Archive for the ‘Vietnam Anti-War Movement’ Category
Neutrality Yes! Solidarity Yes!
Guest post by Des Derwin
Neutrality is not opposition to ‘both sides’, or to Ukraine, in the war in Ukraine. But it is being presented that way in the build up for the People’s Forums On Irish Neutrality being held throughput the month of June.
A range of organisations are hosting fora in Limerick , Dublin, Cork and Galway. Some of them are organising demonstrations at the three locations of the government Consultative Forum on International Security Policy at Galway, Cork and Dublin.
There is also another, separately organised apparently, public meeting in Dublin on 24th June.
There are some heavy hitters speaking at some of the meetings, like Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, George Galloway, Bernadette McAliskey, Medea Benjamin and Yanis Varoufakis.
Many of the speakers have been associated with strong opposition to solidarity with Ukraine and with blame on NATO and ‘the West’ for the war. The hosting organisations largely represent positions between regarding the war as a war of NATO against Russia and regarding the war as a war between NATO and Russia.
A leading figure in Galway Alliance Again War posted on Facebook (11th June) what is designated as “an excellent article by Scott Ritter on the West’s proxy war against Russia”.
In its newsletter to members (9th June) urging them to support the People’s Forums On Irish Neutrality, People Before Profit says,
“They [the government] are using the Ukraine war to end neutrality. But a recent poll shows that 87% of people support a ceasefire to facilitate negotiations. If we had a government that really supported neutrality, it would be promoting negotiations”.
On 3rd March the Irish Anti-War Movement re-posted an article from Stop The War in Britain, titled One Year On, This Is Clearly a Proxy War Between NATO and Russia. It says,
“That means recognising that the war in the east has been going on for nearly a decade, and that the western powers represented by NATO have developed a firm policy of expansion taking in most of the east European states on or close to Russia’s borders. Russia was opposed to Ukraine joining NATO which it saw as a threat to its own security…One year on, this is clearly a proxy war between NATO and Russia, with western troops stationed very close to Russian borders, two formerly neutral countries – Sweden and Finland – joining NATO, Ukraine becoming a de-facto member of NATO, and the provision of weapons growing.”
The only mentions of what might be the wishes and intentions of the people of Ukraine, in an article devoid of any reference to Russian war crimes are, “In Ukraine, there are even demands for cluster bombs and phosphorus weapons”and “We stand in solidarity with all those protesting, and with those in Ukraine and Russia who are bravely raising their voices against war.” Who in Ukraine is bravely raising their voices against the heroic resistance of the mass of the Ukrainian people? There is not a word of solidarity for those in Ukraine raising their bodies and weapons against Russia’s war upon their lives, their homes and their freedoms.
On its Facebook page on 27th April PANA (Peace and Neutrality Alliance) introduced a video with:
“In this short video [US economist] Jeffrey Sachs gives us a brief historic background on the ongoing proxy war between Russia and the United States in Ukraine and explains why we need immediate peace and negotiations here to avoid a nuclear war between these superpowers.”
Among the speakers at the People’s Forums, George Galloway was a regular contributor on RT (Russia Today), a Russian government television station. On 14th February 2022 he famously tweeted:
“Y’all said #Russia was about to invade #Ukraine. I told you it wasn’t. You were wrong. I was right. Again. Show some bloody humility. Especially if they’re not even paying you to act like an idiot” (my emphasis – DD.)
In an interview with the Global Times on 12th February 2023 he said:
“The West is ready to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood, but not their own…They [the Russian leadership] just want not to have enemy missiles on their border. That’s why Ukraine will have to be completely demilitarized and properly neutralized before this conflict can end.”
At the Eurasia Media Forum in Almaty, Kazakhstan, in May 2019 George Galloway shared a plush platform with far right Trump strategist Steve Bannon:
A speaker at the second Dublin meeting (24th June), Neutrality: Who Cares?, Medea Benjamin of the US ‘women-led’ peace organisation CODEPINK, together with Nicolas J.S. Davies, wrote the book War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published last year. It is probably the premier text now of the ‘proxy war, NATO caused it’ current throughout the English-speaking world. It was famously reviewed in a podcast by Bill Weinberg and in an article by Linda Mann, ‘Their Anti-Imperialism and Ours’.
