|
In The Beginning ...
The start of the South Tyneside Stop the War Coaliton forum in committee room C at South Shields town hall, 7pm [BST], 21st May, 2003, was almost delayed because it was growing dark outside, and so inside, and most of the dozen or so people present in the room could not find the light switch.
No town hall staff seemed to be on duty to help with this technical problem.
Fortunately one person present, Roger Nettleship, hospital worker, union official [Unison], and one-time independent parliamentary candidate, had the wit and wisdom to continue searching the wall area near the main door until he found the switch ... just in the nick of time ... so that the meeting could start in a brightened state ... more or less on time ...
As Roger later said: “We must make our own history.”
In the forum's opening address, Alan Newham celebrated the "unlikely alliances" that have been building up in the anti-war movement.
He cited the well-testified example of: "The Socialist Workers' Party marching shoulder-to-shoulder with The Mothers' Union."
From an openly open-minded socialist perspective, Alan [who remembers that Marx's mottoes included 'DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM - to doubt of everything'] then started to address the historical background of the present world situation.
He called attention to the recently published Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace, by Gore Vidal.
The title is a quote from the American historian Charles A. Beard.
Gore’s book lists the number of wars and conflicts in which the U.S. has been involved.
To quote: "In these several hundred wars against communism, terrorism, drugs, or something nothing much between Pearl Harbour and Tuesday, September 11, 2001, we tended to strike the first blow. But then we`re the good guys, right? Right."
Gore is a quite prickly, partly exiled, fairly ageing, somewhat ironic, thorn in the American - and wider world - consciousness.
In an article published in the British Observer [27/10/02 - copyrights observed] Gore directly quoted the words of James Madison [aka - in the U.S. - ‘Father of the Constitution’] at the dawn of the American Republic, around the time of the constitutional convention, Philadelphia, 1787:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded beause it comprises and develops the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourges debts and taxes, the known insturments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended ... and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people ..."
Words that might give all food for thought, it might be thought.
But as everyone knows, words are not enough ... and actions speak louder than ...
Speaking at the forum, Alan Newham emphasized the local basis and do-it-yourself ethos of the South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition, and wondered: "What do we DO here - our area?"
What indeed?
In all cases, individual human actions and communications take place on a relatively small local scale, in a spreading [literal or metaphorical] forest of associated symbols, which include sounds, smells, tastes ... and physical things ...
While giving his opening address Alan was wearing a commerically produced sweatshirt of complex design, which included a representation of a musical score by Shostakovich.
Dmitry Dmitryevich Shostakovich [some of whose name might be distorted in transliteration] was a state-sponsored musician working mostly in the former USSR, who is widely recognized as one of the 20th Century's greatest classical composers.
Dmitry was privately appalled - but felt almost powerless himself to do anything in response to his emotional reaction - when he learned that the Stalinist state machine [which supported his own work, and which he mostly theoretically supported on principle] was systematically slaughtering [along with many others] the folk bards of the Ukraine, as part of a cultural war.
Most of the bards massacred in the purges of the 1920s and 1930s were old and frail, and from the point of view of the Soviet authorities represented out-of-date ways of thinking, feeling and doing. which had no place in the new Soviet world of the early 20th Centruy. [But where is that 'brave new world' now?]
The official justification of the purge was a clampdown on nationalism in the name of 'Internationalism' - even though, at the time, the Stalinists themselves were in the process diverting their ideology from one of 'international socialism' to one of 'socialism in one country'.
Observing indirectly the killing of the bards - and many others - from a personally relatively safe academic distance, Dmitry wondered about his own compromised position.
What was he to do? Give up his state-sponsored vocation in protest? - and probably be persecuted himself as a consequence. Or continue to compose in what many would regard as the service of a regime that violently suppressed the freeedom of music?
Wracked by such private doubts - which perhaps helped his creative flows - Dmitry went on making music - which in some ways preserved and recreated the massacred bards' work ...
