WDIE Masthead

Year 2002 No. 57, March 22, 2002 ARCHIVE HOME SEARCH SUBSCRIBE

House of Commons Debate on Afghanistan

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

House of Commons Debate on Afghanistan

Workers' Movement

300,000 Teachers Are No Longer in Schools

Teachers’ Motion on Militant Action

MG Rover Struggling for Survival

Letter to the Editor:
One Out All Out

Communist Movement

Union "Wreckers" versus Blair’s "Modernisers"

An Evening for Marx

Movement against Imperialist War

Day School against War Held at University of Bradford

International News

Mexico:
The "Monterrey Consensus"

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA. Phone 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to Workers' Publication Centre):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
70p per issue, £2.70 for 4 issues, £17 for 26 issues, £32 for 52 issues (including postage)

Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10


House of Commons Debate on Afghanistan

On Wednesday, March 20, the House of Commons staged an emergency debate on Afghanistan, prompted by the announcement by the Defence Secretary on Monday, March 18, of the escalation of combat operations and the plan to send 1,700 further British troops to fight there. It reflects the archaic nature of the proceedings that the actual motion (which is designed to lapse without the question being put) was "That this House do now adjourn". This was granted by the Speaker, and is a device for "discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration".

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex), who is Shadow Defence Secretary, in moving the motion, although pointing out that the Conservative opposition supported the Labour government in the "war against terrorism", said that it was wrong for the government to make an announcement of the escalation of the troop commitment "without anticipating the need for a proper debate on the subject". In doing so, he said that he "was making a point on behalf of the House of Commons, not my party". He went on to say, "The House is entitled to ask Ministers about the reasons for their decision and for assurances. In the spirit of genuine inquiry, I invite the Secretary of State to use this occasion to build confidence in this deployment and in the Government's decision."

He went on to ask a number of questions: "Can we be sure that that [assisting US armed forces to ‘search out and defeat the remaining elements of largely non-Afghan al-Qaida terrorists’] is indeed their mission? Can the Secretary of State clarify exactly who is still resisting in the mountains of Shah-i-Kot? Do we have enough intelligence to assess their number, their capabilities and their determination, and to develop a clear understanding of how they operate? What lessons have we learned from Tora Bora and Operation Anaconda? How will we improve the effectiveness of co-operation with indigenous Afghan forces, and what measures will be taken to prevent al-Qaida from simply running away, as they have in the past?"

He also raised questions about "force rotation": "How long is it intended that 45 Commando remain in combat before being relieved? With each commando of 3 Commando Brigade being short of one company – that is, short of 100 men each out of some 900 – that will create manning challenges across the whole corps. Can the Secretary of State say something about how that will be addressed?"

Bernard Jenkin also raised questions about the chain of command: "Why have we been asked to provide a brigade headquarters at all, as it is unnecessary for the deployment of this one battle group? Are we keeping an option open to deploy further British troops to expand the UK commitment to Enduring Freedom, or will Brigadier Lane take command of some of the US elements already in the field?"

"Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many troops of all nationalities this formation will put in the front line of operations? The UK will have some 900 troops, plus some unspecified minor elements in the front line. The United States has only 2,000 troops in this theatre, as against our 1,700. How many US troops will be held forward for front-line operations? Might the British force comprise as much as 30, 40 or even 50 per cent. of the front-line fighting capability?" he further questions.

Bernard Jenkin went on to raise questions about British air power: "Have we considered offering to deploy our own dedicated close air support?" He further asked, "If we have nothing else to deploy, has the Secretary of State been given the necessary assurances by the United States about the availability of close air support for British forces as and when required? Will our Royal Marines on the ground be able to communicate directly with US aircraft, which is vital for quick response and to minimise the risk of friendly-fire self-inflicted casualties?"

The speaker raised the issue of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), saying that the Conservative Party is "concerned about mission creep, the open-ended commitment to our leadership of ISAF and the size of our contribution to it".

He went on: "What exactly is the goal that we are trying to achieve in Kabul, and when do we think that it will be achieved? How did we ever believe that it could be achieved under a United Nations mandate of just six months? Why did the Government give such fulsome assurances that we would get away with only three months' commitment from our troops? What has been the outcome of discussions about the future leadership of ISAF?"

Bernard Jenkin said that it "looks as though our troop commitment will become longer; it will be impossible substantially to reduce the numbers that we have committed and no other nation is willing or able yet to make a commitment to take over ISAF's leadership".

In reply, The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon) first reiterated justifications for intervening in Afghanistan. This was indicative of the tone of the debate, which, while raising questions about tactical considerations and the well-being of British troops, particularly the issue of their becoming bogged down in a lengthy war of attrition, hardly ever called into question the principle of military intervention. Furthermore, because the debate related to "Afghanistan", no reference to extending the "war against terrorism", particularly to Iraq, was allowed by the Speaker.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan), intervening, however, pointed out that "the seriousness of the deployment shows that the conflict in Afghanistan is very far from over, despite what the Prime Minister said a number of weeks ago. Does that not underline the danger of the foolish talk of extending spheres of conflict to other countries before the situation in Afghanistan is fully stabilised?"

