompassing the two largest cities Damascus and Aleppo as well as all other areas – to bring down Assad’s rule. It also needs to pose a viable alternative, which to end poverty and division would need to be a socialist solution based on genuine workers’ democracy and public ownership of the country’s key resources.
The present stage of the movement is not surprising following decades of suppression of political parties and rank and file controlled trade unions. But democratic bodies could be built very rapidly, out of urgent necessity in coming weeks and months.
They would be right to reject any ‘help’ from the world and regional powers, including Nato member Turkey – another regime that has persecuted many of its own opposition political activists but that is pretending to champion the rights of oppositionists in Syria. The imperialist interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have shown how their true aim is prestige, influence, trade, and acquisition of businesses and natural resources. Only solidarity and help from democratic workers’ organisations internationally should be relied on by Syrian workers.
The only way to reduce the level of bloodshed and move as fast as possible towards ending it completely is through supporting the right to set up armed, democratically organised defence bodies at grassroots level in every community and workplace. The tanks and missiles of the state cannot be resisted with bare hands without huge loss of life – so armed, non-sectarian defence is urgent.
“If the opposition can’t shoot its way to power and the regime doesn’t implode, the only way out of deepening civil war is a negotiated political settlement leading to genuine elections.”
Generally speaking, negotiated settlements only happen when neither side believes it can win, but both sides believe they have something to lose if the fighting continues. I fear that neither of those conditions are present in Syria at the moment, and there will be a lot more shooting before that state of affairs is reached, if it ever is.
#5
Is it just me but are Socialist Party members increasingly inable to relate to reality?
So is there an organised working class in Syria?
Can you describe it?
What you think could, should or wish would does not count.
#5 “armed, democratically organised defence bodies at grassroots level in every community and workplace” in Syria in present conditions can only mean sectarian gangs and this precisely what the West wants and is a recipe for unending sectarian conflict.
The way in which the US, Britain and France is playing the rag tag and bobtail of anti-regime elements in Syria is strikingly reminiscent of the illusions engendered among the counter revolutionaries in Hungary in 1956.
Robert Fisk anticipated Seumus Milne by a day with this realistic analysis of the regime’s prospects and the regional balance of forces.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-from-washington-this-looks-like-syrias-benghazi-moment-but-not-from-here-6612093.html
There are some worthwhile thoughts shared on this site on these questions, but it’s such a shame you have to wade through some vile anti-working class ahistorical nonsense from the likes of Nick Wright to get to it.
Fisk is always worth reading, though.
No, I too was struck by Robert’s post and thought the same line would be trotted out on anywhere in the world no matter what the actual situation on the ground.
Fisk does seem to have called it right and echoing Vanya its hard to disagree with Milne on the basis of what we currently know.
“…engendered among the counter revolutionaries in Hungary in 1956.” I assume Nick is referring to the pro-Soviet government/military forces of that time?
Just ignore the trolling, John. It’s best that way.
@11No, I too was struck by Robert’s post and thought the same line would be trotted out on anywhere in the world no matter what the actual situation on the ground.
That line usually involves the word “programme”.
@7 Is it just me but are Socialist Party members increasingly inable to relate to reality?
It’s not just you and this is hardly much better (except for the last sentence)
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27373
JT is of course blowing bs as usual in yet another pathetic attempt to attack the SWP. You can disagree with SW article – for example because like Nick you fear the glorious leader’s enemies are unwitting counterrevolutionaries who would refuse to sink boats with dentists if ordered to do so – but it is a very very different article than what Rob P. Williams presents here. Mostly it’s just straight news. It’s not an application of “the method” to solve the problem without recourse to actual realities on the ground.
As for Milne’s piece: what Vanya said.
@15You can disagree with SW article
I can – I’m certainly no supporter of Assad but the SW article goes OTT in support of the “rebels” and fosters illusions as to their progressiveness and WC nature.
With Libya, and the Arab Spring generally, the SWP characteristically got over excited, boxed itself into untenable positions and is now walking a strange tightrope between support and criticism.
Still, the “No Intervention” slogan is one we can all get behind.
If the Brtish left are not seen to be supporting the rebellion, those fighting Assad will simply see their only ‘friends’ as being those on the right.
We should not allow this discussion to be sidetracked by the inability of various Trotskyites to participate creatively in a debate unless all its participants share every detail of their world view and subscribe unquestionably to their lexicon.
The sense of Fisk’s report is that the Syrian regime has a powerful enough popular base and sufficient diplomatic and regional support to survive and that the opposition cannot prevail in the absence of a substantial military intervention by foreign powers. This has been stymied by the Chinese and Russian veto and whatevber the motivations of these two states the effect of their veto has been to close off one avenue of imperialist intervention.
The people who are attempting to carry through regime change by armed struggle are being duped by the West and by their leaders if they think that they can prevail in these circumstances.
This will end in tragedy for themselves and their families and their communities and in sectarian divisions that will, endure for generations.
It is possible to scratch around and find elements among the Syrian opposition that espouse progressive ideas of one kind or another. Like socialist revolutions (and counter revolutions) these kinds of processes draw in all kinds of forces. The important thing is not what are their subjective intentions but the objective effect of their actions.
We have the example of Libya to demonstrate what might happen if the regime was to fall. And a Western-sponsored overthrow will ineveitably lead to an assault on Iran, almost certainly with Israeli participation and with all the consequences this will have for peace, the national rights of the Palestinian people, sectarian divisions in neighbouring countries like the Lebanon, confessional regimes like the Qatari, reactionary regimes like the Saudi and a further strengthening of regional forces hostile to the best of the Arab Spring.
#17
‘If the Brtish left are not seen to be supporting the rebellion, those fighting Assad will simply see their only ‘friends’ as being those on the right.’
I’d say this rather over-inflates the importance and influence of the British left. Let’s not get carried away.
JT (16.): Fair enough. I don’t agree, but so what. It’s different from the boilerplate either the CWI or Nick are promulgating, is all I’m saying.
The rag tag and bobtail of anti-regime elements in Syria is strikingly reminiscent of the illusions engendered among the counter revolutionaries in Hungary in 1956.
The tanks are slightly different, but the tankies are still the same.
Nick really does sound hilariously like Daily Worker copy from the fifties. You see what matters is the “effect [their actions have] objective[ly]“. Something that Nick’s personal Scientific Marxism machine can figure out with pinpoint accuracy; feed in Fisk article – pull lever – take out resulting objective analysis of the situation. (At least’ it’s preferable to the CWI’s machine which works without any input whatsoever.)
