The Socialist 31 May 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe to The Socialist

 

Stop This Trade In Death

FOR THE people of Kashmir, India and Pakistan, the prospect of a war which may escalate into a nuclear conflict is terrifying.

George Bush and Tony Blair claim to be horrified but the US and Britain are the world's largest arms dealers.

In 2001 when the Kashmir crisis last threatened a war, British arms exports to India and Pakistan - worth £64 million and £6 million respectively - went ahead. In the past year Blair's government has authorised the sale of billions of pounds worth of military hardware.

According to the Daily Mirror, at least a third of this arms trade goes to nations where there's the "risk of provoking or prolonging conflict". From the arms sellers' viewpoint, it's a sales opportunity. But it's murderous for the countries involved.

In one year British arms dealers sold £6.5 million worth of machine gun parts to Sierra Leone, an African state torn apart by war. They sold Israel £12.5 million worth of combat aircraft, helicopters, tanks and rifles and also sold millions in arms to Egypt, Jordan and other countries in the Middle Eastern cockpit.

Now foreign secretary Jack Straw says that he won't block BAe Systems' sale of Hawk jets to India. Once again, there are no plans for an arms embargo, despite new threats of war.

New Labour no longer talks of an "ethical foreign policy". What drives the government's foreign policy is what is good for British arms manufacturers' profits.

Unfortunately union leaders like Ken Jackson of engineering union Amicus say we should carry on selling weapons as it keeps armaments jobs in existence.

This is wrong as well as heartless. How many jobs have these 'defence' industries destroyed? How about using the arms merchants' resources to produce what people need throughout the world. Instead of producing bombs, guns and military hardware, why not make machines to detect landmines?

Why not build agricultural machinery, medical equipment or even pre-fabricated blocks for emergency housing which is needed in most areas of the world?

We don't just plead with the arms companies to beat their swords into ploughshares. We fight to take them - and other big companies, banks and finance houses - into public ownership under democratic workers' control and management. Then we can use their vast wealth and resources for the public good, not to destroy the world with weapons of annihilation.

War Clouds Hang Over India And Pakistan

 

The Socialist 31 May 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe to The Socialist

 

Right-wing attempt coup in PCS

Reclaim The Union

Fight for union democracy

THE RIGHT-WING of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), the biggest civil service union, are attempting to overturn the result of the general secretary election of 18 months ago and the decisions of the union's recent national conference.

The national executive of the union is dominated by the 'Moderate' faction.

This faction voted to reinstate Barry Reamsbottom as general secretary, in spite of the democratic election of Mark Serwotka in December 2000 and a conference decision that Reamsbottom should abide by an agreement he made with the union to go at the end of May.

All PCS members must protest against the 'Moderates' action. This attempted right-wing coup will end up in the courts. The Left should have no hesitation in vigorously defending the union's democracy.

Already a broad-based campaign is developing, spearheaded by the newly elected president, Janice Godrich.

It aims to gather together reps prepared to fight the outrageous actions of the right-wing and calls on members to:

• Demand the recall of the national conference

• Sign the protest petition

• Attend rallies in their area.

• Give financial support to the campaign.

Janice Godrich has issued an official circular to branches, outlining the situation, which is also available on the Left Unity website.

PCS branch executives should meet to discuss the events and send protests to Barry Reamsbottom, with copies to Janice Godrich.

Branches should ensure that all members know what is happening in the union, with branch meetings convened as soon as possible.

Branches, workplaces and individual members should contact 'Moderate' and 'Membership First' NEC members in their department, agency or constituency.

Ask them what they have done so far and whether they will support the fight for democracy in the PCS.

For more information, see Right-Wing Coup In Civil Service Union and the PCS Left Unity website: www.pcsleftunity.uk7.net.

Addresses:

PCS headquarters: 160 Falcon Road, London SW11 2LN. Fax: 020 7924 1847.

Email addresses:

Barry.Reamsbottom@pcs.org.uk

Janice.Godrich@pcs.org.uk

Mark.Serwotka@pcs.org.uk

 

 

 

The Socialist 31 May 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe to The Socialist

 

Right-Wing Coup In Civil Service Union

ON THURSDAY 23 May, the newly elected National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) gathered for a hastily arranged meeting convened by Barry Reamsbottom, the outgoing general secretary.

Debbie Darracott, PCS member

PCS president, Janice Godrich, told the assembled gathering that the meeting was unconstitutional and could not proceed.

The 'Moderates' faction, right-wing supporters of Barry Reamsbottom and forming the majority of the NEC, illegally voted to continue the meeting. They then pushed through a motion declaring the election in December 2000 of general secretary elect, Mark Serwotka, null and void.

