Humanitarian bombing in Libya

Under the pretext of a humanitarian agenda the US, Britain and France are bombing government targets in Libya. Socialists should not support this.

Aerial bombing in Libya in support of the weaker side in a civil war increases the humanitarian agony in the country. The left could urge the US, Britain and France to do one of the following.

One, support a rapid military intervention and the establishment of a pro-Western regime in Libya on the grounds that this action would end the civil war; and – even if non-democratic and non-socialist – such a regime would perhaps be more humanitarian than Gaddafi’s personal dictatorship.

Two, leave Libya to its own devices on the grounds that it is not for the capitalist countries to deny Libya its sovereignty by determining what happens there.

The third idea that the West can partially intervene to promote a left-leaning democracy is nonsense. You only have to look at Western support for the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to see that pro-capitalist orientation is the purpose of Western foreign policy, not the promotion of democracy which may end up questioning imperialist domination of the region.

Note

When we talk about intervention in Libya we are not talking about something akin to socialists going off to fight in the Spanish Civil War. For all practical purposes, the left has a simple binary choice: back Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy in their use of state military might against Gaddafi, or not back it.

The purpose of the Western powers is to topple Gaddafi and establish a pro-Western regime in Libya. They wish to do this without “putting boots on the ground,” so they reply on aerial bombing. The effect is to prolong the conflict. The well-being of Libyans stuck in a prolonged civil war hardly matters beyond the realms of spin and false pretext for their action.

Perhaps when/if the Gaddafi regime is toppled a more human will emerge, but it may not. Libyans should determine Libya’s future not the US, Britain and France.

Therefore, stop the bombing.

The Meaning of the Wikileaks leaks

The US embassy cables put into the public domain by Wikileaks do not contain any top secret intelligence and hardly tell us anything that we did not already suspect. Nevertheless, they are important in two ways: first, they are highly embarrassing to the US, so those who oppose US imperial power around the world can enjoy the Schadenfreude; and second – and more importantly – they provide evidence for much of what the left has previously believed to be true.

For me the most interesting is the confirmation of the utter subservience of the British government (both New Labour and the Coalition) to US interests. The constant and repeated mendacity of Blair-Brown government is well illustrated; for instance in deceiving the electorate and parliament on matters such as the outlawing of cluster bombs for PR purposes while clandestinely allowing the US to continue to hold them on British soil.

That Liam Fox gave full details of planned military procurement to the US Embassy hardly raises as eyebrow. Yet it is interesting to note that when the cables revealed that a FDP official had given details of the coalition negotiations in Germany to US diplomats, he lost his job within hours.

Will the publication of these cables do long term harm to the US? I don’t think so. If three million Americans with security clearance had access to this data base, we can be sure the information therein was already common knowledge in Paris, Moscow and Peking. Certainly, publication will force those wanting to cooperate with the US to think twice before opening their mouths to US diplomats, but overall the cables prove something very favourable to the US: for the most part US embassies function properly and orderly in promoting US interests around the world.

Gordon Brown’s speech to Congress: a fraud

A US speech writing company was paid over GBP 40 000 to help compose Gordon Brown’s speech to Congress. One Guardian columnist defended this.

Put simply, political leaders can either run countries or they can write speeches – there isn't time for them to do both. We wouldn't expect Gordon Brown to redesign the No 10 website single-handedly and nor should we expect him to write his own speeches.

There is a key difference. Brown never holds himself out to compose the Number 10 website; the uniformed observer, though, would think that he had written what for Brown was the speech of his lifetime to the US Congress. If Brown had got up and started,

Good evening, everybody. Here is a speech that a speech writing company in your country, West Wing Writers, has written for me. I will now read it.

At least that would have been honest.

The Soviets and US in Afghanistan

The Soviets and the US (with Britain in tow) invaded Afghanistan for the same reason: to fight radical Islam. The key difference is that when the Soviets were doing it, the US armed the Afghani resistance.

Britain in Afghanistan for no good reason

Only saving US face keeps the British in Afghanistan

New Labour says that British troops are in Afghanistan to keep terrorism off the streets of Britain. This is untrue.

The US led war against Afghanistan began in 2001 soley on the basis that some non-Afghans sympathetic to the attack on the 9/11 enjoyed safe haven there. No serious attempt was made to resolve the issue: George Bush wanted war.

The US overthrow of the Afghan Taliban government with the assistance of local law lords was swift, but the military occupation of the south, principally by the US and Britain, has led to eight years of sustained resistance.

The resistance is based on Afghans wanting foreign armies out of their country, not because the Taliban want to attack Britain. The British are killing Afghan civilians not vice versa.

Those planning terrorist-style attacks do not need Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Saudi Arabia and Germany. The 7/7 attacks were planned in Britain. There are any number of disorderly havens around the world where fanatical Muslim can train.

Obama has said he wants to fight in Afghanistan; and his subordinates in London jump to his orders. Britain’s troops remain in Afghanistan for one reason only: to save the US from losing face. That reason is not worth one British life.


.

Extraditing Gary McKinnon to the US

McKinnon, a British citizen, committed an alleged crime in Britain. If extradited to the US under this humiliating extradition treaty, he faces a wholly disproportionate punishment. He can and should be tried in Britain.

The McKinnon case yet again shows the New Labour government’s fidelity to the US trumps justice and compassion for British citizens.

Gordon Brown addresses the US Congress

It is utterly sickening to learn that the zenith of Brown’s miserable New Labour career is to address the Congress of the United States.

What we want is a government whose first loyalty is to the British people and which will cooperate on the basis of equality with our partners in Europe. Britain should not be a satellite of the US, whether that country be governed by Bush or Obama.

By all means, ask the US to give Brown and Blair US citizenship and then send them there, never to return.