TONY BLAIR has used the platform of Labour Party conference to launch a war.
Not a war against the scandal of hundreds of thousands of elderly people struggling to survive on an inadequate pension; not a war to end the underfunding of the health and education services; not a war to stop the profiteers from leeching off our public services.
No, Labour will continue with its poverty-creating, big business agenda.
Instead, Blair and George Bush will declare war on the dirt poor country of Afghanistan - a third of whose population (8 million) are dependent upon United Nations food handouts to survive.
Even so, thousands are dying of hunger in the squalid refugee camps. It is a country in which 23 years of civil war have reduced the cities to rubble.
Inevitably, it will be ordinary Afghans - already the victims of a barbarous capitalist system where a handful of multi-billionaires own as much wealth as 40% of the world's population - who will now face the bombs of imperialism.
Blair claims this action is a war against terrorism. In reality it will not bring justice to the victims of the World Trade Centre attacks. It will do little to destroy bin Laden's terrorist network whose cells exist worldwide.
It is likely, however, to further destabilise the region creating more terrorists and risking a regional nuclear exchange.
And even if this War succeeds in dislodging the medieval rule of the Taliban, it's extremely unlikely the opposition Northern Alliance will restore democratic rights to the Afghan people.
After all, it was these Western funded, armed and trained mercenaries who, on taking power in 1992, outlawed all opposition and who swept aside democratic rights during three years of bloody civil war.
And now the Western powers are talking of restoring the feudal king who was kicked out in 1973. It's obvious that this 86-yearold would simply be a puppet of imperialism which would continue to exploit the country.
The only solution lies in the hands of ordinary Afghans. They must fight for a government of working people and rural poor as part of a socialist federation of Middle Eastern states.
Working class people here must show solidarity with ordinary Afghan people. We too have nothing to gain by being exploited by the multinational companies and the governments of the richest countries.
We will expose and oppose this rotten capitalist war. And we will fight for a massive redistribution of wealth and power in favour of ordinary people, together with socialist planning of the economy. This would end the poverty and injustice throughout the world.
IN A move worthy of a sitcom plot, health secretary Alan Milburn has decided that the answer to declining resources and morale in the NHS is for top hospitals to play the stock market.
Mr. Milburn announced that the new powers would be given to the top 35 hospitals in his new league tables. Hospitals across the country have been given 0-5 stars. Creating a two-tier health service, the five-star hospitals will be able to bid for the no-star hospitals.
The hospitals with the worst rating match almost exactly with areas of economic deprivation. Poverty inevitably brings with it worse health, putting hospitals in poor areas under more pressure. Such hospitals find it more difficult to attract staff, making matters worse. Being labelled no-star will hardly help!
Milburn calls this a convenient excuse for problems. Instead of addressing poverty, instead of addressing staff shortages and providing more resources New Labour have decided that the no-star hospitals will be up for sale as franchises to the five star hospitals.
These are the same methods that McDonalds, who this year sponsored the Labour Party conference, use to run their fast food outlets.
Commenting on the stock market dive over the past three weeks, GMB union general secretary John Edmunds asked: "Where on earth has Alan Milburn been for the last two weeks? For ministers to urge hospitals to play the stock market at any time is bad enough but to do it at this of all times defies belief".
Unfortunately what defies belief even more is that GMB and UNISON unions have decided to suspend their campaign against privatisation in order not to embarrass New Labour in the wake of the American terror attacks.
This announcement shows that New Labour have no intention of suspending their plans to privatise the NHS. As representatives of big business, New Labour are cynically using the international crisis as an excuse to sack workers. If anything, they will accelerate their privatisation plans if the unions drop their opposition.
If Milburn wants to look at league tables he might reflect that the top forty dirtiest hospitals are all cleaned by private companies.
The trade unions must build opposition against New Labour's privatisation plans to save the national health service.