In answering a question from Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), as to, given the fact that when Russia had its troops in Afghanistan, it got a bloody nose and got bogged down, particularly in the mountains, what is the difference now between the two conflicts, Geoff Hoon said that he had discussed the situation in Afghanistan with the Russian Foreign Minister. He said that the difference "is the way in which the Soviet Union tried to deal with Afghanistan – largely by occupying ground, which obviously made it vulnerable to attack, whereas the whole purpose of the operation that we are discussing today is to ensure that in swift search-and-strike operations, we remove any threat, not specifically to our own forces, although that is part of it, but more generally to the stability of Afghanistan. That is a very different concept and approach."

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North), asked: "What is the Secretary of State's analysis of the situation in Afghanistan beyond Kabul? How far does the writ of the Afghan Government run? How many of the various warring factions of the Northern Alliance are still at war with each other? Is there a Government in control of the whole country? Are we not in danger of involving ourselves in a long-term and serious civil war?"

Geoff Hoon gave a very generalised reply, emphasising that overall "the country has remained remarkably committed to the process of reconstruction; more committed, perhaps, than at any other time in its recent past. That is a testimony," he said, "to the determination of the Afghan people to take this chance to ensure that their country can return to the international community."

The Defence Secretary went on to say: "The deployment of 45 Commando to Afghanistan is entirely consistent with our campaign objectives. It does not undermine, or even threaten to undermine, our support for ISAF. Since the military campaign began, we have made clear our determination to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida from posing a continuing terrorist threat. That is why British forces have been involved in operations on the ground in Afghanistan for some months now.

"We have also made it clear that rooting out the remaining elements of al-Qaida will take time. That was a constant theme of our statements in the early days of the military deployment. Even in the early period after 11 September, defence analysts rightly pointed out that search and strike operations against al-Qaida and Taleban elements were likely to continue into the spring. Certainly, al-Qaida ceased to exist as a coherent force some months ago, and the Taleban regime has long since been removed from power.

"However, as the recent USA-led Operation Anaconda has demonstrated, sizeable elements of al-Qaida and the Taleban remain in Afghanistan, hidden away in the remoter areas of the country. We have to deal with those threats. The threat of attack from these groups and individuals remains high. If we do not deal with them, they will threaten all that the Afghan people and their supporters in the international community have achieved so far. They would certainly work to retain Afghanistan as a base for training and organising terrorism. Left to regroup, there is no doubt that al-Qaida and its supporters would continue to pose a direct threat to states outside Afghanistan, including the United Kingdom. That is why we are deploying 45 Commando to join United States troops in continuing operations against these al-Qaida and Taleban remnants. It is simply continuing the work that we started last October."

He went on to suggest that there were a series of small pockets of resistance and that it is almost impossible to say precisely how many of those small pockets there might be in the remoter parts of Afghanistan, or the numbers involved.

Hugh Bayley (City of York) asked: "What will happen to prisoners who are taken? Will they remain in Afghanistan and will they be treated under British or American law?" To which Geoff Hoon replied: "Prisoners will be dealt with on exactly the same basis as they have been in the past. Most are still held in Afghanistan. I anticipate that those prisoners who can contribute to further understanding of the events of 11 September will be handed over for questioning to the United States."

The Defence Secretary took every opportunity to applaud and back the role of the US, following whose formal request the deployment of further British troops has been made. He said that the United States "will be able to call on an extraordinary array of air power. The expert military advice that I have received is that there is no need to augment coalition air power with our own strike aircraft in support of this particular deployment. The House should be aware that British forces have very recent and very relevant experience of co-operating with the United States and drawing on its close air support during ground operations in Afghanistan. As the commanding officer of 45 Commando made clear on the radio this morning, we routinely train with US forces and use common procedures."

The Defence Secretary asserted that 45 Commando Group is entirely separate from the International Security Assistance Force and will have separate command and control arrangements. "ISAF comes under national command, although US Centcom has responsibility for ensuring that there is no conflict between ISAF activities and those that continue as part of Operation Enduring Freedom; 45 Commando Group come directly under Centcom's command. Brigadier Roger Lane and the headquarters of 3 Commando Brigade will therefore be embedded in the American-led coalition headquarters at Bagram."

Geoff Hoon said that the "exit strategy is that we will leave when the task is completed".

For the Liberal Democrats, Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife) offered support to the government. However, he said that "a perception had grown up here and elsewhere that we had enjoyed early and comprehensive military success, and, consequently, all that was left to do was some form of mopping up". But his point was that in the "war against terrorism, the commitment is always open-ended".

Menzies Campbell even went so far as to say that "on this deployment as on so many decisions that the Government have taken since 11 September, it is necessary for the House and the country to take the Government on trust". His argument was that not to "could lead to seismic political consequences". According to the Lib Dem spokesman, the government "have a duty to the House of Commons and to the country to make sure that they get it right".

Following this, the debate moved on to Back-Benchers’ contributions.