In his podcast Bill Weinberg (11th December 2022) indicates, page by page, how the Benjamin and Davies book designates the 2014 popular Maidan revolt a US orchestrated coup, “engineered” and an “operation”, bemoans the “flooding” (sounds familiar) of Ukraine with Western weapons, and repeats the ‘arguments’ against Ukrainian nationhood, including those in Putin’s pre-invasion speech. Weinberg indicates how the book sets out to legitimise the Russian referenda for ‘independence’ in the Donbas separatist republics, regrets how the “corporate media” “amplifies” “allegations” of Russian war crimes and compares reports of Russian atrocities to the notorious Kuwait atrocity reports, and opposes cultural boycotts and sanctions against Russia. And Weinberg points out how it reflects the New York Times editorial gently suggesting concessions brokered over the heads of the Ukrainians, talks up Russia’s security concerns and ‘encirclement’ from NATO, and NATO’s “role” in provoking the war, and chants the US and NATO’s undoubted crimes while neglecting Putin’s and Wagner’s record in neighbouring countries, Syria and Africa.
Linda Mann picks out for special attention a passage from Benjamin and Davies which both justifies the invasion and which, as Mann says, implies that “an aggressive war was on the table from the beginning”:
“The massive Western [military] support put Russia in a predicament…. In November 2021, Russia still enjoyed ‘escalation dominance,’ meaning that it could bring greater military force to bear than the US or NATO in any war in Ukraine. But Russia’s escalation dominance would keep diminishing as Ukraine’s military was gradually armed and trained up to NATO standards, with or without actual NATO membership.
“This meant that from Russia’s perspective, if they were going to have to fight to defend the Donbas and Crimea, every year they waited to do so would reduce their escalation dominance, tipping the balance in favor of Ukraine and increasing the risk of a potential nuclear war with the US and NATO.
“The United States military was well-aware of the predicament in which it was deliberately placing Russia’s leaders” (pp. 66 – 67, my emphasis – DD).
Medea Benjamin attended the (poorly-attended) Rage Against The War Machine rally in Washington on 19th February. This event brought together ‘leftists’ like herself and right-wingers and far-right-wingers, and featured some attendees with Russian flags and Z signs. She was to speak but told Chris Hedges, who did speak, in an email that,
“I supported the Rage Against the War Machine Rally from the time of its conception and I support it today, even though I will not be one of the speakers because the organisation I have been associated with for 20 years, CODEPINK, urged me not to speak…”
In the same article Chris Hedges wrote:
“I will also be joined by Ron Paul, Scott Horton and right-libertarian, anti-war figures whose political and cultural opinions I often disagree with. The inclusion of the right-wing has seen anti-war groups I respect, such as Veterans for Peace, refuse to join the rally. VFP issued a statement sent to me on Friday saying that ‘to endorse this event would have caused a huge disruption in VFP and had little effect on the outcome of the demonstration.’”
Sevim Dagdelen, an MP and deputy leader of Die Linke party in Germany, was a regular guest on the Russian state television channel Russia Today. There “she repeatedly explains that the European Union, the German government and NATO had overthrown the Yanukovych regime with the help of fascists in Ukraine”(Suddeutsche Zeitung, 16th March 2014). She dismissed fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, days before the invasion, as an “information war” and reminiscent of 2003, when the US and the CIA “drew the world into a murderous Iraq war” with “told stories” (NTV, 13th February 2022). “NATO has expanded, not Russia” Sevim Dagdelen told a primetime audience [on the ARD channel] a week before the invasion. (Politico, 24th February 2023). In March 2020 the leadership of Die Linke were “appalled” by Dagdelen and others in the Sahra Wagenknecht caucus of the party for blaming NATO for the Russian invasion (SPIEGEL Politik, 1st March 2022). She refused to call the massacres in Bucha and Mariupol “war crimes” (Zeit Online, 11th May 2022).
Dagdalen’s ally in Die Linke, Sahra Wagenknecht, and writer and feminist Alice Schwarzer have led the “negotiations and compromises” initiative in Germany around their Manifesto for Peace “in which they call for a halt to arms deliveries and for negotiations”(quote from Alice Schwarzer’s website introducing the Manifesto). They and other signatories organised the Rebellion for Peace rally in Berlin on 25th February 2023. “Speakers at the rally on Saturday included Wagenknecht, Schwarzer, a US-based professor… Jeffrey Sachs [again – DD], and a retired Bundeswehr officer turned private sector consultant, Erich Vad. All argued for negotiations with Russia, some were highly critical of NATO and the German government”(Deutsche Welle website, 27th February 2023).
