Contribution to the 8th International Communist Seminar, Brussels, 2-4 May 1999
www.icsbrussels.org , ics[at]icsbrussels.org
We need an anti-imperialist peace movement!
Communist Party Marxist-Leninists (revolutionaries) KPML(r) - Sweden
I
The US-NATO war of aggression against the sovereign state of Yugoslavia - a founding member of the United Nations - has once again proven the truth of the Marxist analyses, summarised in the slogan:
In the era of imperialism, war is inevitable, or, even more bluntly put: Imperialism means war.
On the brink of a new century, we can summarise: During the entire 20th century imperialism and monopoly capitalism have committed more atrocities, been engaged in greater mass murder and genocidal wars all over the globe than have ever before occurred in the history of mankind.
After the Second World War, where Soviet Union and the Soviet people played the decisive role in defeating the nazi and fascist powers (both capitalist and imperialist powers), socialism was established in a number of countries in Europe. As long as this Socialist bloc (Soviet Union and Eastern Europe) existed it prevented the most blatant imperialist atrocities and served as a guarantee for peace on the European continent. The almost 50 years of peace in Europe was made possible, since US-imperialism and other imperialist forces were forced to reckon with and accept the military strength of the Socialist bloc.
So it is clear, that the strength of socialism was the fundamental guarantor of peace on this continent, just as the development of nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union saved the world from the horrors of nuclear wars after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had US imperialism and other imperialist powers had a nuclear arms monopoly these weapons would undoubtedly have been used in the imperialist wars, e.g. in Korea and Vietnam.
In the rest of the world, however, imperialist oppression and aggression towards the nations striving for independence and freedom have been a constant reality. The Korean war, the Vietnam war, the wars against every national liberation movement in the anti-colonial struggles in Africa, Asia and Latin America bear ample testimony.
In the imperialist countries the struggle against their "own" working class and other oppressed strata, usually took more "subtle" roads. The political and economic establishment never hesitated, however, to rely on its military and police forces, when workers' struggles were considered a threat to their power and hegemony, or politically radical and revolutionary ideas and movements seemed to increase their influence. European history is filled with examples: from Greece and Italy in the late 40’s, France, West Germany, Italy, and Spain in the 60’s, the coal miners strike in Britain in the 80’s etc.
The entire so-called cold war period was, from the point of view of the imperialist powers, aimed at aggressively containing and fighting the Socialist bloc, preventing the spread of socialist ideas into the capitalist West and using social-democratic parties to politically disarm the bulk of the working class and imbue them with a bourgeois outlook.
It did have a certain price for the capitalists. Small portions of their profits (and super-profits from their exploitation of the so-called third world) were allowed to slide out of their hands into the construction of welfare systems and certain social securities. This price was considered worthwhile to maintain political and economic stability and control.
This was one side. On the other there was a constant political threat against the entire capitalist and imperialist system, with existing examples of alternative societies, with planned economies, with no private ownership of production etc. The class struggle (even in its reformist forms) of the working class in the imperialist countries forced certain retreats. This was also part of the price to be paid.
With the final downfall of the Socialist bloc (Soviet Union and Eastern Europe) in 1990-91, monopoly capitalists in the Western world accompanied their euphoria with political statements of a ‘new world order’ where conflicts would be solved by peaceful means and through negotiations and mutual agreements.
In reality this really meant that all previous limitations on exercising its power of violence, have now vanished.
Since then we have seen the horrendous Gulf War, the US invasion in Somalia, in Haiti, in Bosnia, and now in Yugoslavia. US imperialism has committed atrocities and flagrant terrorist attacks in Libya, in Afghanistan and in Sudan. US imperialism is deeply involved in conflicts in Central Africa, commits constant acts of aggression towards the DPR Korea, strengthens its criminal sanctions against Cuba.