The decision to hold the general secretary election was taken at PCS conference in May 2000. PCS members were balloted in a referendum on the decision and 96.6% of the vote was in support of the election.

The incumbent general secretary, Barry Reamsbottom, having failed to stop the conference decision with threats of legal action, then failed to get sufficient nominations to allow him to stand as a candidate. He negotiated a contract that would allow him to continue as general secretary until 31 May 2002, with a payment of salary up to May 2004.

Reamsbottom's legal agreement with the union clearly stated that his period of employment with PCS would end on 31 May 2002.

PCS Conference in 2002, again faced with Reamsbottom's threat of legal action and a High Court injunction, debated a motion endorsing the legal agreement with Reamsbottom and confirming that he would leave the union on 31 May 2002.

The Standing Orders committee had been threatened with financial penalties against its members, but stood up to this intimidation to allow conference to debate the motion.

The motion was overwhelmingly carried, with only a handful of Reamsbottom's supporters voting against.

Reamsbottom and his 'Moderates' supporters say they have taken legal advice which declares the ballot and election of a new general secretary to have been illegal.

This challenge was not made when the ballot was run in December 2000. It only took place when the 'Moderates' faction took the majority on the NEC in May 2002, eight days before Reamsbottom was due to leave the union. Reamsbottom, never having stood in an election since the formation of PCS, is determined to stay in office until at least 2004.

Many PCS members will be aware that Mark Serwotka was voted into office with over 41,000 votes. None of the 'Moderates' on the NEC gained even 10,000 votes, yet these people are diverting the resources of our union to undermine the election of Mark Serwotka.

PCS members, whether supporters of Mark Serwotka or not, see this attack on Mark's position as an attack on the democracy of the union. The 'Moderates' have ambushed the union for their own personal and political gain.

This is not unusual for this faction and former CPSA (one of the unions from which PCS was formed) members will be disheartened to see a return to the bad old days of legal action and injunctions against elected officials and representatives.

Instead of campaigning against privatisation, for a return to national pay bargaining and protecting members from attacks from the employer, the 'Moderates' dominated NEC will wrap itself up in threats of court cases, abuse of the union's publications and systematic alienation and intimidation of the union's reps and activists.

We cannot allow the self-interest of the 'Moderates' and their leader, Barry Reamsbottom, to undermine all the decent, hardworking reps and activists who have supported members year after year.

It's our union so let's fight to defend it, its democracy and the election of Mark Serwotka as general secretary.

 

A Warning To The Trade Union Movement

THE MOVE by the supporters of Barry Reamsbottom in the PCS has astonished many on the Left of the trade unions.

Bill Mullins, Socialist Party industrial organiser

The declaration that the election of Mark Serwotka as general secretary is invalid is not only an insult to the whole of the union's membership, including the near 42,000 who voted for him, but a real warning to the rest of the trade union movement that democracy for this extreme right group inside PCS is only something to be accepted when it suits them.

What The Socialist and its forerunner Militant have said about the character of Reamsbottom's group has never been truer.

Our supporters in the CPSA and now the PCS have explained that most of the rest of the right-wing across the unions have the interests of their respective union at heart, even though their policies are not in the interests of the members. But Reamsbottom's small group are out to rule PCS or wreck it.

A few years ago, the links CPSA leader Marion Chambers and Barry Reamsbottom had with the "Committee for Transatlantic Understanding" were inadvertently revealed in a document circulated to the NEC by union treasurer Keith Mills. This "Committee" is known to have close links to the CIA.

Reamsbottom and his 'Moderate' predecessors have, like the infamous Robert Maxwell, used the threat of court action, including against the Militant (forerunner of The Socialist Party), to attempt to silence his critics.

When the PTC merged with the CPSA in 1998, the right-wing in PTC were so astonished with the nature of the "Moderates" in the CPSA that they jokingly referred to the union headquarters as being in "Clapham (In)Junction".

The PCS, after going through a major dispute, has won many thousands of new members. Yet some of the 'Moderates' spent all their time seeking to undermine the dispute, including being in direct contact with the enemy, the chief civil servants and their political masters, the New Labour government.

The conclusion will also be drawn that Reamsbottom would not have done what he has without the OK of the government and Tony Blair. New Labour has had a shock as they watched new Left leaders, including Mark Serwotka, elected in the trade unions.

In the rail union RMT, right-wingers in the TUC were caught openly interfering to try to stop Bob Crow's election as general secretary.