One speaker, Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South), while welcoming the Opposition’s support, ruefully mentioned that "those of us who support deployment in the war against terrorism will continue to be accused of warmongering and imperialism – I was accused on the radio of being slightly racist – and of being stupid for not realising what others have realised. Of course, Islamicists will not be too pleased either."

The same speaker amazingly and unashamedly went on to identify this warmongering and imperialism with its opposite: "I should tell those of my colleagues who are devotees of the Labour party and its history that it has been an internationalist party throughout its existence. The idea that socialism ends at the borders of Europe is mistaken. We have commitments to help Governments in other parts of the world, however far from our shores."

Mr. Michael Portillo (Kensington and Chelsea) said that "the attacks on New York city and Washington were a test for western society on whether it was willing to defend the values of a free society. The background to the attacks on 11 September was not, as many people have alleged, a decade in which the United States had shown an overbearing and arrogant foreign policy towards the rest of the world. I take the opposite view." He proceeded to give one of the most openly reactionary contributions in support of the government and US imperialism, but it should also be remembered that such is the stock in trade of the government itself.

Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle), though from the point of view of not opposing the government, raised some issues that had more of the character of Conservatives of the old school. Revenge is not a word that is often used in this context, he said, but the United States are determined to get revenge, and we should, in our cool, British way, consider the situation as it develops and make quite certain that each step down the road is carefully chosen.

There is a great danger in using the broad brush, he said. "People talk about those who are fighting in Afghanistan – the Taleban, al-Qaida and the third group, who might be described as tribal gangsters – as though they were all the same sorts of people, but they are entirely different."

He went on: "The last time I was in Kabul was a few weeks before the Russians invaded. They stayed in Afghanistan for 10 years, put in 300,000 troops and left 30,000 dead behind them. Those are useful statistics to bear in mind when talking about sending 1,700 immensely gallant and highly trained Royal Marines into the snow-clad mountains of eastern Afghanistan. I have walked in those mountains – although not very high up, and certainly not when there was snow around – and it would be impossible to use armoured vehicles on those tracks, which one can hardly get mules up and down. As we all remember, by the time the Russians left Afghanistan the whole country was littered with burned-out Russian tanks. The nature of the challenge should not be underestimated."

Sir Peter Tapsell also said: "I visited Vietnam three times during the war. The first time I went, there were 300 American advisers in civilian clothing. The last time I went there were 500,000 American troops in uniform. During that visit, General Westmoreland, the great US commander of the day, assured me that the war would be over by Christmas. It is always worth remembering the difficulties that have arisen in the past as a result of intervening in such situations."

Referring to history, he said: "Until the late 19th century, it was simply called the Afghan region. A British civil servant called Sir Mortimer Durand drew a line on the map and said that that was going to be the frontier between the then India and Afghanistan. People use the extraordinary phrase ‘a porous frontier’ to describe the area. They have heard only of the Khyber Pass, up which I have driven from Peshawar to Kabul on three occasions, but I am told that there are approximately 200 passes on the 900-mile frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The tribesmen can move backwards and forwards with total freedom, as the Secretary of State admitted."

He said that the importance of the war must be considered in the wider world context, referring to the "brilliantly organised terrorist strike", contrasting it to the difficulty of "getting the sandwiches there on time" to a "cheese and wine party for a Conservative association". He drew the conclusion that the problem is not only in the caves in the mountains of Afghanistan. Sir Peter Tapsell said: "I have never had great faith in what might be described as troglodyte technology. I simply do not believe that the attack on the twin towers was organised in detail from the caves. We know that no Afghans were involved in the actual attack, which was carried out almost entirely by Egyptians and Saudis who had been in the United States for a long time. They had tremendous technological training for the job. We should acknowledge that although a genuine danger of future terrorist attacks exists, not only in the United States but possibly in Britain, the people who will launch them are almost certainly in the US and Britain now, not fighting in the snow of the Afghan mountains."

He went on: "We need a much more sophisticated approach to the subject than the media, at least, present. I should like to believe that the US has worked that out, that it recognises the fact that 1 billion people in the world are Muslim and that the whole Arab world has been antagonised by our actions. We must tackle the macro-strategic as well as the micro-tactical problem."

In his contribution, Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South), said that it worried him that the Secretary of State described the move as chasing the "remnants" of al-Qaida. On 19 December last year, he said, the Washington Post quoted an FBI analysis according to which the sum of military achievements was, at best, the limiting of al-Qaida’s capacity by about 30 per cent. If that is the case, he said, we are sending our troops to face very sizeable "remnants".

"We do know that Operation Anaconda was anything but a mopping-up exercise," he said. "We also know – thanks to, in particular, the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and discussions between the NATO delegation from the United Kingdom with Russian delegations – that the issue never concerned an initial military success over Afghanistan. The Russians have repeatedly pointed out to our delegation that they took over the country in six weeks. The fact is that 10 years later, minus 30,000 of the troops they had sent in, they were forced to crawl out of a country whose terrain and fighters had defeated them."

Despite this, Alan Simpson’s point was that "before we send British troops into potentially similar conditions" a "clear mission statement" is needed.