Wagenknecht and the rally faced criticism from her own party Die Linke, before and after the event, even though the party holds “a position comparable to Wagenknecht’s on Ukraine: that Berlin should engage more for negotiations and less for weapons exports. However, the party has often sought to distance itself from its outspoken former leader’s comments on the war.”(Deutsche Welle, ibid).“Leading members had warned that the rally would attract far-right factions of Germany’s society. Observers noted many isolated cases of pro-Russian or right-wing symbols among the participants. Germany’s populist far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) was vocal in its support for the event while also noting the participation of its members” (Deutsche Welle, ibid). When asked whether AfD politicians could also take part in the demonstration, co-organiser, and former Finance Minister, Oskar Lafontaine replied that there was no “attitude test “ (Global Happenings website, 24th February 2023).
“‘Our fears were confirmed,’ Die Linke‘s vice chairperson Katina Schubert told the Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper [following the rally]. Schubert used the term “Querfront” (cross-front) to refer to collaborating with conservative revolutionaries, an expression used in Germany’s Weimar Republic…‘Whoever starts a call appealing to the cross-front, reaps the cross-front,’ Schubert said. Schubert said that ‘the confusion of victim and perpetrator was a recurring theme in the speeches’” (Deutsche Welle, ibid).
At the end of the rally, Lafontaine, Wagenknecht, Schwarzer and Vad, as well as Left Party politician Sevim Dagdelen, stood hand in hand on the stage.
In January Clare Daly and Mick Wallace were among 19 members of the European Parliament to vote against a resolution calling for the establishment of a special international tribunal to prosecute Russia’s leadership for the crime of aggression against Ukraine (Irish Times, 19th January 2023). In April 2022 Mick Wallace told the radio station, Ireland South East, that, “In my opinion Ukraine is being used by the US and NATO in their war to undermine Russia.” In October 2022 Clare Daly and Mick Wallace were among 26 MEPs to vote against a resolution to condemn “gunpoint” referenda and call for increased support for Ukraine.
Explaining her October vote Clare Daly said:
“I condemn the illegal aggression of Russia, but I disagree with a one-sided narrative that excuses the Western role in what is now happening. I urge a ceasefire, negotiations and genuine EU efforts to secure a peace. I oppose the policy of collective punishment, sanctions that also hurt European citizens, the flooding of Ukraine [sic] with weapons, and other actions that escalate the war and run the risk of igniting a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. I find much to agree with in this resolution. But unfortunately, this text also contains elements I cannot vote for. Demands for pumping even more weapons into Ukraine, demands for neutral states to abandon their neutrality, unrealistic conditions for ending the conflict, the continuation and entrenchment of a sanctions policy that isn’t helping anyone, and the presence of ominous threats and bellicose rhetoric which only inflame tensions and make peace less likely. That is why I cannot vote in favour of the resolution.”
Another speaker is Catherine Connolly TD. She accompanied Clare Daly and Mick Wallace on one of their journeys to Bashar Al-Assad’s sector of war-torn Syria. Her take on another of Putin’s wars may be illustrated by her address to the Ukrainian ambassador visiting Dáil Eireann on 23rd February 2022 (the day before the invasion):
“I do not want to waste my time giving my opinion of Putin. I am on the record about it. He is a dictator with no respect for democracy. NATO’s role in all of this has already been outlined by some colleagues on the left, but certainly not on the right. NATO has played a despicable role in moving forward to the border and engaging in warmongering”
Our neutrality and theirs
Neutrality is under pressure from government, media and establishment, using the war in Ukraine to open the possibility of ending Ireland’s formal military neutrality. It must be added that this pressure is accelerated from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Putin has been the best recruiter NATO could hope for, ending Finland’s and Sweden’s long-standing neutrality overnight. The biggest diffusion of the assault on neutrality in Ireland would be the defeat of Putin’s aggression.
Ireland’s neutrality does need to be defended. A broad alliance organising a campaign of meetings and demonstrations is needed. But the campaign should be about neutrality. It should not be about equating both sides in the war in Ukraine, blaming NATO and ‘the West’ for the war, opposing the military means for Ukraine’s defence or pushing a strategy of ‘ceasefire and negotiations’ now which would halt Ukrainian defence and freeze the murderous Russian occupation in its present positions.
Irish neutrality is perfectly compatible with demanding that Russia withdraw from Ukraine immediately and stop its barbarous assaults on civilians and civilian infrastructure, with support for the right of Ukraine to arm and defend itself, with support and solidarity for the Ukrainian people and labour movement, and with backing for self-determination for Ukraine.