Despite his personal caution, and despite his mostly orthodox Soviet outlook, Dmitry was himself almost purged in 1936, when the offiicial Soviet paper ‘Pravda’ published an article headlined 'Chaos Instead Of Music' accusing him of 'leftist distortion', 'petty bourgeois sensationalism' and 'formalism' - all apparently serious crimes in the Stalinist state.
His survival largely depended on the popular success of his 5th symphony - to which he gave the politic subtitle “a Soviet artists' practical creative response to just criticism”.
In the second world war, Dmitry worked as a firefighter during the Nazi seige of Leningrad - out of which came his 7th Symphony, The Leningrad, which became a genuinely popular classical anthem of the struggle against fascism, widely performed in the USSR, the UK, and the USA during the war.
Dmitry's works are marked by sharp contrasts, which some interpret as akin to political dialectics. They mix tragic intensity with sometimes grotesque, often bizarre, wit, humour, parody and satire - and he frequently uses quotation, including of his own previous work.
The ways of free expression - musical or otherwise - and open dialogue are never without complexities ... and compromises ... and ambiguites ...
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum ...
At the People's Assembly, Westminister Hall, London, March 12, 2003, Nader A-Naderi, who gave the second opening address at the STSTWC forum on May 21, met George Galloway.
George is a maverick British Labour MP who - since meeting Nader - has been smeared and pilloried by the mainstream British media for saying things about the war in Iraq that many other people believe - in this country and elsewhere. [Many others believe George went too far ... but that is the way open debate sometimes goes ...]
What happened when Scottish socialist George [known to some as 'Georgeous'] met Nader, a respectably married South Tynesider, with family links to Iran, and, by his own description, a 'capitalist'?
In Nader's own words: 'I shook him by the hand and said to him: "May I commend you on your balls?".'
[Context. Just before Nader spoke to him, George had openly suggested to the People's Assembly - attended by more than 1,000 people, but little reported in the mainstream media - that British troops should refuse to fight in Iraq. Nader reported this remark back to STSTWC a few days later - and expressed surprize that what seemed to be an open call to mutiny by an elected MP of the governing party had not attracted the attention of the national press, tv, and radio. Later a few British soliders did refuse to fight - in barely reported episodes - and later still George was widely accused of 'treason', and suspended from the Labour Party - but the idea that the soldiers were directly influenced by George's previously barely reported remarks must be very open to doubt.]
Nader can spin out ambiguous - even kinky - sounding lines, but he can also put things straight.
He told it as he saw it to the forum:
"The fact was, and is, Saddam offered little in the way of a threat to the national security of the U.S., and the U.K - a historical fact, considering the length of the war, and the manner of defeat of an ill-equipped, and rag-tag Iraqi Army. However, since the downfall of the tryannical regime of Saddam, one fact is clearly emerging: annexation of the Iraqi oil by the warring factions, and its incorporation into various American corporate bodies - with further money being siphoned by those managing to get lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq. Simple fact is if these players were to divert such funds from U.S., and U.K. taxes, they most probably would have been found guilty of fraud, and sent to jail, however by going through the route of war, they have laundered their proceeeds, at the cost to those who died fighting this war. The simple fact you should all remember is: crime should not pay, however sophisticated the criminal, and his or her methods of committing crimes. In other words, it is up to you to be aware of why violence is chosen in preference to civilized modes of human discourse."
Anna Snowdon, who was informally chairing the forum on 21 May, thanked Nader and Alan for their opening contributions, and went on to highlight some of the relative successes of the anti-war movement.
It had without doubt helped to save lives by acting as a restraining influence on the use of force by the U.S. and U.K.
And then Anna said: "We nearly stopped the war."
This simple phrase was not greeted with universal politeness.
It was a trigger for a somewhat heated discussion on the question of: 'How nearly was "nearly"?'