#22
Rather than try to be a smart arse, why not deal with the very insightful points Nick makes.
Your inability to debate without resorting to abuse and ridicule doesn’t exactly illuminate the discussion.
You mean don’t proclaim support for something because it makes you seem more influential or important than you really are?
Jellytot,
I’ll try to take your points seriously, Jelly, though I know that really isn’t the point. You talk of the SWP ‘walking a strange tightrope’, but don’t subject your own analysis to the same tortuous imagery. You say ‘I’m certainly no supporter of Assad’, but leave unspoken the bit in Seamus’ argument that leaves Assad in power – how many deaths, torturings, incarcerations, etc will that lead to?
Rather than your childish default of ‘damn the Trots’, couldn’t you recognise, and incorporate into your discussion, that this is a ‘tightrope walk’/balancing act for all of us, and acknowledge that, disagree with it though you might, some of us think the rebellion might lead to something? It’s not reckless, nor a fostering of illusion, nor ‘untenable’, but encouragement for a regional revolution and a rebellion to get rid of a dictator. But, of course, you know that…
#24
‘You mean don’t proclaim support for something because it makes you seem more influential or important than you really are?’
Pardon?
See John, I do not happen to agree that Nick’s point are very insightful; they are the same kind of boiler plate as those in the statement Williams posted, just from the other side. Your unwillingness to debate without everyone sharing your fundamental assumptions is really a problem.
@18We have the example of Libya to demonstrate what might happen if the regime was to fall. And a Western-sponsored overthrow will ineveitably lead to an assault on Iran
The three great foreign policy disasters for the US postwar were China ’49, Vietnam ’75 and Iran ’79. (I’d even go as far as to state that the first and the last were far more important than the middle one)
The installation of a pro-Western regime in Iran would lead to them running out of champagne in Washington DC.
Regime change in Syria hastens that. Tough but true.
@25some of us think the rebellion might lead to something?
I refer you to my point above richsw. Syria cannot be viewed in isolation.
(And your sudden concern for ridicule which apparently does not apply to ridicule meted out by Andy or Nick is amusing, even if your resort to this kind of debating tactic isn’t exactly surprising. Next you’ll just go back and edit one of your own comments… have seen it all before.)
And a Western-sponsored overthrow will ineveitably lead to an assault on Iran
See this is the thing I mean. No serious argument is possible with people who think that something is “inevitably” the consequence of something else – history is not physics. Nor, for that matter, with those who smuggle in a “Western-sponsored” where it does not belong.
@30See this is the thing I mean. No serious argument is possible with people who think that something is “inevitably” the consequence of something else – history is not physics.
Maybe not inevitable Christian H but possible and even probable.
Study the map here:
http://www.socialistunity.com/whos-threatening-who/
and mentally colour Syria in red.
The view that the “rebels” are romantic revolutionaries, unsullied by the machinations of regional and global politics, is increasingly untenable.
#29
It’s clear by now that this debate has become polarised between principled anti imperialists with an impressive grasp of the material conditions and processes underway in the Middle East, who refuse to buckle in the face of the campaign of propaganda of their own ruling class, who have forged a new understanding of global capitalism and the imperialist assault that has been underway since the collapse of the Soviet Union, who in the current epoch are writing a new chapter in the long and proud history of working class struggle and internationalism…and imperialist running dogs who havnae got a fucking scooby
Now hold on while I put on my tin hat.
Okay, you may proceed.
#30
‘history is not physics. ‘
Nor is it one damn thing after another.
Sorry to raise this point again.
I find it strange that those who see the regime put in power by the Bolsehevik revolution in the first few years of its existence as their ideological starting point, and the only government in the last 2 centuries that they appear to think worthy of support, can be talking about repression, mass killing, imprisonment etc as if these are the benchmarks to decide on their attitude to this or any other regime and those fighting it.
I am confident that if these comrades were transported by Scotty back to 1921 they would be justifying all kinds of horrors with far more talk of objective circumstances etc than the language used by Nick Wright.
Btw I will say that I don’t agree that the Soviet intervention in Hungary was justified, no matter what the character of some of those involved in the uprising.
Jellytot,
@28 – it’s true that Iran and Syria have been strong allies since at least the Iran-Iraq War, and that Israel is well on with its plans to attack Iran. My point doesn’t concern the realities, except to insist that disagreeing with you in this debate doesn’t imply I have no grasp of them; it concerns the ‘tough but true’ notion that runs through this thread. What this means is that the rebels in Libya and Syria (i) ought to give up, and (ii) never ought to have begun. For this scrotum of an idea you are so scathing about my recklessness?
We need to keep a sense of proportion. We live in the second most powerful imperialist military state in the world. Our principal responsibility is to attend to the actions of our own government and do what we can to blunt its interference in other people’s affairs.
If the Syrians are left to sort this out themslves (or at least without a NATO occupation army) it will be messy. But it will be sorted by political and confessional leaders who have to take into account the fact that most people have a real stake in finding a solution, living in relative harmony and getting on with life.
These events make for a steep learning curve but if the imperialist offensive is blunted the dynamics of life and struggle can begin to assert themselves in ways that make sense to Syrians.
“People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. ”
Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)
#35
But don’t you see how the West’s intervention in Libya is informing events in Syria. The rebels, the most prominent faction, are clearly banking on the West repeating Libya and intervening on their behalf, while the regime is doing its utmost to crush the rebellion mindful of Libya’s fate, not to mention that of Iraq.
This is succeeding in opening up sectarian fissures and making a peaceful resolution less and less likely.
There was no social base for a successful revolution in Libya without NATO support. The consequences of that support are now plain. This is not a continuation of the Arab Spring, which btw was always a reductive description of these events that has led to muddled thinking along the lines of Permanent Revolution, but instead its co-option by the West, who are using it to destroy the last poles of resistance to its writ in the region, using those with genuine grievances as dupes in the process.
Yes that’s exactly the sort of thing that those I referred to above would have been coming out with to justify the Cheka, the crushing of Krondstadt and its aftermath, hostage taking, reprisals against whole villages, shooting strikers etc etc.
#38 Not to mention turning a blind eye to the repression against fellow Communists under the nationalist regime in Turkey as it was an ally against imperialism.
There was no social base for a successful revolution in Libya without NATO support
No workers in Libya then?
@35My point doesn’t concern the realities
Points should always concern the realities.