Irish neutrality – in so far as it still survives or ever really applied at all – is about staying out of superpower military alliances and remaining neutral in wars between the powers or between countries or forces waging rivalries for local capitalist domination. In practical words it might be expressed as staying out of NATO and common European armies, and not multiplying military spending when there’s a crushing housing crisis (or at all). That neutrality should be maintained and defended. It is the neutrality that we who support the resistance of the Ukrainian people claim! It is the neutrality that we have as much right to defend as any alliance of political positions seeking to monopolise and define neutrality for their own purposes in relation to the war in Ukraine. Those claiming to defend Ireland’s neutrality are, for all practical purposes, not neutral when they oppose military aid to Ukraine. In effect that policy if implemented would lead to the defeat of Ukraine, and victory for Russian aggression.
No socialist, democrat or humanitarian should be neutral in a war of liberation of an oppressed people, a war of revolution against capitalism, a civil war against counter-revolution or a war of democracy against dictatorship or fascism, or, as in the case of the war in Ukraine, a war of national defence against an imperialist invasion. The left wasn’t neutral on Vietnam. The left wasn’t neutral on Iraq. February 2022 was not July 1914. When we are ‘anti-war’ we realise that there is a huge difference between wars of occupation and domination and wars of resistance. When we are neutral we remember the words of Desmond Tutu that, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”. When we long for peace, as we always do, it is not the peace of the graveyard, Pax Romana, the peace of capitulation or acceptance of the status quo, but the peace of justice and of the defeat of aggression, torture, reaction, rape, mass murder and ecocide.
James Connolly as ever put it so well in January 1916:
“We believe that in times of peace we should work along the lines of peace to strengthen the nation, and we believe that whatever strengthens and elevates the working class strengthens the nation. But we also believe that in times of war we should act as in war. We despise, entirely despise and loathe, all the mouthings and mouthers about war who infest Ireland in time of peace, just as we despise and loathe all the cantings about caution and restraint to which the same people treat us in times of war. Mark well then our programme. While the war lasts and Ireland still is a subject nation we shall continue to urge her to fight for her freedom.” (‘What Is Our Programme’, Workers Republic, 22 January 1916).
The view of the war in Ukraine as a war by NATO, or a ‘proxy inter-imperialist war’, and an urge to deny all support to Ukraine, even sanctions on Russia, even training on de-mining, underpins the neutrality being presented in the June series of People’s Forums On Irish Neutrality and the ‘Conversation’ on Neutrality:Who Cares?. The view – obvious to almost everyone independent of the shocking campism which is almost universal across the organised radical socialist left in Ireland – that Ukraine has been subject to aggression, invasion, war crimes and occupation, supports the belief that neutrality cannot be an argument for denying solidarity to Ukraine or for effectively giving succour to Putin. That neutrality cannot be an excuse for almost complete ‘anti-war’ inactivity on the streets against the horror right here in Europe. A horror that cannot be downplayed and has been recognised by the UNHCR as the largest annual global increase of people forcibly displaced in decades (Irish Times, 15th June 2023).
Certainly there are supporters and organisers of these events who are interested only in the principle of neutrality, or who firmly believe that a just peace is a possible option right now in Ukraine. And one of the Dublin speakers (from Sinn Fein) has often expressed his solidarity with Ukraine. But we must go on the declared positions and records of the principal figures to observe what is being broadcast through these initiatives.
The cancellation of the original venue for the Galway meeting, or the venues of similar meetings in London and Vienna, is not an appropriate or democratic response to them, or even to the strongest apologists for Putin. The meetings should be allowed go ahead without hindrance or disruption and the case for solidarity with Ukraine argued, and given a voice, in other fora like this one.
That opinion poll
The deployment of the PANA (Peace and Neutrality Alliance) opinion poll in their newsletter supports the ‘ceasefire and negotiations’ position of People Before Profit. Many of the organisers of these meetings are determined to maintain this position, so boldly led by Sabina Higgins in July 2022 yet so promptly clarified by President Michael D. Higgins in a statement which called for “an immediate Russian withdrawal”. Indeed some of the speakers in these Forums signed the Oireachtas members’ letter last February reiterating the ‘ceasefire and negotiations’ position. This too was promptly clarified by Senator signatories “endorsing stronger sanctions, recognising the importance of prosecution for war crimes”, condemning “the illegal Russian invasion”, recognising “Ukraine’s right to national sovereignty” and supporting “initiatives towards peace based on the strong principles of the UN Charter” including “Article 51 on the inherent right to self-defence”.