"WE DO deserts, we don't do mountains." In this way Colin Powell, Bush's Secretary of State, defined the limits of US capacity to intervene internationally in the mid-1990s. Ground troops could be successfully used in the Gulf War but would not work in the case of Serbia.
Yet, this central plank of the "Powell doctrine" seemed to be swept away in the rage following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September.
Bush threatened the massive use of troops to crush not only al-Qaeda but implied that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan would also be overthrown. His call for Osama bin Laden to be taken "dead or alive" was interpreted to mean "dead, dead". A $25 million ransom was put on bin Laden's head and a massive military force assembled to intervene in the region.
However, in the last week a more cautious definition of US imperialism's "war aims" emerged. Powell declared that there will not be a "Desert Storm" type assault - "It isn't going to happen". Even the right-wing bellicose Defence Secretary Rumsfeld also stated that this would be a "war without a D-Day".
Right-wing Republicans, such as Richard Perle, are still demanding that the Bush administration not only crush the Taliban and al-Qa'ida but also follow through with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Syria and Libya, allegedly 'terrorist states'.
This is dismissed, however, by the more realistic wing of the American ruling class. Paradoxically, this now consists of those from a military background like Powell and the top generals, rather than politicians. The generals understand that the massive military might of US imperialism has its limits in Afghanistan's uninviting mountainous terrain.
Yet such is the rage in the US that they have no choice but to use this power, probably as we go to print.
Even then, it will not be with the immediate deployment of massive numbers of ground troops. Bombing and 'special troops' will be deployed first. But it has also dawned on them the consequences that will follow.
THE TALIBAN regime is massively unpopular, its writ shrinking to its 'core bases' around Kandahar and Kabul.
Moreover, there is a history of Afghan warlords switching sides, especially when tempted by massive financial bribes. Soldiers, officials, even senior people, are abandoning the cities and the Taliban for the countryside.
The overthrow of the Taliban is likely but US imperialism and its allies in the region, such as Pakistan, confront the same dilemma as at the end of the Gulf War: what to put in its place. The US did not follow through with the overthrow of Saddam because of the fear of what would follow his removal: a Shi'a regime which would link up with Iran.
The overthrow of the Taliban regime could also produce a 'power vacuum' which would destabilise the whole region and worsen the position of imperialism in the area.
Pakistan could either face a new government in Afghanistan hostile to it or the country could be plunged once more into civil war and chaos, with millions more refugees flooding over the border. This could lead to the downfall of the Musharraf government and its replacement by a fundamentalist regime.
At the same time, the neighbouring powers, with knives and forks prepared, are ready to grab a piece of the Afghan pie. Iran, for instance, which has backed the Shi'a based mujahidin groups, has designs of its own of carving out a greater sphere of influence within Afghanistan.
The wider ramifications of military action in Afghanistan by the US will also be felt within the Middle East and particularly in Saudi Arabia. It originally backed and financed the bin Laden group, but now faces a fundamentalist threat of its own.
It therefore publicly states that the US cannot use Saudi Arabia as a base for military operations in Afghanistan but in effect allows this to happen: "Don't ask and we won't tell".
This duplicity will not work in the long run and the medium term result of US military action in Afghanistan could be to provoke the overthrow of the Saudi regime, as well as the Pakistani regime of Musharraf, and their replacement with hostile Islamic fundamentalist regimes.
THE SAME outcome is likely in the long term for the "front-line states", Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Nominally independent, they are in effect under the control of the Russian capitalist Putin regime. US imperialism has hypocritically called its campaign "Enduring Freedom". Yet, all these regimes are authoritarian in character.
The Northern Alliance, which has been glorified by the press in the West and is looked to as an ally against the Taliban, was part of the reactionary mujahidin which suppressed democratic rights, including the rights of women, in the 1980s and 1990s.
Moreover, it cannot succeed in overthrowing the Taliban without help because it is based almost entirely on the Tajiks, who are in a minority. The Pushto-speaking people constitute the largest ethnic group, 38% of the population of Afghanistan.