Why the idea of 'nearly' stopping a war should provoke responses including something approaching anger is a question perhaps deserving a pause for thought ...
Meanwhile, the forum continues ... and now includes the ongoing regret that, for the people killed an maimed in the war - and its consequences - our 'nearly' was, indeed, not nearly enough ...
[Philip Talbot, 22/05/03, 23/05/03]
+
Factual Reporting ...
Public Forum in South Shields - The Way Forward
On Wednesday May 21st South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition held a Public Forum in South Shields entitled The Way Forward. The Forum was attended by members and activists of the Coalition and chaired by Anna Snowdon. After two introductory contributions the forum set its own agenda to sum up what has the anti-war movement achieved in opposing the attack on Iraq and talk about the way forward. It also agreed to discuss practical proposals for the Stop the War Coalition in South Tyneside.
In his opening contribution Nader Naderi started by saying that humanity had long abhorred violence, and murder and after giving the way the authorities promote "zero tolerance" towards domestic violence he contrasted this with the fact that these same authorities make war as an exception to the case. He spoke about how these authorities are "legitimising this departure from civilised behaviour and stooping to the base and animalistic modes of behaviour, …" and he pointed out how they have evolved these "special dispensations" to the use of violence in war based on the philosphy of pragmatism. (Pragmatism is a philosophy devoid of any scientific and principled view of the world and based on the concept that the end justifies the means - ed)
Nader went on to point out that keeping this is mind the end that these wars are fought for is "gaining advantage", be it land or resources, "or on the other hand new markets for products, and or expansion of the consumer base." In his view in the past often wars were based on territorial squabbles, between intransigent opponents, whom found the need for acquisition far out weighed the temporary instability, and expenses of war.
However, he said in his view, at the dawn of the 21st century, war has become the means of consolidating the failing economies, that have their basis on greed, and consumerism. He then explained that with "the limited money supply economics", resources, and assets are traded for nominal denominations around the world monetary system. This takes little note of the need to allocate resources on the basis what is required by each economy to meet the needs of the peoples. He pointed out that this "further highlights the right of indigenous people to indigenous resources, which could be traded for other resources, and commodities lacking within the boundaries of their domicile."
Simply put, Nader said, "wars of the 21st century are in fact an all out assault on the rights of people around the world. “Rights” that must remain sacred if we are to subscribe to notions of civilised transaction, with a view to stability of our societies, ultimately leading to a life free from molestation, threat, and danger for all the human family."
Nader indicted those statesman who are failing to discharge their duty and their failure in finding civilised solutions to problems they are facing, and further consciously choosing the path of violence and murder.
After speaking about the fact that those that advocate war and the war on Iraq could not be justified Nader pointed out that one fact is clearly emerging; annexation of the Iraqi oil by the warring factions, and its incorporation into various American corporate bodies. With further money being siphoned by those managing to get lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq. He said if these players were to divert such funds from US, and UK taxes, they most probably would have been found guilty of fraud, and sent to jail, however the by going through the route of war, they have laundered their proceeds, at the cost to those who died.
He concluded that the simple fact that all should remember is; crime should not pay, however sophisticated the criminal, and his or her methods of committing crimes. In other words, he said, be aware of why violence is chosen in preference to civilised mode of human discourse?
Alan Newham then gave a talk in which he said he was thinking locally and he spoke about all the people and organisations whether they be churches or trade unions who had been involved side by side. He spoke about the historical background the to the present situation that had led to the war against Iraq.
Roger Nettleship made an extended contribution and started by saying that the present period was one of darkest reaction. He said that he had never seen an international situation so dangerous where gangsterism has been raised to the level of authority in such powerful states. He pointed to the justification that states like Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, were allegedly not part of civilisation, that they were allegedly "failed states" not worthy to have their sovereignty respected, yet the US and Britain were destroying these ancient civilistions with their bombs and with their invasion and occupation forces.