In the AEEU (now part of AMICUS) election skulduggery has been exposed in the nomination process. Many other unions have had similar experiences with their right wing but the PCS has outdone them all.

All those interested in the unions being under the democratic control of their own members must make their voices heard and act now.

 

 

The Socialist 31 May 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe to The Socialist

 

GC JAGADISH of New Socialist Alternative (CWI, India), in this edited version, examines the prospects for regional war and puts forward a socialist programme for the Left to stop the conflict.

War Clouds Hang Over India And Pakistan

Only the workers and poor can stop this conflict

INDIA'S RULING elite is making full-scale preparations for war. Troops have been mobilised and the navy has moved five warships from the coast of Andhra Pradesh to the Western coast.

Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee speaking to the soldiers in the forward post of Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir sector, has exhorted the Jawans (soldiers) to 'be prepared for extreme sacrifices and make history with a decisive victory over the terrorism of Pakistan'.

In Pakistan, General Musharraf has met with his National Defence Council and issued a warning to India that he will meet any military challenge.

Pakistan's former ISI (Inter Services Intelligence agency) chief, Javed Ashraf Qazi, a cabinet minister, has stated: "If Pakistan is being destroyed through conventional means, we will destroy them [India] using the nuclear options..."

After the attack on the Indian army camp in Jammu and Kashmir - allegedly by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba separatist guerrillas, which killed 30 people - US president George Bush called Vajpayee five times in 48 hours to restrain the Indian administration.

The fear of Western powers that the present confrontational situation could escalate into an all-out war is underlined by the long list of European, British and US officials and representatives lining up for visits to the sub-continent.

Although the military build up is nothing new, (both countries were on the verge of war last December) it is the extreme language on both sides that has created fear among the people of Pakistan and India.

Nearly 70 villages on the Indian side of the border have been affected by the current low-scale war. Scores of people have fled from these villages to safety from the cross-border firing. An equal number of villages have been ravaged on the Pakistan side.

This sudden escalation of tensions between these two nuclear countries is a direct consequence of the very weakness of these regimes internally.

In India, the outcry against the sectarian Gujarat massacres (see The Socialist 8/3/02) - which exposed the ruling Hindu chauvinist Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) culpability - has put the regime increasingly on the defensive.

Even prior to the Gujarat incidents the BJP's electoral popularity was on the wane. Of the 22 State Assembly and one Union territory elections held since 1998, the BJP and its allies lost in all, except four. One of the very reasons for the BJP to beat the nationalist drum is because it was losing its traditional hard core Hindu votes.

Although a rigged referendum has made Pakistan's General Musharraf President for the next five years, he is holding on to power through the barrel of the gun. But it is only a matter of time before another internal military squabble will break out under the behest of unemployed former ISI chiefs backed by Islamic fundamentalists who are displeased with Musharraf's support for the USA's 'war on terrorism'.

Diversion

For both Musharraf and the BJP a diversion from day-to-day domestic problems is a necessity. Both regimes have played with such fire in the past but it is entirely a different ball game now, as both have stockpiled nuclear weapons.

The recent attack on the Indian army camp and the assassination of the 'moderate' Kashmiri nationalist Abdul Gani Lone of Hurriat Conference has come in very handy for BJP and its allies to blame Pakistan and the ISI for what they call "cross-border terrorism". While the Indian administration is weighing its options, a full-scale war is unlikely given the nuclear angle and US imperialism's pressure on them.

A commando 'Rambo' style operation crossing the border is being suggested to save face in the situation. But such an adventure could escalate into a full-scale war.

The Parliamentary opposition to the BJP in India is hopelessly ineffectual. Sonia Gandhi's Congress has switched from 'anti-BJP' mode to 'national unity against Pakistan-aggression' jingoistic mode. The Left, i.e. the two 'communist' parties CPI(M) and the CPI, have advised the government to urge the US to act against Musharraf and terrorist groups. So much for their anti-imperialism!

Though this opportunity may be useful for the BJP to solve its sullied image problems in the short term, if the war is on, it will be a disaster, as the Hindu communal forces emboldened by recent events will attack the Muslim minority accusing them of 'extra-territorial loyalty' and of being 'Pakistani agents'.

Even a small scale war or war-like operation will bring the entire sub-continent to the precipice of nuclear holocaust. Only the working class and youth of these countries can stop the war-mongering regimes of India and Pakistan.

The CWI in the region will be actively participate along with other Left forces in anti-war protests and movements.