Through NATO, US imperialism is enlarging its military dominance in a number of nations, in Europe and outside Europe. Not only have - so far - three more nations become NATO members, but including the so-called "Partnership for Peace" (sic!) NATO embraces more than 40 nations. Even more: NATO has "association treaties" and "co-operation agreements" with a number of regimes as far outside the official NATO "operation area" as in the Caucasus, East Africa etc.
NATO involvement in the Caucasus is especially important to observe, as it is part of the US imperialist strategy to safeguard future control of the rich oil reserves there. In this context one should also notice that US imperialism’s long-standing keen support for the fascist regimes of NATO-brother Turkey (US role in the apprehending of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan is but one recent and concrete example) is, if possible, further augmented with the plans of building pipe-lines from Caucasus through Turkey, and thereby be able to deny Russia any future influence or control. Therefore the fascist regimes of Turkey have been provided with an ever increasing amount of US arms during the 1990’s; the peak year was 1994-5, corresponding with the massive assaults and genocidal offensives on the Kurdish people.
NATO is today, in effect, US imperialism’s single most important instrument for aggression, coercion and political dominance on a world scale.
Between the major imperialist blocs (US - European Union - Japan) there are growing signs of struggle and economic competition to conquer markets and exploit world resources. The deepening economic crises within monopoly capitalism and the neo-liberal market economy globally - the present dispute within the WTO is but one small example of a trade war- increase the dangers of new wars of aggression.
The US is the only military super power and the US uses this military superiority to strengthen its global self-proclaimed role of "world leadership". Even though it is usually disguised under pretexts of defending 'democracy', 'human rights' and even 'freedoms', the purpose is simply to establish and secure US imperialism’s hegemony.
US imperialism’s open contempt for international law, the United Nations (and its charter), international conventions and agreements has been stepped up during the 90's. The recent statement in the US congress, that the US doesn’t accept that the UN and the Security Council can intervene with or even have a say on "decisions taken by the US and NATO" underlines this. Recently adopted new laws in the congress - "NATO Participation" and "NATO facilitation" - mean the largest re-enforcement of US military resources since the second world war. They also clearly point to what the US future strategy is aiming at.
II
It is therefore of enormous importance for Communists and progressive forces to analyse the strategy of the US-NATO war of aggression in Yugoslavia, not only from the concrete aspects of what is happening right now, but also seen in a wider perspective, i.e. is this also a foretaste of what the people of the world can expect in the future, if they don’t voluntarily submit to US demands and accept US-imperialism’s supremacy.
The first point to observe is that this war of aggression is such an open and gross violation of international laws, UN-charter and international conventions:
A/ It is a violation of UN Charter, Article II, that prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state, where it has not committed aggression against other states. Only the UN and the Security Council can authorise this, after the issue in question has been debated.
B/ It is a violation of the 1980 Vienna Convention on "Law of Treaties" which forbids coercion and use of force to compel any state to sign a treaty or an agreement.
C/ It is a violation of the Helsinki Accord Final Act of 1975 which guarantees territorial frontiers of the states in Europe.
D/ If the outcome of the current war of aggression is recognition of Kosovo as an independent state, that is a violation of international law that prohibits recognition of provinces that unilaterally declare independence against its federal authorities.
E/ As a matter of fact, it is also a violation of Nato’s own charter, which claims it is a defensive organisation and only committed to force in mutual defence if one or more of its members are attacked.
The US-NATO war of aggression is evidently a completely unashamed and an open attack on the world order that - with all its faults and shortcomings - was established after the second World War, where the UN was said to be a "government above each single nation or groups of nations".
We of course know that the imperialist forces as a cover-up have repeatedly used the UN for their purposes. Wars have been carried out under the pretext of being "UN missions" or in accordance with "UN mandates".
But within the UN important steps have also been taken, contrary to the interests of imperialism, e.g. the declaration of a "new economic world order" in the early 60’s, not to mention a number of conventions over the years, dealing with concrete measures to stop or limit the destruction of mankind and nature by capitalist and imperialist exploitation.