@35What this means is that the rebels in Libya and Syria (i) ought to give up, and (ii) never ought to have begun.
There was little wrong, especially in Syria, with the initial demonstrations at the beginning of last year. The dynamic changed though, especially since the ramping up of the pressure on Iran, and a ceasefire leading to peaceful, negotiated settlement together with foreign non-intervention is clearly the best option now.
In post no. 19 you challenged my support for the revolt in Syria because,as you put it, ‘I’d say this rather over-inflates the importance and influence of the British left. Let’s not get carried away.’
Why should ‘importance’ and ‘influence’ be a guide to whether a rising should be supported?
@Vanya
This is an interesting response to a question asked to Molotov (who knew both men well) regarding the comparision between Lenin and Stalin:
(Quoted in “Motolov Remembers” Conversations with Felic Chuev – Editor Albert Resis Page 107)
Q. Who was more severe, Lenin or Stalin?
Molotov: Lenin, of course. He was severe. In some cases he was harsher than Stalin. Read his messages to Dzerzhinsky. He often resorted to extreme measures when necessary. He ordered the suppression of the Tambov uprising, that everything be buried to the ground. I was present at the discussion. He would not have tolerated any opposition, even had it appeared. I recall how he reproached Stalin for his softness and liberalism. “What kind of dictatorship do we have? We have milk-and-honey power, and not a dictatorship!”
Interesting historical precedent concerning Western interest in Syria.
http://21stcenturymanifesto.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7470&action=edit&message=6&postpost=v2
Have the Russians and Chinese come up with a ceasefire and safe haven formula that can stop the killing yet? Or are they going to just let this carry on now that they have exercised their veto?
Personally, I’m getting physically sick from the images of stacked dead corpses we’re now seeing from Homs. Stacked corpses people. Stacked corpses of civilians killed by people who run Syria.
The idea that the Russian FM visits Syria while Assad is literally slaughtering people is indicative.
#38 Interestingly Vanya not everyone I know on the Trotskyist (ish?) left agrees with the orthodox view that there was no option but to crush Kronstadt to save the revolution.
#45 But when people expressed similar feelings about the dead of Gaza during Cast Lead you blamed Hamas rather than the actual perpetrators. So forgive me if I’m less than impressed by your sentiments.
Jellytot,
@41 – ‘Points should always concern the realities’ – I know; the point I was making (as I’m sure you know) was that I don’t need instruction from you about them.
@41 – ‘There was little wrong, especially in Syria, with the initial demonstrations at the beginning of last year. The dynamic changed though, especially since the ramping up of the pressure on Iran, and a ceasefire leading to peaceful, negotiated settlement together with foreign non-intervention is clearly the best option now.’ – Jelly, do you know how obnoxious this is? I mean, telling people in the middle of a rebellion how to run it? Have some humility.
So to summarise;
1. Arguments for Western Intervention Libyan style are just a smokescreen to allow expansion of Western influence in a crucial region and to damage a cruciial ally of Iran.
2. Chinese and Russian vetoes and visits are equally as hypocritical designed as they are to prevent an increase in western influence and to keep a strategic ally on board and defend the regime.
3. If Fisk is to be believed then the Assad regime does have some home support from not just Alawites and other Shias but also Christians who are afraid of sectarianism. This allows him to be confident enough to slaughter other civilians.
4. The Israeli government probably doesn’t give a damn but its Zionist aplogists moan about deaths in Syria whilst not caring about deaths caused by Israel.
5. The west says it wants to support Syrian integrity whilst backing the loss of the Golan heights for the past 40 years. It also complains about the Russia/China veto whilst itself vetoing every attempt by the UN to implement orders with regards to Israel over the last 40 years.
6. The Turkish government with its enviable record on Kurdish rights is keeping a weather eye open to see what it can get out of the situation.
Have I missed anything? Who’d wanna be a Syrian?
@41the point I was making (as I’m sure you know) was that I don’t need instruction from you about them.
It’s a shame that those realities can’t shape your opinions.
@41 Jelly, do you know how obnoxious this is?
Spare me the mock outrage.
Anyhow, I can’t see how calling for a ceasefire leading to peaceful, negotiated settlement, together with foreign non-intervention, is all that obnoxious.
@41Have some humility.
The IS/SWP has been advising everybody, nationally and internationally, what to do for decades.
Not that their advice has ever been taken up.
#40
‘No workers in Libya then?’
Are you really trying to claim that what took place in Libya was a conscious working class revolution?
What absolute nonsense. The Libyan working class are the black migrant workers who are now being lynched.
They, along with western tribes, made up the social base from which Gaddafi drew his support.
This was a rising comprised of different social forces, chief among which was a rising bourgeoisie based in Bengazi whose ambitions and desire for political and economic power were stymied by the existing regime’s centralised and state run system of production and distribution, using oil revenues to fund the largest welfare state in the Arab world. However, over the past few years this had been weakened by Gaddafi’s introduction of neoliberal reforms.
Bengazi was once Libya’s capital, along with Tripoli, until after Gaddafi’s Free Officers Revolt took power and Gaddafi made Tripoli the country’s sole capital. This created tensions between both cities that were never fully resolved. Bengazi remained a base of support for the ousted monarchy.
Here is Noam Chomsky’s analysis, given during an interview on the situation:
“The uprising was overwhelmingly middle class nonviolent opposition. We now know there was an armed element and that quickly became prominent after the civil war started. But it didn’t have to, so if that second intervention hadn’t taken place, it might not have happened.”
rebelgriot.blogspot.com/2011/11/chomsky-interview-full-transcript.html
Or how about Martin Chulov, writing in the Guardian after the regime fell?
“There were the originals in the east, drawn largely from a rebellious middle class; a second group in the centre, who fought the war’s most intense battles; and the mountain men from the west who saw getting to the capital first as their higher calling.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/22/libya-rebels-ntc-future
Benghazi had long been a pole of dissent and resistance to Gaddafi’s regime. Initially the opposition primarily comprised a layer of the disaffected Libyan middle class – lawyers, doctors, judges, pro Western monarchists, and police officers – but was later joined by unemployed youth, Islamists, etc. We see the cross class, socially variegated nature of the rebellion reflected in the factionalism that has defined its aftermath.
When Gaddafi broke with Arab nationalism and liberation under pressure from the West, and began to introduce those neoliberal reforms, he rendered Libya’s economic future increasingly vulnerable to the fluctuations in the global economy. The global economic crisis was the catalyst for unleashing the contradictions within the country, as it did in Tunisia, Egypt and is now doing in Syria.