US imperialism is manoeuvring to install an alternative ramshackle coalition to the Taliban, around the ex-king and the Northern Alliance, but this will be inherently unstable.
The Central Asian republics of the former USSR may be used as bases in this war but at the cost of stimulating the incipient fundamentalist movements which exist in all these states.
Realising that the argument that this is a war for "freedom and democracy" is threadbare, a new doctrine of "failed states" has been enunciated by US spokespersons.
By what criteria are states characterised as "failed"? By the yardstick of whether they fall into line with the interests of the US ruling class and their allies.
ONE THING is certain: it will not be the mass of the population of this region, largely poverty stricken farmers and peasants, who will be advanced by this war. Nor will the working class of the industrialised world benefit.
The causes of terrorism lie in the massive gulf between rich and poor in the neo-colonial world, in the denial of religious, national and ethnic rights by capitalism and imperialism.
Only by changing society and changing the world will the barbarism of New York and Washington, as well as perhaps even greater barbarism to come, be eradicated forever.
SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE members have reported that popular pro-war sentiment was at its peak immediately after the events of 11 September and that it has already ebbed to some degree.
The size of the anti-war protests on Saturday 29 September show that support for Bush's war on terrorism, though it may be a mile wide, is less than an inch deep.
A demonstration was called in Chicago to co-ordinate with national actions across the United States. Around 12,000 people took part in three demonstrations and a march that lasted around three hours.
The first demonstration took place at the Tribune Plaza, site of one of the two major newspapers in Chicago as both papers are backing the call for military intervention in the Middle East. After more than an hour of speakers, the noisy crowd with many youthful activists began a march through the main shopping centre.
The Anti-War Coalition organised the demonstration which was attended by Left activists, and other environmental, peace, anti-racist, anti-globalisation and students groups.
There were also a number of young people who were not organised. Colleges in Chicago sent contingents to the demonstrations and high school students participated.
Some of the chants used by the demonstrators were borrowed in part from the anti-war movement of the 1960s: "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war!" or "Hell! No! We won't go!"
More than 10,000 attended the demo in Washington, DC, 5,000 to 6,000 in San Francisco and around 800 in Los Angeles.
HISTORICALLY, MARXISM has always opposed terrorist methods. In 1938 Leon Trotsky stated: "All Marxists in Russia began in the historic fight against terrorism".
Under the 1,000 years old Tsarist dictatorship in Russia, terrorist methods such as the assassination of ministers could hold sway over a layer of young people, intellectuals, individual workers and peasants so long as the organised working-class movement had not yet fully appeared on the political scene.
The 1905 Russian Revolution, with the entry onto the scene of the masses, particularly the working class, pushed these methods into the background.
But the revolution's defeat in 1907 once more saw the rise of terroristic methods.
This was a reaction to the murder, torture and imprisonment by the Tsarist state machine. Even then, the Bolsheviks implacably opposed terroristic methods.
Trotsky compared individual terrorism to "liberals with bombs". This appears strange to us today. Yet a liberal believes that a fundamental change can be secured by partial measures; that the replacement of a minister or even a government is sufficient to bring about change.
Similarly, terrorists believe that by the assassination or bombing of an individual representative of imperialism or capitalism, or even a group, this system can be 'destabilised' or even defeated.
However, the capitalists will always find sufficient replacements for those removed by the actions of terrorists.
This is why socialists and Marxists counterpose to these methods mass action, mass meetings, demonstrations and strikes, including the general strike, to defeat the bosses and abolish capitalism.
Consequently, the activity of socialists and Marxists, and the workers' movement in general, is to help to make working class people conscious of their immense latent power. They are the strongest potential force in society, and Marxists emphasise that mass action is the key to social and political change.