US imperialism and other imperialist powers have constantly sabotaged the possibilities of the high ideals that are said to lead the UN.
Now US imperialism has, however, taken new steps. The US simply declares that its political interests and military aggressions stand above the UN or are no concern of the UN.
US imperialism intends to appoint itself as the world ruler, the world judge and world arbitrator, and it is its superpower position that makes this possible.
The question of war and peace is therefore today completely linked to the question of fighting US imperialism’s attempt at world dominance.
III
During the period of the so-called cold war a broad peace movement in the imperialist countries was established and it also had links with the people of the Socialist part of Europe. One of its first major manifestations was the 'Stockholm appeal' in 1950, with more than 100 million people world-wide signing a petition to protest against nuclear armaments and military build-ups and the threat these constituted towards mankind. Later there were the anti-neutron, anti ‘Star War’ and nuclear-free zones campaigns that in the 1980’s were mobilised against the policies of the Reagan administration (and his protégé Thatcher in Britain).
These popular movements were important, in that they did not accept the imperialist propaganda picture of "Soviet threats" towards the "free world", and in that they advocated political and peaceful settlements to the existing contradictions between the two systems: socialism and capitalism.
At the same time they were limited, both by being bourgeois in concept and pacifist in practise. They did not question the capitalist exploitation and oppression per se, only the most ugly results of it. It is also a fact that this peace movement did not play any leading or even significant role in the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist movements where they occurred in Europe; even less did it stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the revolutionary liberation movements in the so called third world at the time. (As a minor example, we can point to Sweden, where the peace movement more or less vanished when the Vietnam war escalated in the 60’s. Its last effort was advocating 'peace in Vietnam', without wishing to point to the US as the aggressor when the US imperialists already had more than 500.000 troops there and was carrying out its war crimes
Phrased in other terms, they either denied or overlooked the on-going class struggle as the main cause of the threat to world peace, and the fact that imperialism intended its military build-up for aggressive use towards the Socialist world and progressive forces in the "third world".
These peace movements almost never defined their political task as reaching beyond the capitalist system.
On the brink of the First World War Lenin gave the following description of the Communist approach to the question of peace and war, related to the situation then:
"Socialists have always condemned wars between nations as barbarous and brutal. Our attitude towards war, however, is fundamentally different from that of bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within a country; we understand that wars cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is created; we also differ in that we in that we regard civil wars, i.e. wars waged by an oppressed class against the oppressor class, by slaves against slave-holders, by serfs against landowners, and by wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as fully legitimate, progressive and necessary. We Marxists differ from both pacifists and anarchists in that we deem it necessary to study each war historically (from the standpoint of Marx dialectical materialism) and separately." (Lenin: Socialism and War 1914, Coll. Works 21, p.299, Moscow 1964 Ed.)
And when Stalin touched on the same issue a few years after the Second World War, he clearly analysed both the progressive side of the peace movement at that time, as well as its limitations:
"It is said that Lenin's thesis that imperialism inevitably generates war must now be regarded as obsolete, since powerful popular forces have come forward today in defence of peace and against another world war. That is not true.
The object of the present-day peace movement is to rouse the masses of the people to fight for the preservation of peace and for the prevention of another world war. Consequently, the aim of this movement is not to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism - it confines itself to the democratic aim of preserving peace.
In this respect, the present-day peace movement differs from the movement of the time of the First World War for the conversion of the imperialist war into civil war, since the latter movement went farther and pursued socialist aims.
It is possible that in a definite conjuncture of circumstances the fight for peace will develop here or there into a fight for socialism. But then it will no longer be the present-day peace movement; it will be a movement for the overthrow of capitalism.