He went on: "We must at some point acknowledge that one of the first casualties of our continuing down a route driven entirely by military presumptions was the death of diplomacy, and of the UN's role in pursuing non-military solutions to what is legitimately described as an asymmetrical threat to the stability of societies."

Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham) pointed out that up to 8,000 civilians have died as a result of the bombs dropped on Afghanistan.

In winding up for the Opposition, Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) said that "it is inconceivable that our involvement in Afghanistan could be increased from a peacekeeping role to a war-fighting role without Parliament having the opportunity to consider the issue".

However, the "Conservative party fully support the deployment of British troops for fighting terrorism, as part of an important contribution to the coalition with the United States in attempting to eradicate the al-Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan".

"I wish to ask four questions that have not been adequately dealt with by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will do so in responding to the debate," he said. "First and foremost, will he say what proportion of the front-line forces in the mountains will be provided by the United Kingdom? That question was put to the Secretary of State, but I do not think that he was able to answer it. We are entitled to know to what extent those forces are being provided by us and to what extent by the United States of American and, indeed, other countries whose forces are active in the front line.

"Secondly, if the numbers of al-Qaida produce a greater threat than we anticipate, what plans exist to reinforce 45 Commando? Thirdly, what is ISAF's mission? That is a critical point about ISAF's role, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. Is our commitment to ISAF open ended? For example, 3 Commando Brigade headquarters will be inside ISAF's remit area. If the peacekeeping forces come under attack and need to be reinforced, can the Minister explain how the lines of communication will work? How will that issue be resolved operationally, so that those forces can be reinforced – presumably by troops under the command of the US Central Command, Centcom?"

Finally, he asked the Minister for more explanation on the difficulties of Britain’s providing both combat troops and "peacekeepers on the streets of Kabul".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie) first highlighted again the points made by Geoff Hoon: "First, we believe that we are right to act in Afghanistan. Secondly, we think that the House should note that the action that the international community has taken to date has been successful. Thirdly, British forces have throughout played a vital role in that success."

On specific points he said: "45 Commando group command and control is entirely separate to that of ISAF, and is integrated in the system for patrolling active operations in the country. The 45 Commando group will come directly under Centcom's command, through our own officers."

He said that complete air supremacy is available in Afghanistan. Marines, he said, routinely train with US forces, so they are well used to operating together.

When ISAF was deployed, he said, it was never envisaged that it was going into a risk-free situation. "If the worst came to the worst and anything really vicious happened there," he said, "the force could withdraw to Bagram and defend itself."

The Deputy Speaker interrupted proceedings exactly three hours after the debate began, as the Standing Order lays down. No vote is taken in such circumstances.

Article Index




300,000 Teachers Are No Longer in Schools

Official statistics show that in 2001, 83,400 people held teaching certificates which they have never used, according to John Dunford, General Secretary of the Secondary Heads Association (SHA). He told the SHA annual conference in Bournemouth, meeting from March 15-17, that shortages were destined to be a problem for "many years to come". Government data showed that 80,500 teachers were aged 45 or over. While there were currently 178,000 teachers working in schools, 77,500 left between 1995 and 2000. In all there were 296,200 qualified teachers at the last count aged under 60 who were no longer in the education system. The crisis in the education system is one where there are fewer graduates entering the system than other professions and retention of experienced teachers is a massive problem.

In his speech, "SHA: Leading secondary education into the future", Mr Dunford said, "Many SHA members have said to me, with a note of sadness, that the politicians and their advisers, especially in Downing Street, seem to be working much harder for their own good than for ours, and that announcements seemed designed to improve the Government's standing than to improve schools."

He added, "The Government's ambivalence about teachers does little to raise esteem either. One week, we are the best teaching force in the world, the next week the schools are in a terrible mess and will have to be transformed."

Even Education Minister Margaret Hodge, who addressed the conference on the Friday, acknowledged that it was becoming more difficult to bring back teachers who had left the profession. Mr Dunford said that there were many reasons why there were teacher shortages. Among them were poor pay and heavy workload.

Another issue that the conference considered was the question of Performance-Related Pay for teachers. Members of the SHA are to be balloted next month over whether the administration of the system should be boycotted.

Department for Education and Skills Permanent Secretary spoke at the conference and attacked the stance of the Head teachers. He said, "When leaders of an organisation take industrial action they put at risk their own moral authority."

General Secretary, John Dunford, denounced this blackmail saying that they should not be open to that accusation.

As in the London teachers' strike last week, Estelle Morris tried to coerce the teachers by saying that they were threatening children's education. Teachers were militant in their response, blaming the government for threatening the long-term education of children.

John Dunford also pointed out that the Performance-Related Pay Scheme was a badly planned initiative. Delegate to the SHA, Davina Lloyd, head teacher of The Cooper's Company and Coborn School in Essex, said at the Conference, "I feel the way in which Performance-Related Pay has been given to teachers is morally wrong."

Article Index



Teachers’ Motion on Militant Action

Teachers are laying plans for "rolling industrial action up to and including strikes" over pay, it was reported at the beginning of the week. They will seek to have the proposal adopted at the National Union of Teachers' annual conference this month.