In effect he shrunk his own social base, as more and more of his supporters became disgruntled with his turn to the West and abandonment of his former anti imperialist stance. He was never a puppet of the West like Ben Ali or Mubarak, but it was significant that he failed to mobilise the masses in his defence, the vast majority of whom stayed at home.
To describe what took place in Libya as a working class revolution is sheer ignorance.
Maybe not, but I doubt they would be expressing such views if they were in Britain watching events from here at the time. And Krondstat was just one episode (possibly more justified than a lot of the other stuff at the time).
John,
@37 – you make a lot of assumptions: ‘the West’s intervention…Syria’; ‘the rebels…are clearly banking…’; ‘mindful of Libya’s fate’; ‘ peaceful resolution less…likely’; ‘there was no real social basis for revolution in Libya’;etc, etc.
They’re not facts, though, and they’re not all there is to take into account.
There’s a process of revolution across the region, and people have entered into it of their own choice (no matter how you belittle it). You don’t say it, but you seem to be arguing for Assad to stay in power – this doesn’t seem to be an option for those in Syria who have joined the process.
And there’s the idea that as well as considering the geopolitical possibilities we support people who go into rebellion against their dictator.
No amount of jibes at the idea of permanent revolution will divert from the questions you have yet to answer – don’t you see that ‘peaceful resolution’ will result in more carnage from Assad, don’t you see that Russian and Chinese imperialism is no answer to US imperialism, can’t you see that the Arab awakening is the beginning of their power?
I know you feel at ease in SU, and that part of its purpose is that I shouldn’t, but, really, you ought to get off your high horse and begin to face up to the implications of your theorising.
The SWP/Sian Riddick article linked to by Jellytot at post (14) is clearly a far better piece of journalism than the “Ellis-esque” rant from Robert P Williams.
But both fall into the trap of romanticising the anti-Government forces in Syria, making the assumption that, because they’re in revolt, they must be supported. Neither asks: “Should we support the anti-Government side?” They both start from the premise: “How can we help this side win?”
Why do you both want the insurrectionary overthrow of the Syrian government? And doesn’t it worry you that this is exactly the same outcome that the US, UK and French rulers want?
And Nick, yes of course the Soviet Union was absolutely 100 per cent right in its various acts of military proletarian internationalism in Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 and Afghanistan 1979, but the world has moved on since then.
That is now history.
Today’s Russia is a capitalist state acting in its own self-interest and, while the UN veto was a hugely positive move, let’s not start confusing Putin’s regime with socialism by making irrelevant historical paralells.
the left cannot repeat the mistakes of Libya
otherwise the Arab spring’s hopes will be dashed and will mean a significant success for Imperialism has been the outcome-have no illusions about western backed ‘rebels’ progressives should know better
http://www.socialistaction.net/International/Middle-East/Middle-East-Politics/After-Libya-Syria-counterrevolution-and-Counterfire.html
Socialist Action really is setting its sights incredibly low these days. Can you not find anyone more important to waste your time writing about?
(Again, I’d urge people to ignore the trolling nonsense about past Russian imperialism, it’s not the issue at stake here)
@53don’t you see that ‘peaceful resolution’ will result in more carnage from Assad
Come again ?!
@53don’t you see that Russian and Chinese imperialism is no answer to US imperialism
So, of all the “great” powers, Russia and China are the most threatening to peace and stability now and over the past few decades in that region ?!
@Jellytot:
“So, of all the “great” powers, Russia and China are the most threatening to peace and stability now and over the past few decades in that region ?!”
Russia has had it’s fair share of intervention in the region and Caucuses.
The Russian intervention(s) in Chechnya was brutal on levels not seen since the 2nd world war. Grozny was levelled and civilians targeted in a similar way to what we see in Syria today.
Russia rules the roost and has no hesitation to intervene and even destabilise other nations when it suits them. It rarely holds back when it comes to violence.
#51 Are you really trying to claim that what took place in Libya was a conscious working class revolution?
Don’t be silly
I’m somewhat impressed that you can find support in Chomsky, who’s always worth listening to, though I note this from wikipedia:
Expatriate workers represent an estimated fifth of the labor force. Although significant, the proportion of expatriate workers is still below oil producing countries in the Persian Gulf.
This was a rising comprised of different social forces, chief among which was a rising bourgeoisie based in Bengazi
How can you have a bourgeoisie with no working class? Or are you really saying they only employed migrant workers, and now these are all being lynched, there is now no working class at all?
The Russians managed to start a revolution, if not to complete it, when the working class was 3 million out of 150.
as we rush head long in to austerity with no real resistance
while other parts of the world show political inspiration (cuba, venezuela) or economic inspiration (eg china) in each case of literally world historical proportions, urging opposition to our Imperialist overlords attacking, slaughtering, colonising other regimes around the world is not a low sight, if admittedly given the state of any real resistance here it shows how pathetically weak and incoherent ‘left wing’ forces are in the belly of this beast-we are not in truth in a state to have any ‘higher sights’ despite the idealistic delusions of many
Jellytot,
@57 – it’s quite simple: ‘peaceful resolution’ seems to mean Assad stays in power, and this will mean more carnage and death. I can see why John would accept this, ie what you call’tough but true’, but I hold out the right to challenge you both on its implications, especially as you’ve been so free with the accusations of recklessness, etc.
And: ‘So, of all the “great” powers, Russia and China are the most threatening to peace and stability now and over the past few decades in that region ?!’ – you’re at it again, Jellyboy; this isn’t at all what I said. I’ll repeat it, though I know your capacities when it comes to misrepresentation – Russian and Chinese imperialism are no alternative to US imperialism for rebels, workers, etc.
From the Socialist, CWI,:
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5570
# 54 ‘And Nick, yes of course the Soviet Union was absolutely 100 per cent right in its various acts of military proletarian internationalism in Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 and Afghanistan 1979, but the world has moved on since then.’
I really hope you are being sarcastic.
#61
Well whatever we think of the Ba’athist regime in Syria if the depth of its domestic support is sufficiently strong that the rebels are unable to overthrow it then it would stay in power.
However, do not discount the leverage that the Russians in particular have now gained, and as with China in Burma, there may be considerable behind the scenes persuassion for the Assad government to accomodate to a peace process, and what changes happen as part of that process should be determined by Syrians themselves.