A PANA press release on 25th May 2023 carried the results of an Ipsos Omnipoll it had commissioned which,
“Reveals 87% of people in Ireland support a ceasefire to facilitate negotiations to end the War in Ukraine…The question asked: “Are you in favour or not in favour of a ceasefire to facilitate negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to end the war?” The response was: In Favour 87%, Not in Favour 8%, DK/No Opinion 5%. This is a massive endorsement of PANA’s position taken at the very start of the war.…In the year that marks the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement that brought the war in Ireland to an end through a process of a ceasefire and negotiations, should we not retain this same philosophy in the horrific war now raging in the Ukraine.”
Whatever about the effect of a question on ‘peace’ put to people by a pollster, the same 87% or so of Irish people are very likely to give a similarly positive response to a question of Russia getting its troops out of Ukraine now, or of whether Ukraine should be given the resources it needs for its defence.
Actually the PANA (Peace and Neutrality Alliance) poll jars with a series of recent polls whose finding would not at all support the thrust of PANA’s message on the war.
An Irish Times/IPSOS poll (reported 28th October 2022), found that,
“An overwhelming majority of voters (72 per cent) say that Ireland and the EU “must continue to stand by Ukraine even if this means energy shortages”, with just 20 per cent disagreeing with the statement.”
As reported in The Irish Examiner (24th February 2023) a poll by the European Commission,
“found 76% of Irish people expressed satisfaction with measures taken by the EU to support Ukraine following the start of the war with Russia a year ago. It is the second highest level of support among the 27 EU member states after Portugal (79%) and considerably above the EU average of 56%. The Eurobarometer poll also showed even higher levels of satisfaction among Irish people with the Government’s reaction to the invasion. According to the survey, 78% of respondents in Ireland have supported measures taken by the Government to date. The EU average is 55%.”
On neutrality the findings would moderate perceptions that the eroders are vastly out of step with the Irish people:
“However, Irish people were less enthusiastic than most Europeans about having a common EU defence and security policy. Just over two-thirds (69%) were supportive of such a measure compared to the EU average of 77% with other countries including Austria, Romania and Sweden even more lukewarm about a common defence and security policy.”
The Irish Examiner (28th March 2023) reported on another Eurobarometer poll which indicated that,
“…91% of people here [in Ireland] agree the EU should reduce its dependency on Russian energy as soon as possible, compared to the EU average of 84%…The public here are much more likely to be satisfied with both the Government’s (78%) and the EU’s (76%) reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine than the EU averages of 55% and 56%.”
A new Irish Times/Ipsos poll (Irish Times, 17th June 2023) shows people holding the line on Irish neutrality, with 61% saying they support Ireland’s current model of military neutrality (a decline in support for neutrality of five points since last year). There is 55% support for “significantly increasing Ireland’s military capacity”. “More than half of all voters”, the paper reports, “say that Ireland should continue to accept all Ukrainian refugees who arrive.” In an Irish Times/Ipsos poll last year 36% said that Ireland should continue to accept Ukrainians “no matter how many arrive”. On refugees in general 48% said “they think that there are ‘too many refugees in Ireland now'”, but, the Irish Times says, “the numbers suggest that at least some of those…also believe that Ireland should keep taking them”.
And whatever about Irish opinion, in a Gallup poll across Ukraine in September 2022, 70% of Ukrainians favoured fighting to win, and 91% of those who backed the war defined victory as retaking all seized territory. In a poll conducted in October 2022 across the ‘pre-February’ territory of Ukraine by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 86% of respondents answered that it is necessary to continue the armed struggle anyway, even if shelling continues. In particular, 71% among them fully agree with this opinion (the remaining 16% rather agree). Only 10% of respondents answered that it is necessary to proceed to negotiations to stop the shelling as soon as possible, even if it is necessary to make concessions to Russia.
In May 2023 the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology conducted a telephone poll across Ukraine, except for Crimea, in its latest round of questions about the population’s readiness for territorial concessions. 84% of respondents continued to adhere to the view that no territorial concessions are acceptable, even if this means that the war will last longer and there will be other threats. Only 10% believe that in order to achieve peace and preserve independence, it is possible to give up some territories.