The New Socialist Alternative (CWI-India) says:

• No to war. Yes to class unity.
• Stop the internal war on Muslims and other minorities in India.
• Fight against the designs of India and Pakistan and the US to sideline the democratic demands of the Kashmiri people for an independent state.
• Stop the nuclear arms race.
• Reverse the huge defence expenditure. For the creation of socially productive civilian jobs, employment and education.
• Oppose the so-called 'war on terrorism' by the US.

 

Kashmir: A History Of Conflict

August 1947. India gains independence after strikes, mutinies and hunger strikes forced British imperialism out of the subcontinent. But divisions between Hindus and Muslims, a legacy of British imperialism's divide and rule tactics, led to the partition into India and Pakistan and numerous skirmishes over disputed areas.

October 1947. Kashmir, then ruled by a maharajah (prince) was invaded by Pakistan and then India. War lasted until 1949 when the "line of control" - the border between Indian-occupied (IOK) and Pakistani-occupied Kashmir (POK) - was established. Pakistan gains one-third of Kashmir.

1962. India's war with China leaves China in control of part of Kashmir claimed by India.

1965. War after new border exchanges in Kashmir and Punjab.

1971. India and Pakistan's war over the secession of Bangladesh (the former East Pakistan) sees heavy fighting in Kashmir, ended by new ceasefire and new line of control.

1989-90. Troops fire on independence protesters in IOK which came under direct rule from the Delhi government. India and Pakistan come close to a nuclear "exchange" over Kashmir.

1999. The Kargil mountain war. Tensions escalated over the long disputed 'line of control' as crisis-racked nationalist governments in India and Pakistan - both now nuclear powers - came to the brink of all-out war again.

2001. A devastating suicide bombing outside the state legislature in Srinigar followed by an attack on the Indian parliament in December by Kashmiri separatists, in which 13 were killed including the attackers, led to Pakistan and India again going onto a war footing and triggering a mass exodus from villages along the line of control.

 

 

The Socialist 31 May 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe to The Socialist

 

Asylum - Why We Oppose Blair's Plans

TONY BLAIR'S 'action plan' to 'crack down' on asylum seekers might have been taken directly from Le Pen's election manifesto.

It appears that Blair and the French government could have done a deal to close the Sangatte refugee camp in Calais. Other leaked plans include using RAF planes to provide "secure bulk removals", using the Royal Navy to intercept ships in the Mediterranean and withdrawing aid to countries which refuse to take failed asylum seekers.

The French government, with one eye on forthcoming parliamentary elections, is trying to steal some of Le Pen's clothes. Blair is also using the arguments of the far right and exploiting the issue of asylum for electoral gain. These measures will not, as they argue, prevent refugees from seeking asylum.

New Labour, along with sections of the media, have fed an anti-asylum seekers climate which has allowed groups like the Nazi BNP to gain support. (See Who Are The Far Right?)

Blunkett talked about refugees "swamping" schools and medical centres. Blair refers to the "asylum crisis" and, according to immigration minister Lord Rooker, "most asylum seekers are single men who have deserted their families for economic gain".

Some refugees, who have the means, do flee to Britain and elsewhere in Europe because of economic catastrophe in their own countries. They are searching for a "better life" for themselves and their families. Capitalism, and particularly the multinationals who super exploit the "neo-colonial" world are responsible for these conditions which will continue and worsen as long as capitalism is not replaced by socialism.

However New Labour spokespeople grossly exaggerate this feature of immigration which feeds a mistaken perception amongst many people in Britain that "waves of economic migrants" are "flooding" Britain.

It's no wonder that in a recent poll people overestimated the number of asylum seekers and immigrants in Britain by a factor of three!

Nowhere does New Labour deal with the real facts. A recent European Union report completely contradicts Lord Rooker, concluding that "push factors" such as war and repression of minorities far outweigh "pull factors" such as economic hardship or Europe's benefit systems.

Most of the refugees in Sangatte are from Afghanistan. The top three countries for asylum applications to Britain are Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan - all countries which have been devastated by war, conflict and economic collapse.

Blair, along with Bush, drops millions of pounds worth of bombs on Afghanistan, kills thousands of people, makes millions homeless, pulverises the country's infrastructure and then wants to deny asylum to the victims of their own barbaric war!

Desperation

CLOSING SANGATTE and draconian measures will not succeed in preventing refugees from seeking asylum. War, conflict, terror and economic devastation are the inevitable consequences of this capitalist system which is based on exploitation and the pursuit of profit.

Until the system itself is changed, there will always be those fleeing war, persecution and the dislocation of countries internationally.

Capitalism is incapable of providing even the basics of life in most of the poor countries of the world. Even in the so-called 'developed' countries, many working-class people do not have access to decent jobs, housing, education, health care etc.