However, the union’s executive is opposing the plan. The conference motion demands a 10 per cent pay rise for all teachers, and the doubling of the London teachers' allowance to £6,000, matching Metropolitan police officers. It does not commit the NUT to a ballot on further action. That would depend on the government's response to the demands.

The motion will be moved by Havering teacher Sue Kortlandt, who said that organisers of last week's action, which closed more than half London’s schools, had been "amazed" at the response from teachers. "I think it shows a feeling of desperation among teachers in London," Sue Kortlandt said. "I took four young teachers to lobby their MP. All were born in Havering and returned to the borough to teach. Every one of them says if the government doesn't come up with more money they'll have to go elsewhere, or quit the profession."

Education Secretary Estelle Morris is due to address the NUT on the same day that the motion is debated. The government has been uncompromising in its rejection of the teachers’ just demands.

Article Index



MG Rover Struggling for Survival

MG Rover has signed a deal with a Chinese company, Brilliance. They will design and build new vehicles in Britain and China.

New small and medium-sized cars will be produced at the Rover plant in Longbridge, Birmingham, with components from local suppliers.

Last Friday, workers had voted against going on strike over pay and scheduling proposals.

Sir Ken Jackson, general secretary of the union Amicus, which represents about 1,000 of the 5,500 workers at MG Rover, said the 85 percent vote against strike action showed that common sense had prevailed.

"Strikes would have been a catastrophe," he said. "We will now have to go back to the company to resolve our problems."

Members of the Transport and General Workers Union voted three-to-one against a strike.

The workers were offered a 2.5 percent pay increase but there has been anger about proposed changes to hours.

MG Rover is still struggling for survival after 2000 when a consortium bought it for a token £10 pounds from BMW.

Article Index



Letter to the Editor

One Out All Out

National Union of Journalists' members at a group of papers based in Wakefield, Yorkshire UK are to take three days of strike action over pay. They will stay away from work on Wednesday and Thursday March 27 and 28 and Tuesday April 2.

In a ballot held last week 85 percent of NUJ members at the Yorkshire Weekly Newspaper Group voted for a strike. At a well-attended chapel (workplace branch) meeting on Friday just one person voted against the walkouts.

The chapel is prepared to accept the management's latest offer of a £1,200 rise for trainees – the original offer was £300 – but the 2.5 percent on the table for senior journalists falls too far below the 4.5 percent claimed by the members.

The NUJ's national executive agreed to support the dispute at its last meeting.

How You Can Help

The chapel needs money to pay for campaign material and to help cover the wages people will lose by striking. Please urge your union branch to hold a meeting and agree to make a donation to the strike fund. Organise a whip round in the office or among branch members. You don't need to be a union official to start a collection. Just do it. Cheques should be made payable to "YWNG Fighting Fund " and sent to 23, Darnley Avenue, Wakefield, WF2 9QT. Individual donations are also welcome however small.

From Wednesday March 27 chapel members will be picketing the company's offices in Wakefield, Morley, South Elmsall, Castleford, Selby and Castleford. NUJ members and any other trades unionists will be very welcome to visit the picket lines and offer support. Bring your banners!

It only takes a minute to send a message of support. Please send greetings to juliekmarshall@blueyonder.co.uk

Please send this email on to anyone who you think might be interested.

Why You Should Care

Wages for local newspaper journalists are scandalously low.

Trainee managers at McDonalds in the UK on their first day in work, when they know nothing, earn £17,000pa. On the current scales no-one who isn't a manager earns that much as a journalist at Yorkshire Weekly Newspapers – no matter how experienced or well-qualified they are.

The official UK average wage for non-manual workers is more than £24,000.

Other News

NUJ members at the Lancashire Evening Post have voted 95.5 percent in favour of industrial action over pay. They will decide what action to take at a meeting later this week. They have been paid one per cent.

Miles Barter, NUJ northern regional organiser, 18 Mar 2002

Article Index




Union "Wreckers" versus Blair’s "Modernisers"

WDIE is posting for the information of our readers the following article written by Nick Wright, member of the executive committee of the Communist Party of Britain, for an Italian revolutionary journal. It provides background to the debates CPB has opened on the issue of the political situation within the British trade union movement prior to CPB’s 46th party congress in June.

Tensions between Tony Blair’s "New" Labour government and Britain’s trade unions are mounting. One symptom is the increasing enthusiasm for industrial action. Railway workers striking for pay increases and over safety threats posed by the under funded privatised rail network are nightly news items. Postal workers confronting a bullish management gearing up for privatisation wage a largely unreported guerrilla campaign of sudden stoppages.

Civil servants are locked into a long running strike battle over safe working conditions in unemployment and social security offices.

Schoolteachers in London have voted for strike action over pay allowances to meet the exorbitant cost of living in the capital. Even the low-paid stagehands and theatre staff in London’s West End are balloting for strike action over poverty pay.

Another symptom is the election of a new generation of trade union leaders with little loyalty to the nexus of social democratic policies, bureaucratic patronage and parliamentary politics, which traditionally characterised relations between unions and Labour Party. If this "awkward squad" have little affection for traditional social democracy they have even less for the big business-friendly policies of "new" Labour.