The terrorists, notwithstanding their intentions, actually lower the consciousness of the working class in its own strength and ability to fight. They reinforce the idea that working class people are passive in the face of the power of imperialism and capitalism. They must wait for the 'great liberator', small conspiratorial groups, to act for them in the struggle for emancipation.
For the Palestinian people in the past, guerrillas based outside the country, in the rest of the Arab world and internationally, were seen as their future liberators. However, the 1980s' defeat in the Lebanon and the evacuation of the Palestinian fighters following the Israeli occupation of that country dashed this hope.
This led to a feeling amongst the Palestinians on the West Bank, in Gaza and within Israel itself that 'we must do it ourselves'. This in turn led to the first intifada, and the more recent and bloody second intifada.
This movement essentially is a mass movement with an armed wing. It is true that groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have wrongly resorted to the method of the 'suicide bomber' against Israeli forces. When employed in Israel it has struck down ordinary Israelis.
These methods, we understand, are born out of the terrible suffering of the Palestinians as well as the closing off by the Israeli state of other legitimate means of struggle and protest.
However, it has been counter-productive, both in terms of the increased killings and suffering of the Palestinian masses and the excuse this gives to the Israeli ruling class to carry through further repression.
IN THE past, even though their methods were wrong, the terrorists were often cast in a heroic mould.
They were prepared to sacrifice their lives by eliminating individual representatives of capitalism - the army general, the minister, the chief of police, etc. - without killing the innocent.
This 'terrorism' - although ultimately it emanates from, and is nourished by social, national, religious or ethnic oppression, is qualitatively different in character. Even in the 1970s and the 1980s, when terrorism was prominent, there was a tendency for those who used terror - although not all terrorist groups - to do so indiscriminately.
The car bomb, the planting of bombs in buildings, the suicide bomber, often resulted in the death, not just of the 'oppressors' or their state forces, the symbols of their rule, etc., but of innocents too. But the US attacks took terrorism onto a qualitatively different level. Its aim was to terrorise a whole population for ideologically inchoate, messianic principles.
Marxists criticise terrorism because it is counterproductive to its professed aims of weakening 'the enemy', in the case of the US attacks, US imperialism. On the contrary, it is invariably used to strengthen the rule of capital, to reinforce its state power and hence its ability to pursue 'state terrorism'.
The capitalists have the excuse to attack or encroach upon civil and democratic liberties. Most of all, these methods tend to drive the working class into the arms, politically, of the bosses and their representatives.
Witness the attempts of the Bush administration, with the cover provided by the bloodletting, to attack civil liberties - proposals to hold legal immigrants indefinitely, increased powers for wire tapping, etc., the militarisation of US society, armed guards on planes, the presence on troops on the streets and the mobilisation of reservists.
The fact that there is growing resistance to the attempts to hastily push through these measures in the US Congress by the Bush administration is testimony to the American people's determination not to be panicked into accepting patently anti-democratic measures under the guise of 'fighting terrorism'.
But Bush enjoys the highest ratings of any president in history, 92%, compared to 50% prior to 11 September. The attacks have achieved the seemingly impossible: to make Bush - a "corporation disguised as a human being" - popular, at least temporarily.
Furthermore, US capitalism has managed to bring under its 'coalition' umbrella forces hostile to US imperialism until recently, e.g. Iran, Hezbollah in the Lebanon, etc. This itself is an indication of the effect in scale and the character of the terrorist attacks in the US.
It was of a different order to anything that we saw in the past. In Northern Ireland, for instance, in 30 years of the Troubles, about half the number were killed as perished in the attacks on one day in the US. In one US firm, 1,500 children lost a parent.
Therefore, it is an understatement to describe this as 'individual terrorism', aimed at one specific target. These were the actions of a small conspiratorial group, allegedly bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation, or those allied to it, which perpetrated an act of mass terror, not just against the 6,000 that were killed but against the US population as a whole.
THERE ARE some socialists who refuse to 'condemn' the US terrorist outrage.