He said that the Big power interests are imposing their own values on a people without any conception that the people have their own history and these actions were jeopardising the whole future of civilisation. He said that the people had launched a powerful movement for peace and to seize the initiative. He said that people have to do their own thinking and organising and create new arrangements to give this movement for peace permanent life. He elaborated his view that the movement should fight to establish an anti-war governement in which it would be a criminal act for any member of such a governemnt to order the launching of a war of aggression against another country. Such a government would bring back all its troops from foreign soil and dismantle its foreign bases, fight for a peaceful solution to problems of international relations and fight for democratisation of the United Nations where every country takes the decisions collectively and not the "Security Council".
In his final point he said that one of the most important lessons is we have to deal with the chauvinism that is promoted and arm people against that. Democracy doesn't begin out there as Tony Blair says, he commented. It does not begin with telling the Iraqi people that they should have the British system of democracy imposed on them by force killing their people. The British system is an undemocratic system that goes to war when the people are opposed to war. He conluded that we should support the people of the world to think and organise for themselves and make their own history whilst the most important contribution we can make is to settle scores with our own pro-war government and to bring about real change and democracy here. The only system we should change is our own system, he said in conclusion.
[Roger Nettleship, 02/06/03]
+
Personal Statements ...
My comments at the STSTWC meeting: Wed. 21st May 2003.
We should continue with the local coalition and act as a local self organised group whilst at the same time, attempt to build links with other organisations be they local, national or international.
We should continue because of widespread concerns over the intentions of the current U.S. administration in it`s `war on terror` some of whose members were signatories to the `Project for the New American Century` In the Statement of their Principles they ask `Does the U.S. have the resolve to shape the new century favourable to American principles and interests`….`..to shape circumstances before crises emerge`…`challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values`…`we must accept responsibility for America`s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and principles`…`[the U.S.] cannot avoid the costs of promoting U.S. global responsibilities`
Put in an historical context, the Project is nothing new. Since the end of the second world war the U.S. has been involved in some two hundred wars and operations the list of which, compiled by the Federation of American Scientists, is contained in Gore Vidal`s book, `Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace`
Britain, America`s chief ally in the war on Iraq has had a similar history.Fifty years ago MI6 and the CIA helped to overthrow the popular national government in Iran which threatened British interests by nationalising oil operations. British Guiana was invaded following the the election of a leftist government.Warships and hundreds of troops were sent to overthrow the government. British business interests must be protected.
Britain supported regime change in Indonesia in the mid 60`s hundreds of thousands of people died and the Indonesian Communist Party was exterminated. General Suharto`s regime had continuous British support.
Syria, Oman, Yemen and Egypt have also been targeted by the British. Britain supports the E.U. entry of Turkey. Turkey has destroyed some three thousand Kurdish Villages, killing thousands in the process.BaE Systems are providing arms.
So invading Iraq, bombing Afghanistan and Yugoslavia is just carrying on a tradition.
The invasion of Chechnya by Russia killed thousands. Grozny was flattened.while Defence Minister Geoff Hoon talks of ..”engaging Russia in a constructive bilateral defence relationship”.
It is with this background that we must continue with our coalition otherwise we will remain as spectators in the events of the world.
There is clear evidence of global concern by ordinary people over inequality of resources to help poor countries, the environment, the power of non elected bodies such as the World Trade Organisation , the International monetary Fund, the World Bank and multi national companies. Opposition is growing to this state of affairs.
Ever since the demonstration in Seattle, demonstrations and forums have taken place around the world. In Prague many disparate groups came together in a common cause under the Jubilee 2000 banner to drop third world debt. Christian Aid, Cafod, Oxfam, the Mothers Union as well as political organisations and individuals took part.
Subsequent forums and demonstrations have taken place in Genoa , Porto Alegre in Brazil, Florence in Italy, Jakata,in Indonesia and recently at the G8 summit in Evian, France as well as many other places around the world.