The nuanced and varied, but almost universal, consensus on Ukraine, on the Irish organised radical socialist left, is conspicuously put on display in the unitary and cross-over platforms for these People’s Forums and Conversations. It is a consensus that essentially abandons the people of Ukraine, and either soft-peddles on Putin or blames ‘the West’ equally for the war. It is a consensus that is branding the left as defenders of dictatorship and playing right into the hands of politicians, press, publicists and propagandists that have always tried to brand the left in this way.
Neutrality Yes! Solidarity Yes!
Des Derwin
17th June 2023
The Fallacies of the Call for “Negotiations” Between Ukraine and Russia – Charles Pierson
The following article was submitted to the USA journal Counterpunch replying to the article mentioned in the paragraph below. Counterpunch refused to publish it.
We wish to thank the New York based Irish-American activist Joan McKiernan who brought the article below to our attention. This vital discussion is occurring in many parts of the world, including Ireland. If you wish to actively participate in principled left-wing solidarity with the Ukrainian masses we recommend the European Network for Solidarity With Ukraine (ENSU). The ENSU’s Irish supporters work with Irish Left With Ukraine (ILWU), which has organised a public meeting in Dublin taking place on November 21 2022. The main speaker is ENSU activist Yuliya Yurchenko.
John Meehan November 10 2022
Links :
ENSU https://ukraine-solidarity.eu/ ILWU : https://www.facebook.com/groups/466892938791354
“Victory against Russia,” is the wrong goal in Ukraine, writes Binoy Kampmark (“Vicarious Zeal: Fighting to the Last Ukrainian,” Counterpunch, Jul. 15, 2022). Kampmark, a frequent contributor to Counterpunch, worries that Ukraine and the West are demanding what amounts to Russia’s “unconditional surrender.” Instead of demanding Russia’s surrender, Kampmark recommends peace talks. A negotiated peace, he writes, will shorten the war and save lives. Unfortunately, “Hard-headed peace talks, let alone anything approximating to negotiations have … become taboo.”
I respect Binoy Kampmark. I believe this is the first time I have disagreed with something he has written, but I do disagree. Strongly. Here’s why.
Russian-Ukrainian Peace Talks Since the Russian Invasion
Kampmark appears to have bought into the myth propagated by the “anti-imperialist left” that Ukraine refuses to negotiate. That puts the onus on Ukraine for rejecting peace. The truth is that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine began even before Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24. Russia and Ukraine, together with France and Germany, met in January and February to attempt to defuse the growing crisis.
Support Ukrainian Resistance and Disempower Fossil Capital
Several left-wing authors co-operate here arguing for support to Ukrainian Resistance against the Russian imperialist invasion. The authors come from several different parts of Europe.
This is the source : http://europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article63931
Thursday 18 August 2022, by BUDRAITSKIS Ilya, DUTCHAK Oksana, ETZBACH Harald, GEHRKE Bernd, GELINSKY Eva, HÜRTGEN Renate, KOWALEWSKI Zbigniew Marcin , LOMONOSOVA Nataliia, PEREKHODA Hanna, PILASH Denis, POPOVYCH Zakhar, SCHMID Philipp, WÄLZ Christoph, WIELGOSZ Przemysław, ZELLER Christian
Similar debates are occurring on the left in Ireland : https://tomasoflatharta.com/2022/08/22/a-strange-policy-is-reviewed-support-ukraines-resistance-against-an-imperialist-russian-invasion-politically-but-oppose-giving-arms-to-the-resisters-a-critique-of-iri/
On June 9, Heino Berg, Thies Gleiss, Jakob Schäfer, Matthias Schindler, Winfried Wolf published a detailed statement in Junge Welt in which they advocated an “anti-militarist defeatism” and the abandonment of Ukraine’s military resistance to the Russian war of occupation. [1] We take her article as an opportunity for a fundamental response about a necessary anti-imperialist ecosocialist perspective committed to global solidarity. We are appalled at the way they bend the reality of war in this article and ultimately argue in favor of Putin’s oligarch regime. Paternalistically, they recommend that the Ukrainian population submit to Russian occupation in order to end the war. The authors make not the slightest reference to socialist, feminist, and anarchist forces in Ukraine and Russia. They argue from a distinctly German perspective. They are not alone in this. Many statements of the old peace movement turn against the “escalation of the West” and “forget” that Russia has already escalated long ago and wants to systematically destroy Ukrainian society. The statement of the five authors ignores anti-imperialist solidarity to such an extent that we consider it appropriate to set our arguments against it.