Perhaps people could take the view that the Assad regime is so tainted, that its overthrow by any means would be welcomed. But it is then an entirely reasonable question whether what would replace it would be better or worse, and i don’t just mean worse in the geo-political sense of increasing Iran’s encircelment and strengthening Israel and the most reactionary monarchies in the area; it may actually be worse in Syria too, with the growth of the sort of sectarian terrorism that was unleashed in Iraq.
Since it seems that without Wetsern support, the rebels cannot take power, then to call for Assad’s overhtrow in the current actually existing circumstances is tacit support for Western intervention.
,
“i don’t just mean worse in the geo-political sense of increasing Iran’s encircelment and strengthening Israel and the most reactionary monarchies in the area; it may actually be worse in Syria too, with the growth of the sort of sectarian terrorism that was unleashed in Iraq.”
It’s perfectly possible that the replacement would be worse for Israel.
#60 seriously andy, are you saying we shouldn’t call for Assad’s overthrow?
#65
Anything is possible, but it is highly unlikely that a regime in Damascas that was politically sponsored by Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi, and which came to power without sufficient domestic support to owerthroe Assad, and therefore had to rely upon NATO air cover would be more anti-Israeli than the Ba’athists.
Proletarian internationalism?! How absurd.
“According to former Central Intelligence Agency officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine:
‘Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.’
Giraldi adds that the CIA analysts themselves are ‘skeptical regarding the approach to war’, as they know that the frequently cited United Nations account of civilians killed is based largely on rebel sources and uncorroborated. The CIA has ‘refused to sign off on the claims’ of mass defections from the Syrian Army. Likewise accounts of pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers ‘appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently’.”
(from M K Bhadrakumar at http://www.atimes.com)
According to the Independent today Alistair Burt, the Foreign Office minister said that there was no prospect of arming rebel factions, stressing that support was limited to advice on communications and training. Of course, this is for now, but “advice on communications and training” can only be given face to face, and will obviously be military in character – thus confirming Giraldi’s report.
A chaotic “failed” state would be certainly worse than the Ba’athists; it was my understanding that it was overwhelmingly the status of Israeli annexed Golan that prevented better relations between the two states.
#66
Yes I am. Socialists in Britain should not be adding to the chorus that is becoming mood-music for Western military intervention,
Our political response shoudl be calibrated to its effect on domestic British politics, especialy as none of us have any ability to affect events on the ground. What we can do is seek to ensure that there is a debate that seeks to impede military action by Britain; and which seeks to challenge the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” that was compromised by Iraq.
The voices that will speak out against military intervention in Syria are few enough already, without the waters being muddied.
Is this the same Giraldi that offers 9/11 conspiracy theories and is an intimate of cult-leader Lyndon La Rouche? If so, I will discount his claims accordingly.
My point that the Syrian ‘rebels are being suckered by the West in exactly the same way as their 1956 Hungarian analogues remains to be refuted by the armchair insurgents here. Although the penny seems to have dropped in the region as tonight’s TV news reports suggest. Pawns and cannon fodder.
Certainly the Hungarian revolution was used by and betrayed by the West.
Andy Newman,
@64 – I know I didn’t ought to debate with you, but this is such a misrepresentation of anything I’ve said, that I’ll have to risk the usual shit:
‘Since it seems that without Wetsern support, the rebels cannot take power, then to call for Assad’s overhtrow in the current actually existing circumstances is tacit support for Western intervention.’
I’ll try again – not to support those fighting for Assad’s overthrow is to consign them to death by dictator; to advocate the Russian presence in the Middle East, and without a hint of irony to talk of ‘self-determination’ for the Syrians, is to sustain an illusion, no matter all the talk of ‘currently existing circumstances,.
I can see why you say all this, and I agree, US imperialism is the biggest enemy; but US imperialism gains nothing from upheaval and rebellion, only its suffocation and defeat.
“I can see why you say all this, and I agree, US imperialism is the biggest enemy; but US imperialism gains nothing from upheaval and rebellion, only its suffocation and defeat.”
Actually, if I can play military strategist for a moment, a chaotic Syria would be unable to aid Hezbollah who would undoubtedly attack Israel if military operations against Iran commenced.
@75US imperialism gains nothing from upheaval and rebellion, only its suffocation and defeat.
That’s too determinist.
“Revolution and Upheaval” in Eastern Europe in the late 80′s benefited America.
“Revolution and Upheaval” in China today would almost certainly benefit America.
Ditto Cuba and Iran.
Harsanyi_Janos – you are free to ignore any evidence that the imperialists are intervening against Syria, whether the source is Giraldi or Alistair Burt. That’s down to you being innocent or cynical.
Just as you are free to dismiss the following:
“Diplomats in Brussels confirmed to Asia Times Online that NATOGCC operatives have set up a command center in Iskenderun, in Hatay province in Turkey. Crucial Aleppo, in northwest Syria, is very close to the Turkish-Syrian border. The cover story for this command center is to engineer “humanitarian corridors” to Syria.
Although these “humanitarians” come from NATO members US, Canada and France and GCC members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, their cover is that they’re only innocent “monitors”, and not part of NATO. Needless to say these humanitarians consist of ground, naval, airforce and engineering specialists. Their mission: infiltrate northern Syria, especially Idlib, Rastan, Homs but most of all the big prize, Aleppo, the largest city in Syria, with at least 2.5 million people, the majority of which are Sunni and Kurdish.
Even before this news from Brussels, the French satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaine – as well as the Turkish daily Milliyet – had already revealed that commandos from French intelligence and the British MI6 are training the FSA in urban guerilla techniques, in Hatay in southern Turkey and in Tripoli in northern Lebanon.”
( Pepe Escobar http://www.atimes.com)
You are free to ignore all these sources and convince yourself that there is no imperialist intervention underway.
I don’t think so Jelly, the impact on US trade would be staggering and negative.
#75
richsw, I am not trying to bait you, I am seeking to engage with how I genuinely interpret your arguments.
No, whatever leftists in Britain say makes no diference, whether they support the overthrow of Assad, whether they support the continution of Assad, whether they think Webb Pierce was the greatest ever honky tonk singer, or whether they think the moon is made of green cheese.
Imaginf, – for example – that I wrote an article on this blog tomorrow supporting the “those fighting for Assad’s overthrow”, it would not affect what heppens in Syria. And my failure to write such an article does not “consign them to death by dictator”
Where we can expercise limited leverage on what happens is by engaging in a debate about whether Western military intervention (perhaps given a fig leaf by their Arab league deputies) is justified, or whether it wil make things worse.
there is not point in debating what we would do if we were able to infleunce events in Syra, when we clearly can’t.