Desperate people will take desperate measures. Sangatte was opened for humanitarian reasons, to give temporary relief to refugees, including children, camped out in the open with no food or shelter.

The conditions within the camp are unacceptably squalid, but if the camp closes, refugees will simply return to the more atrocious conditions they previously had to endure in the open air.

Traffickers

The more difficult it becomes to seek asylum through legal means, the more people will become prey to the traffickers, risk their lives travelling in sealed containers in lorries or clinging to the bottom of freight trains.

The US has drastically stepped up security measures on its border with Mexico at a huge cost to the federal budget but also at an enormous cost in lives.

The number of Mexicans trying to cross the border has not gone down. In fact it has increased. At the same time, the number dying while trying to cross has gone up from 23 in 1994 to nearly 500 in 2000.

This experience in the US proves that a harsh regime does not work. Blair's plans for a 'fortress' Britain and Europe are leading in a similar direction. The government could build a mile high fence around Britain and it would still not stop desperate refugees entering the country.

Refugees should have the right to enter Britain by legal routes. Once here, their applications should be dealt with promptly so that they do not have to put up with the huge delays experienced at present. Asylum seekers who have their applications refused should be able to appeal to an elected tribunal, including representatives of trade unions and community organisations.

While applications are being processed, asylum seekers should be able to work with the same employment rights as other workers and not used as cheap labour for unscrupulous bosses.

There is an acute shortage of teachers and health workers, especially in London and the south east. Many asylum seekers have the skills which could be employed to relieve the pressures in these areas.

According to the Home Office's own report, migrants actually add £2.5 billion to the British economy. If asylum seekers cannot work they should be able to receive benefits at the normal rates.

Profit system

OF COURSE many people are worried that local services are already overstretched. House-building, for example, is at its lowest since 1924. The government should provide adequate funding to councils so that they can massively increase building to provide decent housing as well as services for everyone in local areas.

This would also mean that while waiting for a decision on their application, asylum seekers and their children could be housed, educated and have access to health care in local communities, rather than segregated in isolated detention centres with second-rate facilities, as is now being proposed.

It's the profit system that creates refugees. And it's the profit system, which Blair and New Labour represent, that denies working-class people in general decent housing, jobs, education, health care etc.

New Labour and pro-capitalist politicians throughout Europe, exploit the issue of asylum to divide and rule and deflect the blame for the problems we all face from the inadequacies of their system. What is needed is a united struggle against the system and for a socialist solution.

Such a solution would release economic ownership and control internationally from the dominance of a few hundred multinational corporations. Working-class people could then own and democratically control and plan production and the allocation of resources to meet the needs of the majority of society not just the profits of a few.

This would provide resources for economic development throughout the world and lay the basis for an end to war, conflict, repression and economic crisis.

It would also allow people real choice about where and how they should live their lives.

 

 

The Socialist 31 May 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe to The Socialist

 

Who Are The Far Right?

THE GROWTH in votes for far-right parties across Europe has set alarm bells ringing amongst workers and young people who fear a return of fascism. NAOMI BYRON writes on who the far right are, what threat they pose and how to fight it.

WHAT IS the difference between a fascist organisation and a far-right party? The Socialist Party thinks it's important to be accurate when we describe far-right groups.

Far-right is a broad term which can cover both extreme populist groups like the Lisjt Fortuyn in the Netherlands - which puts forward socially liberal ideas (e.g. on gay rights) but also supports racist scapegoating of non-white immigrants - to smaller, openly neo-fascist groups like the German People's Union or Combat 18.

In order to work out the most effective strategy for combating the ideas and influence of far-right groups we need to know what type of organisation they are and in which direction they are travelling.

 

What is fascism?

WE USE the Marxist definition of fascism developed by Trotsky in the 1920s and 1930s. Mass fascist movements arose in Europe during this period.

After the first world war and the Russian revolution, mass revolutionary movements developed throughout Europe. Due to the mistakes and in some cases betrayals of workers' leaders, these failed to abolish capitalist exploitation.

Capitalism survived, but in a situation of economic and social crisis, the capitalist class feared the potential power of the working class.

A growing section of big business funded reactionary strike-breaking organisations like the early Nazi party, who were prepared to physically attack the Left and trade unionists. As they grew, the Nazis won support from large sections of the middle classes who had seen their living standards and savings destroyed by the economic crisis and hyper-inflation of the 1920s.

Many people drawn to the Nazi Party would have also backed a strong socialist movement led by the working class. But they were demoralised by the failures and betrayals of the workers' parties and looked for other "solutions".