Despite a vicious press campaign (and a mysterious incident when a gang of iron bar wielding thugs attacked him on his doorstep) railway workers have elected a militant to lead the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers union.

Bob Crow joins his opposite number leading the train drivers’ union, Mick Rix, in an alliance that entrenches trade union opposition to the continued privatisation of the railway.

The postal and telecoms workers, who defeated an earlier Tory bid to privatise the Post Office, have elected the cheerfully intransigent Billy Hayes to oppose Labour’s own privatisation scheme.

The Neanderthal right wing in the civil servants union surprised observers by failing to rally enough support to re elect the "cold warrior" incumbent and instead elected Mark Serwotka on a platform of outright opposition to privatisation and social partnership.

The depth of Blair’s difficulties can be measured by his surprising estrangement from John Edmonds, leader of the GMB general union – which cut £2million from its funding to the Labour Party, switched the cash into a campaign against privatisation and suggested it would not support Labour local government candidates who backed private delivery of public services. This massive general union – with a large membership in public utilities, local government and industry – is traditionally a bastion of the right wing social democratic bureaucracy. Indeed, patronage from its powerful regional barons – particularly in the North – ensured the selection of many right wing figures – including Blair himself – as parliamentary candidates for the Labour Party.

Sharp leadership tussles are expected in two of the biggest unions. The massive Transport and General Workers Union faces a series of elections to its top posts. Last time the left wing candidate Bill Morris, Britain's first black trade-union leader, humiliated a "social partnership" candidate backed by Blair and the media. Downing Street is reported to be anxiously searching for a candidate more accommodating than any of the front-runners. Meanwhile, in the newly merged Amicus (a complex amalgam of the engineering, electrical, manufacturing, science and finance unions) the notoriously combative right wing Ken Jackson faces a stiff challenge from a resurgent left wing seeking to build on their traditional workplace strongholds.

A left wing axis around engineering, manufacturing and transport would recreate the conditions which could challenge both the domestic and foreign policies of new Labour. In the seventies this axis underpinned both trade union militancy on wages and opposition to Britain nuclear arms policy. A more potent threat to new Labour’s policy of social partnership at home and new imperialism abroad is hard to imagine.

Blair can shrug off predictable opposition from railway workers, firefighters and postal staff as the inevitable "blowback" from his privatisation policies. Indeed one tendency in new Labour welcomes conflict with unions and would like to weaken or break the unions’ links with the Labour Party. Their project is for a Lib-Lab alliance; state funding of political parties to weaken Labour’s dependence on workers’ cash and a permanent governmental alliance of new Labour, Liberal Democrats and pro-Euro Conservatives.

Part of the explanation for the GMB stance lies in its subterranean turf war with the biggest public service union, Unison, which has a traditionally more combative style and itself faces a debate on continued affiliation to the Labour Party.

But more fundamentally, divisions between union leaders and Labour politicians are the inevitable consequence of new Labour’s alignment with the most powerful sections of big business, the banks and the transnational monopolies. They are a reflection of the inability of British capital to guarantee the flow of sufficient profits and simultaneously sustain a social peace based on relatively high wages and the welfare state.

Public finances are at the heart of Blair’s dilemma. Privately committed on the one hand to entry to the Single Currency – with its constraints on public spending; and wedded to his global alliance with Bush – with its unavoidable military expenses – he still needs to deal with a public disenchanted with poor public transport, underfunded schools, costly higher education, a housing crisis and a failing health service.

Trade union politics in Britain move to the rhythm of two processes. The wages cycle and the calendar of trade union conferences. These begin in spring when the traditionally combative Scottish Trades Union Congress meets, develop with the TUC women’s conference and really get underway as the individual unions gather. The national conference of the Trades Union Congress is in September – just before the party conferences. The conferences are important precisely because of the special relationship between the unions and the Labour Party which means Labour politicians traditionally fight hard to secure a consensus around social partnership policies. And because they are an accurate expression of rank and file feeling. Uniquely, it was the trade unions that formed the Labour Party. Indeed for the first two decades of the 20th century it was not possible for an individual to belong to the party except as a member of one of the affiliated socialist societies or co-operatives. Famously, Lenin – in Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder – advised communists in Britain to press for the re affiliation of their organisation to the Labour Party.

Forming the Labour Party gave organised workers the means to break from the stranglehold of the Liberal Party and find an independent political expression. The result is that almost uniquely, Britain has a single union federation to which almost all unions are affiliated, and most – particularly in manufacturing, energy, construction, printing and basic industries – are directly affiliated to the Labour Party. And even though new Labour has weakened trade union representation in party counsels the unions are still potentially the most powerful centres of opposition.

Although half the votes at the Labour Party conference are cast by directly elected trade union delegates and at local level trade unions have the right to send delegates to party bodies it is not the formal constitutional relationship, which poses the biggest threat to new Labour. Rather it is the political threat if the myriad of separate threads of opposition to new Labour’s "modernising" agenda joins together.

However, such is the disillusion with Labour that individual membership of the party is plummeting, union participation in party affairs is declining and voter abstention in working class areas reaches 70 per cent.