One such organisation is the Socialist Workers Party in Britain. A circular to Socialist Alliance members from two leading SWP members, stated: "We do not believe that the use of the word 'condemn' is appropriate in relation to the tragic events in the US.
"Clearly we do not support the attacks on working class people and it should go without saying that we oppose the strategy of individual terrorism. But the language of 'condemnation' is that which is always required of socialists and national liberation movements by the media and the ruling class. It would have been better to avoid it for this reason...
"There are lines to draw here - we believe the Socialist Alliance should be part of an unstinting and principled opposition to US and Western imperialism and the further mass murder Bush and Blair intend to unleash on the world".
It is nonsense to argue that condemnation of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington will strengthen Blair and Bush. On the contrary, not to do so can drive infuriated workers into the arms of the capitalists.
The Socialist has made it absolutely clear that our criticisms of the actions in the US are entirely different in content and character to the hypocritical speeches of Bush and Blair when they attack 'terrorism'.
They, and their predecessors, have pursued mass terrorism, against the Iraqi people and the Serbs. They have been complicit and silent when Israel invaded the Lebanon in 1982 with the death of 17,500 people.
Moreover, Blair and Bush do not say a word about the 30,000 who were slaughtered because of the murderous gangs of Nicaraguan contras who were supported and financed by US imperialism. Nor do they have any comment about the 120,000 killed in Algeria - many of them victims of the state terror of the Algerian government.
We unreservedly condemn the organised, systematic state terrorism of the capitalists. But this does not release us as socialists from a duty also to criticise and implacably oppose the actions of terrorist groups which play into the hands of the ruling class.
This the Socialist Party in England and Wales has consistently done, and particularly our sister party in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, the SWP and other alleged 'Marxist' organisations have not done this. Indeed, they have sometimes been uncritical cheerleaders for the methods and policies of terrorist groups.
We recognise that the terrorist methods of a group from an oppressed people have different causes and origins and intentions than those of the ruling class.
Even a capitalist writer such as Daniel Warner from the Institute of International Studies in Geneva wrote in the International Herald Tribune: "Terrorism has causes. Growth in inequalities of wealth and lack of political access lead to frustration, which potentially leads to aggression, violence and terrorism. The greater the levels of frustration, the greater the levels of violence. The higher the levels of repression, the higher the levels of reaction."
He added: "But what is terrorism? It is the activity of the dispossessed, the voiceless, in a radically asymmetrical distribution of power".
In other words, it is in the social, national and the religious situation, that we must look for the causes of terrorism. It is true that the origins of the al-Qaeda organisation are different from other terrorist organisations.
Bin Laden himself is from a rich Saudi family, which came originally from the south of the country on the borders of Yemen. Others, part of the al-Qaeda network who have been identified as hijackers, came from middle class families, and even from the elite, in Egypt and other Arab countries.
They seem such a contrast to many of the impoverished Palestinian young people who have blown themselves up in attacks on Israel and have little formal education. The Tamil Tigers suicide soldiers and bombers came, in the main, from the most oppressed Tamil layers.
But this is not the first time in history when suicide bombers, some from a privileged background, have killed themselves in the act of inflicting a blow on 'the enemy'. In the 19th century this was often the preferred method of those struggling against national oppression. There is also, of course, the example of the Kamikaze suicide bombers from Japan.
The causes, the immediate trigger for such methods can seem to be obscure but are rooted ultimately in the objective conditions of a country or region.
The age-old oppression by imperialism is keenly felt by all layers of the Arab world, including those in the middle class, upper middle class and even those coming from a capitalist background.
The barbaric treatment of the Palestinian masses by the Israeli ruling class, with the silence and therefore connivance, of the Bush regime - which backs Israel to the tune of $3 billion a year - enormously inflamed Arab public opinion in the run-up to 11 September.