Nick, my point is that historical discussions about the Soviet period may be fun if all we want to do is play “let’s wind up the trots.”
But to deliberately accentuate the historical divisions that have so impeded the left – divisions that are utterly irrelevant today – serves no useful purpose whatsoever when today we are confronted with the pressing need to build the strongest and broadest possible unity against imperialist intervention in Syria.
The question for the left in the UK today is absolutely simple, utterly black and white. Do you support our Governemnt’s drive towards war in Syria? Yes or No.
That’s the only part of this current situation that we can hope to even attempt to influence and that’s where we may, if we work hard in unity, perhaps, make a positive contribution.
The Syrians don’t want or need or “revolutionary programme” – what they do want and need is for our UK armed forces not to kill them.
Let’s try to persuade as many of our fellow UK citizens to urge our UK government to keep out of Syria.
#79
There is clearly a debate in America about how to deal with China, (and a reciprocal debate in China amusingly the terms of which are how to give the USA a soft landing as it loses global hegemony.)
You are correct that if disruption of China would damage America’s economy; but the rise of China threatens America’s global politial, military and economic paradigm. As a result, the USA prevaricates, for example, tacitly supporting Chinese rule in tibet, while using it as a propaganda stick to beat up China.
If the economic disruption of war for example was taken into account, then it would never happen, as Karl Kautsky very persuasively argued before the assassination in Sarajevo proved him wrong.
A clear example of the USA acting to destablise a rival, even though it created blowback to the USA’s own economy was it forcing Britain to float the pound in 1947, which almost started a catastrophic world recession.
“A clear example of the USA acting to destablise a rival, even though it created blowback to the USA’s own economy was it forcing Britain to float the pound in 1947, which almost started a catastrophic world recession.”
I don’t think that I agree with your description of the Sterling Crisis; the Americans at the time were keen of increased European integration (to offset Soviet influence) and hoped for British leadership of this putative economic bloc. The Sterling area was viewed as a stumbling block to US desires and thus the convertibility of Sterling was demanded as part of the terms for the large low interest loan that Britain was granted.
There is a range of assessments on this thread about prospects in Syria; some of them are by people who genuinely oppose, or seek to, Western hegemony of the Middle East and some of them by people who are quite happy with it and would like it extended the world over. There are other, more direct, considerations by people in Syria and the region.
But for those on this thread who are of a Marxist persuasion and whose political activity is primarily meant to be geared to undermining capitalism and its representatives in Britain or the US (most of the above, I think) it would be advisable to go back to the political and moral compass provided by various internationalists a century ago – most mordantly by Karl Liebknecht: Alles lernen, nichts vergessen… Der Hauptfeind steht im eigenen Land.
There are other discussions, and very important too, with a broader audience. But as many of those who have commented above identify with Marxism I thought this was an appropriate point to make.
@80I don’t think so Jelly, the impact on US trade would be staggering and negative.
I disagree. The US would dearly love to see the CPC (especially the new incoming leadership generation) knocked out and replaced by a KMT style regime.
“Chi-Merica” (to use a term coined by Niall Ferguson) is drawing to a close and IMO the next decades will be marked by obvious rivalry in east Asia.
In terms of economics I’m sure that the likes of Apple and the suppliers of WALMART, after some short term pain, could innovate and relocate.
“military proletarian internationalism” – what a cracking phrase. I know someone else asked earlier, but is this satire? Made me laugh, anyway,
#83
this interpretaion of American intentions is generous to the point of disingenuousness.
In 1945 Keynes led the british negotiating team and secured $3.5 bn loan, though Keynes explained that $5bn was needed; nor was it at a “low interest rate” it was at 2%, which was actually the same as commercial bank rates at the time. One of the terms was that Streling shoul become fully convertible.
the result – carefully cailbrated by the Americans – was to lock the Britosh government into complication due to the Sterling bloc, and make any bold socialist planning impossible.
In 15th July 1947, Sterling became a fully convertible currency. Within a week there was tidal wave of selling of stocks comparable to 1931, in particular mass selling of government gilts; and the country’s dollar reserves were in free fall as the Bank of England bought Sterling to prop up the price: in the first week of convertability $106 million was lost, a further $126 m in the second week, the third week saw losses of $127 m, and so on – by 14th August the rate of weekly loss had risen to $187 m. A total of $869 m was lost in just one month.
Even before convertability took effect Britain had lost $1.84 bn of its US dollar reserves in the first two quarters of 1947, as other European countries exploited “lead and lag” trading with Britain to by-pass their own dollar shortages. – effectively other European countries (especially Sweden and Belgium) bought American goods in Britain using their own Sterling reserves, thus transferring the problem of how to pay the Americans to the British. Furthermore, a condition of the loan from the Americans was that Britain was forced to pay its international suppliers in dollars if they requested, but with no reciprocal ability to sell goods for dollars.
The American loan expected to last until 1951 was down to just $400 million, and due to run out within weeks. There were a number of factors behind this run on Sterling, one of which was deliberate destabilisation by the USA, who raised their interest rates during the crisis accelerating the dash for dollars, and even temporarily froze the loan to prevent Britain drawing upon it, after the UK government unilaterally suspended convertibility to prevent catastrophe.
raising the interest rates in the heart of the sterling crisis was effectively an act of war by the USA against Britain.
The point here is that a policy that made sense from one point of view from the US state department, had disastrous potentially consequences for the US economy, if it led to an economic collapse in Europe.
But they did it anyway, partly prisoners of their own ideology, and partly because the consequences were not fully thought out.
It is quite possibe that similarly short sighted destabilisation of China could be tried.
Fortunatrelt for the USA, they have China to deal with who take the longer term view, and plan for wn-win.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/08/assad-syria-iran-middle-east?newsfeed=true
More comment on some of the issues raised above this time a columnist in the Guardian.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/should-west-arm-syrian-rebels
More interesting stuff though from a completely different political place than the Guardian. Last frontier indeed!
Andy Newman,
@80 – you see, Andy, I responded in the tone of your post @64, where you more than implied I was tacitly supporting the West’s intervention in Syria. Quite apart from doing nothing of the sort, this does slightly contradict your lecture here on ‘the left making no difference’ even if they like c&w music (as I do). We make little difference, it’s true, in Syria, and little enough in eigenen Land, but what difference we do make is informed by our ideas about the world, who we relate to and support.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/01/nick-cohen-intervene-in-syria?newsfeed=true
This is the last link I will post on this probably but I do think some of of them are helpful to inform debate. This one is from the increasingly bizarre/naive Nick Cohen the well known “left” journalist.