As the crisis intensified, big business backed Hitler's rise to power as they had backed Mussolini in Italy in 1922.

The Nazi Party used its armed wings and its army of spies and supporters, as well as the state forces it then controlled, to murder the most militant section of workers and atomise the organised opposition to big business.

Trotsky called fascism "the distilled essence of imperialism" because classical fascist movements took the brutality and exploitation of capitalism to its most extreme form in order to safeguard the rule of big business.

 

Strength of workers

WE ARE not in a political or economic period now where mass fascist movements can take power in Europe and set about crushing working-class organisations. The European working class is numerically strong and has not suffered the massive defeats that workers did in the 20s and 30s.

The middle-class social base - small business people, the peasantry etc - which fascism historically rested on is extremely weak.

This has led, in the last ten years or so, to small neo-fascist groups attempting to broaden their support by appealing to sections of the working class and transforming themselves into more 'respectable' far right parties, abandoning the street-fighting image they were popularly associated with.

Where this has happened, these far-right parties have won some support electorally from some sections of workers who feel abandoned and betrayed by parties which in the past were considered workers' parties, but now openly represent the interests of big business.

By supporting the free market, these former workers' parties have not provided jobs, decent housing, security or any solutions to the problems which working-class people face. As a consequence some working-class people have been taken in by the far right's simplistic, racist scapegoating of immigrants, others have voted for them as a form of protest.

At this stage the capitalists themselves are wary of even these far-right parties coming to power.

They overwhelmingly rallied behind Chirac for example against Le Pen in the second round of the French presidential elections. They feared that his anti-Europe, anti-foreigner programme would affect trade and their profits.

They also feared that the mass demonstrations which took place after Le Pen's vote in the first round could escalate and lead to much bigger movements, including strike action by workers.

Le Pen could only muster 40,000 people on the streets of Paris, compared to 1.3 million who protested against him.

The key to opposing far right parties like the Front National in France, the Freedom Party in Austria and Pim Fortuyn's list in the Netherlands, is the building of new, mass workers' parties.

In France, the radical left received nearly three million votes in the first round of the presidential elections.

These votes and the mass street protests show the potential of building a party which can bring together workers and young people and offer a socialist alternative.

 

A Brief History of The BNP

THE BRITISH National Party (BNP) was founded in 1982 by ex-members of the National Front led by John Tyndall with the aim of building an openly neo-Nazi party.

The then BNP leader John Tyndall said: "Mein Kampf [Hitler's autobiography] is my bible," and described his idea of a BNP dictatorship in Britain: "Racial laws will be enacted forbidding marriage between Britons and non-Aryans: medical measures will be taken to prevent procreation on the part of all those who have hereditary defects either racial, mental or physical."

In 1989 the BNP set up its national headquarters in Welling in outer South London. As a result of their activities and presence in the area, the level of racist attacks rose dramatically. Four young Black and Asian men - Rolan Adams, Orville Blair, Rohit Duggal and Stephen Lawrence - were murdered in racist attacks in the area around the BNP's HQ between February 1991 and April 1993.

In the early 1990s the BNP was gaining support. In 1992 the BNP formed Combat 18, a paramilitary organisation designed to protect BNP events and attack their enemies. C18's neo-Nazi ideology was expressed in its name, where the 1 and the 8 stand for A and H: Adolf Hitler's initials.

C18 and BNP members carried out attacks on Mansfield National Union of Mineworkers' offices and Tower Hamlets NALGO (now UNISON) offices in 1992, as well as numerous attacks on gay pubs, anti-racist and socialist organisations and Black, Asian and Jewish people.

In September 1993 the BNP won a council seat in Millwall ward on the Isle of Dogs in Tower Hamlets (East London), their only councillor until 2002. Derek Beackon, the BNP's councillor, won on an openly racist "rights for whites" platform, blaming local Bangladeshis for housing shortages and lack of services.

Some of his public comments were: "I don't care what the Bengalis think. We are here for the white people. They are the ones being racially attacked," and: "I am only going to represent the white people [in Millwall ward]. I will not represent Asians. I will not do anything for them. They have no right to be in my great country."

As a result of the determined movements against the BNP they lost their council seat in May 1994 and their headquarters in 1995 and were driven out of many areas of Britain by local communities.

'Respectable' image

IN SEPTEMBER 1999 Nick Griffin won the leadership of the BNP from John Tyndall. Previously Griffin had fiercely opposed any attempt to water down the BNP's neo-Nazi programme or gain a more 'respectable' image by trying to reduce the BNP's street-thug element.