Despite the apparently privileged background and lifestyle of the hijackers, this mood in the Arab world could not fail to communicate itself to them as it has done to Arab intellectuals as a whole. Therefore, the actions of the hijackers, notwithstanding the right-wing obscurantist programme of bin Laden, is ultimately grounded in the feeling of intense oppression of the Arab people as a whole.
Consequently, US imperialism's 'war against terrorism' cannot succeed in the long run so long as the conditions which have bred terrorism remain. The fact that these methods are used is also a reflection of the weakness of Marxism and the organised working-class movement.
This is partly because of the dramatic shift to the right of the ex-social democrats who head the ex-workers' organisations. And one of our main tasks is to help build new workers' parties internationally.
It is necessary to understand the causes of terrorism. But in no way does this mean that socialists and Marxists should take a shadow of responsibility for the methods which they use, which ultimately play into the hands of the capitalists.
The Socialist Party and its supporters are not pacifists. We will defend the democratic rights of the working class - the right to strike, freedom of assembly, a free press, etc. - no matter from what quarter it comes - with all legitimate political means at our disposal.
In the event of the capitalists seeking to take these away by force - as they did in Chile in the early 70s (supported by US Secretary of State Kissinger) - we would be prepared to fight to defend such rights.
The worldwide 'war against terrorism' of Bush, Blair, etc. will undoubtedly seek to paint all opponents of capitalism - the anti-globalisation/anti-capitalist activists - also as 'terrorists'.
They will attempt to equate terroristic methods with working-class organisations' right to defend themselves from the attacks of the capitalists, including state attacks, neo-fascist and right-wing attacks, etc.
No matter how well intentioned, equivocation in condemning terrorist methods will play into the hands of the capitalists.
The Socialist Party opposes the false methods of those who perpetrated the New York outrage and counterpose to this the ideas of mass struggle, of education, propaganda and agitation, to rid the world of capitalism and terrorism by fighting for and establishing socialism.
"PRESIDENT PUTIN'S first reaction to the World Trade Centre (WTC) attack was almost gloating", reports Rob Jones, from Moscow. "He and the head of the FSB [the successor to the KGB] police both appeared on television saying that his campaign against 'Islamic fundamentalism' was justified.
"CWI members went to the republic of Ingushetia on the weekend after the WTC attacks to intervene in the Chechen National Congress. This was due to be attended by several hundred Chechens, mainly refugees, and the organisers directly invited us. It was to argue for an end to the war in Chechnya and for a joint struggle of all nationalities in Russia for their rights.
"On arriving at the airport in Ingushetia, we were met by the FSB. In all, over 350 people were arrested that weekend to prevent the congress being held and our comrades only escaped arrest due to the intervention of a leading human rights activist."
"THE MOOD of the French population is changing", reports Alex. "First, there was a feeling of horror. In Rouen the local fire fighters raised 40,000 FF (about £4,000) for the New York firefighters. But also a lot of people thought that the bombings were a 'logical' consequence of US imperialist policy.
"There is now a dominant feeling of being fed up talking about the US events. An increasing issue of public concern is the plight of the Afghan people, their poverty and oppression.
"We had a successful intervention on a demonstration in Paris on 22 September called by an artists' group, at which there was an incredible thirst for left-wing material.
"The main slogan is against war, but we have also to raise the issue of racism, something our comrades from North African and African backgrounds have already had to deal with.
"The Communist Party (CP) has a wrong position of supporting the US government. Indeed, during the l'Humanite [CP daily newspaper] Festival, communist activists refused to follow the minute silence call by the CP national bureau.
"Also, the explosion in Toulouse is front page news. On Friday 21 September the French town of Toulouse was rocked by a devastating chemical explosion. Two production halls of the AZF fertiliser factory, a subsidiary of AtoFina and part of the oil giant TotalFinaElf, exploded. It killed 29 and severely injured 34. In all, 2,400 people were injured.