In a faintly ludicrous echo of the dispute so magisterially resolved by Lenin in 1920 a new campaign is underway to persuade workers to disaffiliate their unions from the Labour Party. Its foundation is the deep disillusion most active trade unionists feel for the direction Labour has taken. Its most vocal advocates are to be found in a warring constellation of groups, mainly Trotskyite in character, which seek to challenge Labour electorally. But of the new breed of "awkward squad" union leaders only the leader of the civil service union – which is not affiliated to the Labour Party – openly backs this opposition while even the miners union, led by Arthur Scargill of the breakaway Socialist Labour Party remains firmly linked to Labour.

While the more extreme elements among new Labour are almost as enthusiastic as the ultra left to see the unions disaffiliate most trade unionists remain cautiously wary of such tactics. A lively debate in the left wing daily Morning Star newspaper pitches an alliance of Communist Party, left-wing Labour and trade-union opinion in support of the Labour link against advocates of breakaway.

As always it is the industrial agenda which drives union politics. Pay and conditions and job security are the main issues. But neo-liberal attacks on pensions and job security, sackings and rationalisation in the private and manufacturing sector and, for public service workers privatisation, compel British unions to adopt a critical view of government and European Union policy.

But it is on the issue of trade union rights, where New Labour has carefully preserved the main features of Thatcher’s anti-union legislation, that a new critical spirit is emerging. Echoing an important formal decision of last year’s TUC congress a united campaign to repeal the anti-union laws – bringing together rank-and-file groups, union leaders and labour lawyers – will gather on 27 April to hammer out details of new charter for workers rights.

It carries with it a hint of the 1970s when shop stewards’ power and official trade union action combined in a wave of working class militancy to defeat attempts by both Tory and Labour governments to shackle the unions. The next period will determine whether Britain’s organised workers can begin to shape events or whether they remain on the margins.

Resolutions, articles and debate on CPB’s biennial congress are to be found at http://www.communist-party.org.uk/Pages/46congress.html

Article Index



An Evening for Marx

The following article appeared in The New Worker, weekly newspaper of the New Communist Party of Britain, No.1189, week commencing March 22, 2002.

The NCP Party Centre in London was packed last Saturday for a reception to mark the 119th anniversary of the death of Karl Marx.

Party members, supporters and friends gathered to remember Marx and the communist cause he founded.

Michael Chant from the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (ML) spoke of the importance of Marx’s contribution to the advancement of humanity and NCP leader Andy Brooks recalled the achievements of Marx and Engels during their lives in Britain.

Veteran communists like Arthur Attwood and Otto Cahn shared their memories with young members and other guests.

That included a representative of the Palestinian General Delegation in London and communists from Ireland, Scotland and Italy. Congratulatory messages came from Mary Rosser of the Marx Memorial Library, Viktor Bourenkov of the Russian Communist Workers Party and Bill Ash the communist writer.

Article Index




Day School against War Held at University of Bradford

A Day School entitled "War on Terror or War of Terror?" was held at the University of Bradford on Saturday, March 16, organised by Action for Peace and Palestine Forum Bradford. Some 70 people originating from all the continents attended, over half students. The aim, as explained in the introductory remarks, was to provide a space for in-depth discussion of the issues posed by the so-called "War on Terror" reflecting a broad spectrum of views. The Day School began with a roundtable discussion with invited speakers followed by workshops entitled: "Afghanistan – Who Benefits?", "US/British Imperialism – Who Are the Terrorists?" and "Palestine – Occupation: A Different Kind of Terror".

The keynote speaker in the roundtable discussion was Rae Street (International Peace Bureau/CND). She spoke of the terrible suffering caused by the September 11 bombing and said wise voices had called immediately for no retaliation or vengeance, but an examination of the roots of the tragedy, which could be found in US foreign policy, poverty and injustice, especially in the Middle East. She spoke vehemently against the bombing of Afghanistan and the hypocrisy with which it was justified. She spoke of the dangers posed by the US threats to Iraq, the proposed National Missile Defence system and the recently leaked Pentagon document "Nuclear Posture Review". She ended by speaking of the growing opposition to the "War on Terror", comparing it to what had happened in the Vietnam War, and her optimism that a peaceful world could be achieved.

Ayoub (Human Relief Foundation) recounted first hand the situation in Afghanistan and the refugee camps in Pakistan and the dangers and difficulties of taking humanitarian aid to the region.

Chris Coleman (Korea Friendship and Solidarity Campaign) spoke of the threat posed by the "War on Terror" to the Korean people and the dangers of conflict on the Korean peninsula to regional and world peace and security. [See text below.]

Dave Ramsden (Bradford Stop the War Coalition) denounced the criminality and hypocrisy of US military action. He described the anti-war activities in the Bradford area both historically and at present. He said that the system must be ended that inevitably produced war.

Diane Langford (Palestine Solidarity Campaign) spoke of the suffering of the Palestinian people, called for adherence to the UN Charter and Resolutions and described the campaigning work on the Palestine issue.

Neil Kingford (Yorkshire CND) said that terrorism could not be combated by bombing countries. He denounced the US for its unilateral actions and its latest plans for nuclear first-strike in contravention of international treaties.