It is vital that the momentum created by the concerns of ordinary people around the world is maintained. We in the South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition should play our part. We should continue our efforts.
[Alan Newham, 09/06/03]
+
Open Letters ...
To: Tony Blair, Prime Minister, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
An Open Letter
[Delivered personally by hand [no charge] to the Prime Minister's Sedgefield constituency local post office, Friday, 21 November, 2003 - while he and his ‘friend’ the American President George Walker Bush were pretending to be getting a warm reception from the people of Mr Blair's 'home' constituency - but were in fact meeting very few people, while hiding behind an excessive and overly expensive security cordon. They did not look like 'strong' and 'courageous' and truly 'powerful' leaders to me. They did not look like people who felt 'secure' themselves - they looked like frightened little men hiding away from the consequences of their own actions. They certainly did not look like leaders bringing more real 'peace and security' to the world.]
Dear Tony
In your foreign policy speech delivered at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, in London, on Monday, 10th November, 2003, you said it was time to ‘leave aside the rights and wrongs’ of the war in Iraq and concentrate on future developments.
I cannot agree with you on that.
In making such a statement, you were in my view showing contempt for, and profound ignorance of, historical processes - which I would not have expected of a British Prime Minister.
The course of past events determines the course of future events.
The past just cannot be ‘left aside’ as easily as you suggest.
The course of events can only be developed in more favourable directions on the basis of a better understanding of what has happened in the past and with past mistakes acknowledged and corrected where possible.
It seems to me that in wanting to sweep under the carpet the recent history of events leading up to the invasion of Iraq, in the apparent hope that they will be forgotten, what you were really trying to do was to evade your personal responsibility for the present situation in that country.
Let us be clear on some matters of recent historical fact:
You personally ordered British forces to attack and invade and occupy another sovereign nation without proper United Nations sanction, and against all standard conventions of international law.
You personally misled the British people over the issue of Iraq’s alleged possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’, which you used to justify the invasion.
You personally ordered British involvement in the invasion of Iraq, so you personally are in some large part responsible for the continued violent disorder there - you were evading personal responsibility in your speech when you blamed the ongoing violence entirely on ‘Saddam’s small rump of supporters aided and abetted by foreign terrorists’.
The anti-war movement around the world, has long maintained that President Bush’s ‘war on terror’ - which you fully support - is badly misguided, and likely to increase the problem of world-wide terrorism in the future.
You have not appeared interested in listening to that alternative point of view, which was not merely opposition to your position it actually contained important warnings to you about what might happen if you followed the course that you seemed determined to follow regardless of other people’s points of view.
Understand quite clearly my message to you now:
In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, you behaved like a gangster yourself:
you disregarded the normal conventions of international law ;
you justified your actions in devious and misleading ways;
you used violent force to deal with a problem that was in fact - albeit slowly, and in a complex and not entirely satisfactory manner - being dealt with diplomatically.
You yourself have ‘aided and abetted’ the terrorists you claim to oppose:
by making a travesty of notions of legality and restraint and democracy and truth;
by using violent methods to remove from power another sovereign leader [however obnoxious he might have been];
by failing to ensure that due processes of law and basic principles of human rights have been applied to the detainees including British Citizens being held at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
Past and present actions determine the future course of events. By your past actions, which were illegal, dishonest, violent and undemocratic, you devalued the concepts of ‘legality’, ‘truth’, ‘peace’ and ‘democracy’ - the very things you claim to be working for in Iraq.
In short, you played into the hands of the terrorists and the remnants of Saddam’s regime in Iraq, as well as violent extremists elsewhere, by behaving like a political thug yourself.
If you really desire to develop a more positive future course for events in Iraq and the wider world, then a starting point would be for you to acknowledge your personal responsibility for the present violent situation - and for you to admit past errors, not attempt to evade them.
Yours sincerely
Philip Talbot,
Supporter, South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition
|