"Initial fears of a terrorist attack were dismissed. Rather, the suspicion is that TotalFinaElf made safety cutbacks to increase their profits, threatening the lives of the workers and the local population.
"We quickly reacted, producing an extra issue of the paper. We sold more than 250 copies. In one university hall of residence we sold 16 copies of the paper with the supplement."
WE WERE one of the organisers of an anti-war demo in Athens on 27 September.
Comrade Andros comments on the mood: "We were surprised by the extent of the anti-American feelings of the mass of the population. They are sorry about the innocent dead but the Americans 'needed a lesson'; 'for once they should feel the same way billions feel around the planet as a result of American policies'.
"The plans to attack Afghanistan or Iraq or whoever, find a huge majority opposed. Only 29% say Greece should take part if NATO and the US decide to use military means. 60% say Greece should keep out of it even if NATO attacks. [Greece is a member of NATO]
"The Greek government is in for trouble because it is certain that their line will be one of full support to whatever the US together with the EU decide."
Comrades report that so far it is mainly members of the pro-Taliban religious right who are taking part in anti-US demos in Pakistan. The broad masses are not directly involved. However the majority feeling is in favour of defending Afghanistan from any US attack.
"THERE IS a simmering anti-Muslim mood but as yet no attacks on Muslims", comrades in Bangalore report.
"People in the streets are blaming Pakistan and saying that if the American action is to stop bin Laden then that is good.
"A Muslim cleric has come out against India supporting the US and Hindu fundamentalists have said he should be arrested.
"Colin Powell is reported in the press as saying: 'We do see militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir and will flush them out!'
"When war develops there will be serious negative effects. The rest of the 'Left' is not saying anything apart from the Indian government should not agree to give the US an airbase."
"THE ISSUE of the terrorist attacks on the WTC has dominated public discussion in Nigeria", says Segun. "It even overshadowed the ethnic clashes which ravaged the town of Jos in central Nigeria the same week and in which over 200 lives were lost.
"The attitude of different layers of the working people tends to vary. For instance, there are press reports that in Kano, in the predominantly Muslim northern part of the country, posters of Osama bin Laden are selling like hot cakes.
"In Zamfara State, the first state in the same region to introduce Islamic Sharia laws, there are reports of jubilation on the streets. But in the relatively industrially more developed south-west and Lagos (with a greater tradition of mass struggles), the majority of people do not welcome the attacks.
"There is a substantial layer which correctly feels that, as horrendous and condemnable the attacks were, it is a product of the policies of the US. Particularly among the sections of the masses of the Yoruba ethnic group, they recall what they call the US's treacherous role during the struggle against military rule in Nigeria.
"On the other hand, there is a small layer, Christians in most cases, that support US military action. Their position is prompted not just by the horror of the attacks in the US but also the numerous ethnic and religious clashes in Nigeria in the past two and a half years, which they believe were caused by the activities of Islamic groups. They wrongly imagine that a US war would deal a deadly blow at 'Islamic fundamentalism' and terrorism.
"With the ethnic and religious tensions in many parts of the country, it is not at all ruled out that a military attack by the US on Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iraq and similar targets could provoke further religious/ethnic clashes, especially in northern areas.
"A day after the attacks, a leading comrade was on a live TV programme in Lagos, which he used to explain our balanced, working-class and socialist position on the issue.
"The organisation has also produced a two-page special edition of our paper which has generally been well received."
The Socialist will report on the anti-war campaigns from other CWI sections next week.
A full round up is in a CWI bulletin available to Socialist Party members. For copies, Tel: 020 8988 8789 or email [email protected]
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
What the Socialist Party stands for
The Socialist Party fights for socialism – a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also oppose every cut, fighting in our day-to-day campaigning for every possible improvement for working class people.
The organised working class has the potential power to stop the cuts and transform society.
As capitalism dominates the globe, the struggle for genuine socialism must be international.
The Socialist Party is part of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), a socialist international that organises in many countries.
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/9201