However over the last three years, Griffin and the rest of the BNP leadership made a lot of changes to the BNP's public programme, aiming to "re-brand" the BNP as a respectable and credible party.

In 2001 the BNP dropped their policy of compulsory repatriation of "immigrants" - i.e. non-white people - and replaced it with one of "voluntary" repatriation.

In their local election manifesto this year the BNP said they opposed privatisation of council housing and would work to reverse any privatisations of council housing stock carried out previously. On their website they claim that they support workers' co-operatives and trade unions but oppose the union leaders.

Many of the BNP's key activists are hardened neo-Nazis, many still actively linked to organisations like C18. However they are making serious attempts to broaden their appeal and become a 'credible' far-right party rather than a small neo-Nazi group.

It is an open question whether they will succeed.

 

How Strong Are The Far Right?

THE BNP'S successes in this month's local elections didn't stop with the election of three councillors in Burnley.

In seven other seats BNP candidates came within one place of being elected, including in Stoke-on-Trent where they failed to get elected by only 70 votes.

In Oldham the BNP got an average of 27.3% in the five wards it contested. In Sunderland they polled 28% in Team Farm ward; 26% in Castle and Priory ward in Dudley; 24% in Princes End ward in Sandwell; and 19% and 18% in Downham ward in Lewisham.

This is a warning. The BNP, despite their small numbers, are a real threat. Their presence encourages racist attacks and tensions, particularly when they are given some kind of respectability.

In Tower Hamlets, the only place the BNP have succeeded in getting a councillor elected before, racist attacks increased by 300% within months of them being elected to the council.

These attacks were not only carried out by BNP members. In fact the majority were carried out by local people with racist ideas that had nothing to do with the BNP, but whose successes gave them the confidence to think they could get away with racist attacks.

Also, the BNP is not only a racist party. Their neo-fascist ideas oppose socialists, trade unionists, disabled people, single parents, Jews and anybody who opposes them. All these groups are open to attack from the BNP and other far-right or neo-Nazi groups, both politically and physically, if a strong enough movement to stop them is not built.

The roots of the BNP's success lie in the economic problems caused by capitalism and the free-market policies followed by all mainstream parties, which have produced huge alienation. This is reflected in the current political crisis worrying the establishment - the collapse in support for mainstream pro-capitalist parties and politicians and increased votes for both the far right and the left.

It was the Tory policies implemented by New Labour, alongside their vicious attempts to whip up racism against asylum-seekers and refugees as scapegoats, that encouraged the BNP to re-emerge after their defeats in the 1990s.

But despite the threat of the BNP it would be a mistake to think that the increase in votes for the BNP or for the far right across Europe represents a move to the right in society or is the beginning of new mass fascist movements.

The Left has also done extremely well as voters look for answers to the social and economic problems they face. In France, the combined far-left vote in the first round of the presidential elections was nearly three million (over 10%).

In England and Wales the Socialist Party has four elected councillors (more than the BNP). In Scotland the SSP has a member of the Scottish Parliament.

The votes for the far-right are a timely warning of what capitalism has in store if a powerful socialist movement is not built.

Socialists not only provide the backbone and often the strategy of the anti-racist and anti-fascist movement, but we also have the ideas that can best cut across the racism and division the BNP encourages.

Working-class unity against the attacks of big business and a socialist solution to the exploitation and injustice of capitalism are the only ways to stop the far-right threat for good.

 

Class Unity Strategy Can Beat the BNP

BETWEEN 1993 and 1995 the BNP lost their only council seat, their only regular public activity (a weekly 'paper sale' in East London) and their headquarters as a result of the consistent local campaigning work and mass demonstrations organised against them.

This campaign was led by Youth against Racism in Europe, among other groups. This type of movement is what's needed now to push back the BNP again.

A mass movement against the BNP should aim to cut across their support, demoralise their membership and expose their divisive, reactionary nature enough to make it impossible for them to do productive work anywhere.

How can this be achieved? Mass political education (leafletting, public activity, dialogue etc) about the real aims of the BNP and the dead end of their "solutions" to the social and economic problems people face must be combined with protests and demonstrations to help isolate and marginalise them.

Democratic and accountable community defence campaigns should be organised in local areas where there is the threat of increased racist violence due to the BNP's activities and/or fascist violence organised by the BNP against its political opponents or local Black and Asian communities.

Workers and trade unionists must discuss how best to withdraw co-operation from BNP councillors in Burnley. The BNP should be prevented from having access to information which could be used to pursue their racist agenda against council tenants or employees for example.