Reversal of Responsibility
The statement of the authors reads like many contributions from the old peace movement and a one-sided sham anti-imperialist left. Of course, at the beginning of the text they condemn the invasion of Ukraine “without any reservation or relativization.” But afterwards they do exactly that: they relativize the aggression of the Putin oligarchy. Under the title “No Interest in Ceasefire,” they explain in detail why NATO is much worse than Russia and that the West, first and foremost the U.S., does not want an early ceasefire but is primarily using the Ukrainian battlefield to weaken Russia.
Read the rest of this entry »“The biggest and most destructive war in Europe since the Second World War. A war waged for more than four months against Ukraine, the second largest country in Europe, by Putin’s Russia, the largest country in Europe!” – Demands that the left should put forward
The author of this report is Stefan Bekier, a former left opposition activist in Poland against the dictatorship of the “Communist” Party and an activist of Ensemble! in France https://fourth.international/fr/europe/88.
Source : https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article63883
The majority of the left in France – we’ll leave aside the sectors that openly support Putin – condemns this war of aggression by Russian imperialism, demands the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. But at the same time, it remains paralysed and voiceless, abandoning the field of defence of Ukraine to Macron, to the bourgeoisie.
A deafening, shocking silence
Presidential and parliamentary elections are traditionally the moment when strategic priorities are debated and compared, including those concerning the international situation. But, for most of the left in France, it is clear that Putin’s Russian war against Ukraine was not part of its strategic priorities during these elections. Probably, to avoid the very important divergences on this issue between the different components of the left-wing coalition Nupes from coming to light during the election campaign and weakening the very promising new alliance. In particular, in relation to the very controversial positions of part of the left on Ukraine and Russia since the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Donbass in 2014. So much so that during the elections the subject practically disappeared within the left
Read the rest of this entry »Vietnam: 45 Years After the War Finally Ended – Country Joe McDonald’s Passionate Woodstock Anti-War Song Inspires Presidential Candidate Howie Hawkins
How refreshing! Howie Hawkins, an eco-Socialist candidate in the November 2020 USA Presidential General Election, recalls a funny, sarcastic and moving Country Joe McDonald song which went worldwide in 1969 after a stunning live performance at the Woodstock Rock Music Festival. The biting realism spoke to hundreds of millions, motivating them to act in thousands of ways against the Washington War Machine.
I can’t remember when, exactly, I first heard McDonald’s brilliantly sung call to action – probably before attending my first USA Embassy Demonstration in Ballsbridge Dublin against the Vietnam War.
I was shocked, and pleasantly impressed, to meet some some fellow school students at this venue – one of those “what are you doing here? moments” – and was even more stunned to see my teacher of Italian, Sydney-Bernard Smyth, reciting his own poems from the platform.
The anti-capitalist spirit of McDonald’s song is captured here :
Come on wall street don’t be slow
Why man this war is a go-go
There’s plenty good money to be made by
Supplying the army with the tools of its trade
Let’s hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong
A strength of the Hawkins account is that the support he offered to the anti-imperialist cause is and was critical – the national liberation struggle led by the Vietnamese Communist Party and its leader Ho Chi Minh was a just cause, but it was not perfect or flawless. This practical intellectual framework is badly needed today. Many people outside Ireland watch the Donald Trump led horror story in America, and the honourable, but flawed, electoral left-flavoured opposition which was headed by Bernie Sanders. Sanders now takes sides in a useless reactionary contest between TweedleBiden of the Democrats and TweedleTrump of the Republicans, bringing to mind the dismal and barren electoral contest between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Many enduring lessons were taught in the USA and across the globe by the mass movement against the Vietnam War. – John Meehan
“What are we fighting for?” – Country Joe McDonald
When I had to prepare for a 7th grade classroom debate on the Vietnam War in Spring 1965, President Johnson had begun escalating the war with the massive bombing of Operation Rolling Thunder and the deployment of a few thousand Marines to Da Nang, the first of what would become nearly 200,000 US troops by the end of 1965 and over 500,000 in 1968. I learned that the US had signed the 1954 Geneva Accords, which provided for an election in 1956 to unify Vietnam and establish an independent government. But I also learned that the US had prevented the election because it knew the winner would be Ho Chi Minh, the Communist leader of the Viet Minh, the nationalist coalition for independence that had defeated the Japanese and then the French imperialists. The Viet Minh controlled the North, but the French had retaken the South when the Japanese left with US military support from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations until the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and gave up their colonies in Indochina. I read the 1945 “Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence from Japan and France.” Ho had drafted and modeled the proclamation after the American Declaration of Independence in consultation with operatives from the OSS (predecessor of the CIA), who had been helping the Viet Minh fight the Japanese during World War II. None of this was on the nightly news, which broadcast Johnson’s justifications for the war. I was outraged at the hypocrisy of the pro-war US political leaders who talked of democracy and self-determination but were opposing it in Vietnam. What are we fighting for?