What is most likely is that the present-day peace movement, as a movement for preserving peace, will, if it succeeds, result in preventing a particular war, in its temporary postponement, in the temporary preservation of a particula peace, in the resignation of a bellicose government and its supersession by another that is prepared temporarily to keep the peace. That, of course, will be good. Even very good. But, all the same, it will not be enough to eliminate the inevitability of war between capitalist countries generally. It will not be enough, because, for all the successes of the peace movement, imperialism will remain, continue in force - and, consequently, the inevitability of wars will also continue in force.
To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary to abolish imperialism."
(Stalin: Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p.36-37, 1972 Peking, reprint of 1952 Moscow)
IV
What conclusions must be drawn from the requirements of the present global situation and from history?
Is a new broad popular peace movement in the imperialist countries possible or even an important task for Communists to consider?
We think that, generally speaking, both questions should be answered in the positive. But at the same time we have to consider, very realistically, the actual situation and the present weaknesses of the revolutionary forces in our countries.
Because the main lesson to draw from history after the Second World War, in this respect, is that a peace movement that can really stand up against imperialist threats of war and mobilise broad masses of workers and others against a war, including mobilising these masses against their own government if it is involved, presupposes a strong Communist influence and leadership of the peace movement.
And this cannot be achieved unless the revolutionary and Communist parties and forces in each country are sufficiently strong and depend on an established proletarian base for their work. The strength of the Vietnam movement, in a country like Sweden, for example, was that from the start it took a clear anti-imperialist position, strongly fought against pacifist and 'non-committed' positions, and challenged the then existing positions of the revisionist left (i.e. the old Communist party of Sweden).
One of the main lessons is also the importance of consciousness. It may not be too difficult, in a given situation, to get strong reactions from many people against concrete atrocities of war. Spontaneously and with strong sentiments people can be moved by what they see, hear and learn about a given war. TV-pictures of mass graves, murdered children, refugee masses, destroyed homes and cities, dead civilians, all excites strong feelings. All very natural and part of human nature.
But such sentiments can usually only prevail for a shorter period of time and more important: they can be manipulated in one direction or another, if they are not combined with knowledge and deeper understanding of the reasons for these terrible actions.
An example, which does not directly reflect a war situation, can illustrate this: The natural catastrophe that took place in Central America last year, hurricane Mitch, caused a lot of sympathy for the stricken people of Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. But the basic fact that the magnitude of this catastrophe was not primarily nature’s fault, but capitalist greed and exploitation, that doomed the poor masses to live they way they did and thereby have their homes, families and belongings swept away, while the middle class and rich people were very little affected by the hurricane, comparatively speaking, never got through. The victims of hurricane Mitch were in reality victims of capitalism, of the trans-national companies that exploited them, exploited nature and created the prerequisite for the catastrophe.
A peace movement worth its name must see its primary task as educating the masses in the fundamental causes of war by constantly explaining that the capitalist economic system by its nature inevitably leads to the danger of war. Only so can mobilisation to prevent the outbreak of war be successful, while at the same time the imperialist propaganda machine can be easier exposed in time of danger.
"Truth is the first victim of war", is a common phrase these days, and it is all too true!
A peace movement worthy of the name must of course aim at stopping a war before it breaks out. The most advanced form of this is the line of Lenin and Communists before the First World War, to deny one’s "own" imperialist government the right to start war and, when it happens, turn the arms against it.
The Norwegian anti-fascist Nordahl Grieg wrote in the 1930’s, during the Spanish Civil War, as a reply to criticism from ‘humanitarian aids organisations’, that the correct slogan should be "Guns for Spain". He pointed out that bourgeois ‘humanism’ rather required the slogan "Ambulances and coffins for Spain". But, he wrote, there are already too many victims. Now let us try to save some people who are still alive!
We Communists have a responsibility to defend peace and to mobilise and organise the masses for it. But defending peace is tantamount to fight against imperialism and monopoly capitalism, to encourage and lead a growing class struggle.
The subjective and noble wish for peace can never be fulfilled if the cause of war is not abolished.
April 1999
Contribution to the 8th International Communist Seminar, Brussels, 2-4 May 1999
Theme: Imperialism means War