The trade unions must organise a national demonstration against the BNP in Burnley immediately, under the banner of "jobs, homes and services, not racism". This should be properly organised, built for and stewarded to ensure it is peaceful and well-protected. Such a demo would show the strength of opposition to the BNP and give confidence to local communities which feel under threat.

This demonstration should be followed by further national demonstrations and local protests, both in Burnley and other areas that the BNP or other far-right groups are organising.

All these demonstrations must be organised in cooperation with anti-racist and local community groups to give the movement against the BNP as broad and progressive a character as possible.

The anti-racist movement must be prepared to take up campaigns against cuts and privatisation in order to win people away from the BNP.

The establishment in Britain is desperate to be seen to be doing something against the far-right. But now, as in the past, it is only a movement built from below that can halt them.

From 1936 when 100,000 trade unionists and Communist Party supporters stopped Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists marching down Cable Street in East London to the 1990s, fascism and the far-right have been defeated by mass movements.

 

The Extreme Right In Europe

Austria - Jorg Haider's "Freedom Party" got 27% of the vote in the last general election and has six cabinet posts in a coalition government.

Belgium - Vlaams Blok (Flemish Bloc) won 9.9% in national elections in 1999 and became the largest political force on Antwerp Council in 2000.

Denmark - The Danish People's Party led by Pia Kjaersgaard got 12% of the vote and almost doubled its parliamentary seats in elections last November.

France - Le Pen, leader of the Front National, got 4.8 million votes (almost 18%) in the second round of the French presidential elections in May 2002.

Germany - The Law and Order Offensive party won 19% of the vote in Hamburg last September and 4% in Saxony-Anhalt this April. Schill, its leader, is now Interior Minister for Hamburg.

Italy - Fini's National Alliance and Bossi's Northern League both have senior cabinet posts in Berlusconi's right-wing coalition government.

Netherlands - Pim Fortuyn's 'Lisjt' won 26 seats in May in the wake of his assassination.

Norway - The Progress Party, who call for immigration to Norway to be capped at 1,000 per year, has held the balance of power since October 2001.

Switzerland - The People's Party won 23% of the vote in September 2001.

 

 

 

The Socialist 31 May 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe to The Socialist

 

Imperialism Restructures Famine

NEWSPAPER PICTURES show emaciated children who have lost their parents and probably do not have long to live themselves.

Chris Newby

Life is so harsh that people bury the dead straight into the ground, maybe two or three bodies in the same grave because they are too weak to dig anymore.

This is Malawi, southern Africa, the sixth poorest country in the world. Life expectancy there has fallen from 43 to 39 years in the last five years and is expected to fall to 30 by 2010.

Yet it is a situation repeated across many parts of Africa. The world food programme estimates that 20 million people are at risk from famine across southern Africa.

The roots of this human tragedy lie in the role of capitalism and imperialism.

Africa is a continent extremely rich in natural resources yet these resources have been plundered by imperialism and the multinationals to boost their profits.

Not only have they driven down the prices of raw materials but they have forced states to produce cash crops like coffee for the world market rather than crops to feed their own population.

In Malawi, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ordered the government to sell off its 170,000 tonnes of grain stocks so that the farmers would be encouraged to grow more by opening up the economy. But the only people to profit from this were the unregulated private traders who bought up these stocks, many of whom have links to the ruling party.

The government then had to take out a £24 million foreign bank loan to import 135,000 tonnes of maize. The price of maize has now shot up by 500%.

Privatisation

Loans from organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF are linked to further privatisation of the economies. In Malawi the IMF has refused further funding saying that any money for food must come from further budget cuts.

Uganda is unlikely to get much needed funding for medical aid from the 'Global Fund', (despite their government's slavish application of IMF policies).

Any aid they get has to be matched by their own government and this could take the economy out of the strict financial guidelines the IMF has set. Leaders of many African states have been willing accomplices in these attacks on workers' living standards.

Recently the US treasury secretary Lawrence Summers attacked recommendations that the IMF and World Bank should give grants and not loans and should cancel outstanding loans, saying that the bank "would no longer be able to advance America's core values and (political and economic) interests around the world."

The problem of famine is fundamentally not going to be solved by the work of charities however desperately immediate help is needed.

It will be through the development of mass parties in all of these states and internationally with socialist programmes prepared to take on capitalism and imperialism and implement policies - such as clean water, free good quality medical aid, cheap good quality housing and food.

As Mahopolang Mohlomi a 32-year-old mother of two in Lesotho said: "Food aid won't last forever. We need jobs".

 

 

The Socialist 31 May 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe to The Socialist