#87
Well said, Andy.
Keynes’ attempt to negotiate an interest-free grant of $5 billion was rejected by the Americans, who were keen to force the British to turn sterling from a fixed to a convertible currency and to dismantle the so-called ‘sterling area’ of countries holding substantial reserves of sterling in their foreign exchange accounts to facilitate trade with Britain. The Americans were determined to gain access to these markets on behalf of US banks and manufacturers and this was their opportunity. There was also the added motivation of making life difficult for a newly elected Labour government with, in their view, dangerous socialist leanings towards a welfare state and the trade union movement.
The terms did further damage to an already ravaged British economy, and had a political motive behind them.
Rich sw
Subjective intentions are not that important.
Calling for Assad to be overthrown is contributing yo the growing political consensus for military action against Syria.
The UK left has zero influence in the middle east. We can have some influence on the domestic uk debate about military action
For the uk left to be loudly shouting about supporting the overthrow of Assad does weaken the traction of the anti-war argument. Because the only force that can achieve that is western military action.
Perhaps loudly demanding something that can only be achieved by Western military action is not “tacit support” for military action. But I don’t know what else it is.
andy newman,
@93 – my decision to be a socialist was a subjective one, in contravention of many iron laws of history. On it, I base my opposition to Western intervention in Syria, and my support for its rebels.
What about you? Ah, yes, I see – the iron laws of the situation have been uncovered by you, and anything else is tacit (only that, mind) support for Western intervention. We never make mistakes…or as Lyle Lovett says:
God does
But I don’t
God will
But I won’t
And that’s the difference
Between God and me
# 93 ‘Calling for Assad to be overthrown is contributing yo the growing political consensus for military action against Syria.’
And ignoring the crimes of Assad (not to mention the rather craven apoplogetics written by others on this site) makes the UK left look morally repugnant and offensive.
It sort of adds to the stereotype that the left revel in supporting murderous tryants and do not give a damn about issues of individual liberty.
It is also rather patronising to assume that your man on the street can not distinguish between a revulsion towards Assad and a wish not to see the US’s 66th Cavalry Division marching into Homs.
I imagine outside this site, i.e. your CLP, people would probably act with incredulity if told they should keep their mouth shut over of Assad murdering thousands of his follow Syrians.
Actually having watched successive Western interventions in various places over the last two decades most people, I think, would be very cynical about the motivation to intervene in Syria.
Many on the left oppose, rightly, military intervention on the grounds that it will hasten a vicious civil war that will probably end in mass sectarian killings.
Being opposed to Assad and the Ba’thist regimemeans political support for democratic prorgessive forces and backing for sanctions.
But one thing seems missing here.
Are the interests of the US, and other military and geopolitical issues the only outside forces at play?
It’s been suggested that a Quatar-Saud bloc is pushing for a regional thrust for a new Sunnite alignment in the region, against Sh’ite powers.
This is one source of the arms going into Syria that is playing an important role.
Russia Today reports on an Israeli website linked to intelligence sources. The website claims that British and Qatari troops are involved in the battle for Homs.
RT continues:
“The report resembles the way last year’s war in Libya unfolded. The UN Security Council resolution 1973 gave the pretext to NATO to launch a bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi’s troops, but forbade any ground troops from intervening.
However Qatar later confirmed that it did send its units to assist the Libyan rebels. Britain and France sent their officers to train the anti-Gaddafi forces. There were also unconfirmed reports that Western special forces units were operating in the country, directing air strikes and engaging with the loyalists in combat”.
This does not take into account the publication in the Guardian that British forces had indeed acted in this way in Libya.
“Qatar’s leader Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani also said in mid-January that he is ready to send troops to Syria to stop the violence there”.
Can you specify any of such forces that you support and advocate others should? Can you explain what it is about them that quaifies them for support?
How do you think sanctions should be enforced? By military force? If Iraq and Lebanon don’t go along with them, should they also be subject to sanctions and their borders and ports subject to checks?
Assad should be overthrown!
But not by western forces, he should be overthrown by his own people.
If we want to support something, we should be supporting the Syrian working class. Even if the organisations of the working class and trade unions have been decimated over decades, that does not mean that a workers movement can’t be built up again.
We have to appeal for and support the beginnings of a non sectarian movement in Syria that demands better living conditions for ordinary working class Syrians.
This is a fluid situation and the people are desperate:
The right ideas, the right program, a socialist program, can gain traction in a situation like this.
As socialists we should be thinking of how we can avoid the horrors of western intervention, futile civil war or the even greater genocide that can come from Assad reaserting his power.
Here is a recent article from the SP/CWI.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5570
#94
Don’t be silly, there is nothing in what I am arguing which resonates with mechanical marxism and “iron laws of history”
What I am arguing is the opposite, that our political activity should be cailbrated to the subjective political context that we are operating in; which in our case is as socialists in a major imperial power which has only recently involved itself in a war for regime change in Libya.
Calling for the overthrow of Assad when there is a real and present danger of Western military intervention to do just that, and when there is no other force that could currently plausibly do so, is at best disingenuous.
#94
So who do you support? The Saudi/Qatari based military forces waging a paramilitary campaign from Turkey with the aid of Western trainers, and American intelligence and logistics?
Or the mobs involved in sectarian pogroms?
What is it about “the rebels” that makes you think they would be better than Assad?
In the absence of any information suggesting that the rebels would be better – then why do you feel compeled to take sides?
#100
You shouldn’t have any dificulty in providing us with an example of such an approach succeeding in the past then?
After all the history of the Middle East is a continuous procession of success for socialist ideas winning out over the ideas of nationaism, pan-Arabism or Islamism; and this success of socialism has an unblemished record of stopping descent into sectarian violence.
As far as the Syrian conflict is concerned, all our “politics” is just futile posturing anyway. You can cheerlead for Assad, you can cheerlead for the rebels, you can invent ridiculous Trotskyite programmes for a non-existent working-class vanguard – whatever, but it won’t make the slightest difference to anything because nobody who matters is listening.
Probably the most useful thing that anyone here can do is send a donation to Médecins sans frontières, which apparently is trying to get medical supplies in to treat the victims of government shelling. That might actually make a significant material difference to somebody.