When the Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, all of these violations of America’s professed values were more thoroughly documented by internal Pentagon documents. What also became clear in those leaked documents is that US political leaders knew the whole time that the US could not defeat Vietnamese nationalism and win the war. Yet they continued to send young Americans to die in Vietnam so they didn’t appear soft on Communism in domestic politics. What are we fighting for?
When my draft number came up in 1972, I enlisted in the Marine Corps and in the GI resistance to the war. When I got to Quantico for bootcamp for officer candidates, I was training with a lot of Vietnam combat veterans now in college on the GI bill and coming back in the Marines to become officers—and most of them opposed the Vietnam War. They loved the anti-war anthem of the Navy veteran, Country Joe McDonald. His “Feel Like i’m Fixing to Die Rag” captured the hypocrisies of the US war in Vietnam and the spirit of the anti-war movement inside as well as outside the military. For the military rank-and-file, the song gave voice to their real feelings about how they were treated as expendable pawns by the military brass and the country’s political leaders. What are we fighting for?
It took 19 years after the 1956 election that the US prevented for the Vietnamese, with the assistance of the anti-war movement and the GI resistance, to finally expel the last US forces 45 years ago on April 30, 1975. US leaders said we were fighting Communism. Washington’s aggressive war the cost of lives of nearly 4 million Vietnamese. The Communists won and today preside over a predominantly capitalist economy. What are we fighting for?
Today multinational corporations from the US, China (Vietnam’s millennial-old colonial nemesis), Japan, South Korea, and other nations locate factories in Vietnam to exploit cheap labor and environmental laws so lax and unenforced that the legendary General Vo Nguyen Giap, who had led the Vietnamese People’s Army in defeating the Japanese, French, and finally US occupiers, became Vietnam’s most prominent a environmental, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption dissident, criticizing Vietnamese state and party leaders on these issues until his dying day in 2013 at the age of 102. What were we fighting for?
And what are we fighting for now? It’s not for us regular people. We are not why the US now has over 800 foreign military bases. We are not why the US is officially engaged in 7 endless wars and covert special operations in well over 100 foreign countries. We are not why the US is continuing to impose economic sanctions on countries that need aid and trade right now to fight the coronavirus. The US war machine is not about defending Americans in our homeland. It is about making the world safe for profiteering by US-based global corporations.
What are we fighting for? We should be fighting to dismantle the US Military/Industrial Complex. Instead being the world’s military empire, we must demand that the US become the world’s humanitarian superpower. Let’s make the US use its wealth and knowledge in a multi-lateral Global Green New Deal that reverses climate change and provides for the basic needs of all. Let’s make friends, instead of enemies. Let’s make peace, instead of war.
— Read on howiehawkins.us/vietnam-45-years-after-the-war-finally-ended/
An accidental beginning :
The audience largely ignored his eight-song set. His tour manager said that since nobody was paying attention, why not do the number he was saving for tomorrow night? The singer walked back out, alone, and called to the masses, “Give me an F!”
That got their attention. They knew the routine. The crowd at Woodstock, half a million strong, rose to their feet and joined in Country Joe McDonald’s antiwar war cry, chanting along from the opening expletive all the way to the “Whoopee! We’re all going to die” capper. Captured in Michael Wadleigh’s Oscar-winning 1970 documentary “Woodstock,” the three rousing minutes of Mr. McDonald’s acoustic version of “The ‘Fish’ Cheer/I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag” became the premier Vietnam War protest anthem.
“I never had a plan for a career in music, so Woodstock changed my life,” Mr. McDonald, now 75, said in an interview from his home in Berkeley, Calif. “An accidental performance of ‘Fixin’-to-Die,’ a work of dark humor that helps people deal with the realities of the Vietnam War, established me as an international solo performer, then the movie came out and the song went on to become what it still is today.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/opinion/country-joe-vietnam-woodstock.html
Tomás Ó Flatharta 