Andy Newman,
Socialism has degenerated in the past, that is not a good enough argument against it.
I’m sure the Syrians are aware of how destructive sectarianism is too, they will want to avoid it if they can.
The Syrians want a way forward.
Don’t limit your expectations of the Syrians to the past history of the middle East as if there is something unique that makes people in that particular region incapable of finding a future that is any different from their past, a future that avoids: “the ideas of nationaism, pan-Arabism or Islamism”
That is so insulting to people in the middle east who over the last year have shown more imagination than you give them credit for.
#104 Good point.
“We have to appeal for and support the beginnings of a non sectarian movement in Syria that demands better living conditions for ordinary working class Syrians.”
Yes once you have shown the Syrians what you have achieved here it should be plain sailing.
“It’s been suggested that a Quatar-Saud bloc is pushing for a regional thrust for a new Sunnite alignment in the region, against Sh’ite powers.
This is one source of the arms going into Syria that is playing an important role.”
I agree there is evidence of your first point and I can see the likelyhood of your second one.
At the moment though is it not the case that Syrians have access to firearms and most homes own at least one. Most of the opposition seem to be using small arms from what I can tell. So if heavier weapons have been sent either they have not arrived or not been deployed yet.
‘Perceptive article by Seumus Milne in Guardian today’
Or, more accurately
‘Public school Stalinist applauds measures that reduce the pressure on a government engaged in slaughtering its people’.
Followed by soi-disant leftists claiming that expressing support for the overthrow of said government is…of course…imperialism.
Jonny Mac: “a government engaged in slaughtering its people.”
Oh yes. Whereas for a Decent government, the priority is slaughtering _other_ people.
@87It is quite possibe that similarly short sighted destabilisation of China could be tried.
The more foresighted members of the emerging leadership like Bo Xilai are aware of this.
This is an interesting little video article by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria – starts off in a populist and ‘fluffy’ vein but makes some interesting, substantive points at the end. It chimes with some things I was hearing too during a recent Chinese trip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E30oRH11RqI
#103 I think you are very hard on the SP comrade. You may not agree with them as an organisation (or him – don’t know who he is) nor do I really but your world weary sarcasm does you no credit. No one ever said the cause of socialism was gonna be easy.
#104 “…all our politics is just futile posturing.” H’mmm razor blades anyone? Strange comments for somebody to be making on a socialist website. Maybe you’ve got nothing else better to do? Remember the future is orange! Or it is what we can try to make it.
Noah,
Do you EVER address the pertinent points? How is the slaughter going to be stopped?
Re 77 – ‘Revolution in China…benefit America’,
it might, more importantly, benefit the millions upon millions who slave away there, who could free themselves, far and away from a so called ‘enlightened leadership’ whose interests are a million miles away from those whom they rule over.
93 – ‘only force that could achieve the overthrow of Assad is…western military action’, uh, how about the people who live there/, which is not at all to underestimate what they are facing right now.
“How is the slaughter going to be stopped?”
Actually I gave some views on this in the previous thread. It would help greatly if the West would cease its aggressive and destabilising policies, eg:- encouragement to the armed opposition groups, regime-change demands, sanctions, instructing the opposition not to negotiate with the government, demanding that the Arab League monitors cease their mission etc etc.
Of course that will not happen. But if it did, constructive proposals eg in the Arab League agreements in November & December, and the current Russian initiative, would have much better chance of achieving a peaceful outcome.
What a fucking woosie!
My “disingenousness” is then shared I suppose by the author of this journal article, upon which I base my statement.
http://www.transatlantic.uj.edu.pl/upload/59_e86e_Newton.Sterling.MP.pdf
@113far and away from a so called ‘enlightened leadership’ whose interests are a million miles away from those whom they rule over.
That would be the same leadership whose policies have helped lift 100′s of millions of workers and peasants out of real and grinding poverty in recent decades.
But being a Trotskyite you wouldn’t care about that would you?
You seem happy to parrot the right wing narrative about “evil Chinese Communists”.
117 – ‘parrot the line re evil Chinese Communists’,
wonder what these people in Wukan, to take just one example, would make of that…
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27076
I think if you look at recent Syrian history (Hama, Lebanon et al), if there is no serious pressure, be it from the US, China or Russia, the Assad regime will simply crush the social unrest and literally bulldoze the remains. We see it happening now while the regime is let loose.
At the end of the day, only Russia and China benefit from that scenario (by geopolitical extension Iran as well), being key (military) hardware suppliers to the regime to the tune of hundreds of millions of $$$.
@118wonder what these people in Wukan
Localised problems and grievances are natural in a country of over a billion people. I am supportive of Left tendencies in the Party, in China in general and, of course, the struggles of ordinary Chinese to improve their lot within the System (as long as it doesn’t play into the hands of Western Imperialists who seek to destablise a nation they view as a long term global competitor).
Anyhow, what really pisses off the Eurocentric, Western Ultra-Left is that the CPC has been far more successful in changing and progressing China than anything managed in the West.
Cliff Foot, Thanks for the link to the SW article about the struggles of the people of Wukan for justice – sounds like their courage and determination is starting to force the authorities into some genuine concessions.
But how does that inspiring story make the case for NATO military intervention in Syria?
You’ve certainly summarised Bevin’s view of the whole matter rather well; but there are others and if mine is “disingenuous” then that must be applied to the author of this peer-reviews journal article: http://www.transatlantic.uj.edu.pl/upload/59_e86e_Newton.Sterling.MP.pdf
The conflict between Britain’s desire to maintain a protectionist sterling area of her former colonies and European integration has been a feature of european relations from the late 1940s all the way to the 1980s and the seemingly trivial debates over banana tariffs.
Darkness at Noon #119: “We see it happening now while the regime is let loose.”
Well, as the Arab League observer mission was terminated as demanded by Hilary Clinton, these is little reliable info on what is happening now, and what we do get is distorted by the media.
The opposition’s claims are often absurd & manufactured- the ‘babies killed when electricity to incubators cut off’ story has been recycled twice from its original fake by the Kuwaiti royal family in 1990- once in I think August last year and again this week; some deaths that were clearly due to opposition attacks (eg the attack which caused the death of the French journalist plus 8 government supporters in Homs) are pinned on the government; casualty figures are often wildly exaggerated; and deaths due to engagements between government forces and the opposition armed groups / FSA are spun as if they resulted from government attacks on peaceful civilians.
What the Russians are currently proposing is a sensible way forward, but the West is already working to sabotage it.