Simon Watson (Bradford Cuba Solidarity Campaign) pointed out that Cuba was on the US terrorism list yet had been the victim of terrorism from US soil. He described the history of US hostility to the Cuban people and the close links between George W Bush and the Miami Cuban Mafia.

Following the workshops, a feedback and open discussion was held which drew out some of the themes which had arisen. Among many others, one was that it was mistaken to think that people, especially the youth and students, were apathetic regarding the dangers of war: while support for the established political institutions might have dropped yet there was developing a uniquely broad movement that assumed various forms, such as the anti-globalisation protests, the mass actions of Muslims, and other diverse manifestations. There was important work to be done in strengthening and linking the various strands. There was cause for optimism.

Intervention by Chris Coleman for KFSC

I should like first to thank the organisers for inviting KFSC to speak at this day school and to congratulate them on this initiative.

There is no doubt that there is a large and growing movement in opposition to the so-called "War on Terror" as seen in the 1000,000 strong demonstration in London in November. There is also very widespread concern about its dangers. But there is a lack of in-depth discussion, certainly in Parliament, with the exception of just a few MPs. So I think this initiative is to be applauded.

We are also pleased that North Korea is on the agenda, since so much mystery and disinformation is created by the media and politicians about that country. KFSC was set up to promote friendship between the Korean people and the people of this country. It upholds the sovereignty of the DPRK and the right of its people to follow their chosen system. It campaigns for the rights of the people of north and south Korea, in particular for their right to reunify their country peacefully and independently, free from foreign interference and the presence of foreign, that is US, troops. We are thus very concerned that North Korea was designated, along with Iran and Iraq, as one of the "axis of evil" by George W Bush in his State of the Union message, threatened with imminent military attack, even if Bush was forced to temper his words regarding North Korea by pressure while in China and South Korea. Also that North Korea is used by Bush as one of the pretexts for developing the National Missile Defence aggressive system, the so-called Star Wars. And now this week we see that North Korea is one of seven countries listed in the leaked Pentagon document Nuclear Posture Review as a target for nuclear first-strike, even though this violates both the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the specific agreements with North Korea to which the United States is a signatory. These all pose a military threat to North Korea, to the region, and to the world.

Overall it must be said that September 11, terrible and unjustifiable as it was, resulted from US policy. Moreover it has provided the pretext to further attempt to impose the rule of the monopolies, neo-liberal globalisation, a particular type of political pluralism and human rights based on private property on the whole world, as set out as long ago as 1990 in the Paris Charter. It has resulted in the US and its allies further abandoning the principles set out in the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention and other agreements at the end of the Second World War, agreements specifically established to outlaw state violence and terror, to guarantee the rights of people and nations, sovereignty and territorial integrity, peaceful co-existence of different systems, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts between countries. It has resulted also in stepping up the attempt to literally wipe out those countries who have been a thorn in the flesh of the United States, refusing to bow to its dictate, such as Cuba and North Korea, and various Islamic countries.

As regards North Korea, it has signed all the UN resolutions opposing terrorism and there is no evidence produced by anyone linking it with any acts of terrorism whatever. The US claim of North Korea possessing or developing "weapons of mass destruction" is a hoax also. In fact the issue was resolved between the USA and North Korea as long ago as 1994. Though North Korea stated at the time that it had no means or intention to produce nuclear weapons, the US raised the threat supposedly posed by North Korea’s development of graphite-fired nuclear power stations for energy production. An agreement was thus signed with the Clinton administration under which North Korea stopped developing these power stations, and the US undertook to help build light-water reactors and supply North Korea with oil to meet the energy shortfall. As it happens the US has reneged on this agreement, but still North Korea has no capability, and no interest, in developing nuclear weapons. It does follow what it calls an "Army-First" policy to strengthen its defence to the maximum, which has made the country an impregnable fortress, and who could blame it! There are of course weapons of mass destruction in the Korean Peninsula, those deployed by the US forces in the south and aimed at the north. The DPRK has suffered sanctions and military threats for over 50 years with the US refusal to conclude the Armistice of 1953 and withdraw its troops from South Korea. The attitude did change in Clinton’s time and with the election of Kim Dae Jong, imprisoned by previous military regimes, as President in South Korea. This with the initiatives of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in the north led to the historic North-South Summit and Joint Declaration of June 15, 2000, to very positive steps towards peaceful reunification, to improved relations with various European countries and, among other things, to the visit of US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to Pyongyang. All these developments have now been blocked by the Bush administration.

I must mention the British government. It is disturbing that the same Blair government which took the positive step of establishing full diplomatic relations with the DPRK in Clinton’s time at the end of 2000 is now the most bellicose ally and mouthpiece of US aggression and threats against North Korea in Bush’s time. Without going into it now, this surely says something about Tony Blair’s government!

KFSC is a broad organisation. Some of its activists are communists, as I am, and support the DPRK politically. Others come from a variety of political trends. We are united against the Anglo-American so-called "War on Terror" and the specific threats against North Korea. As friends of one people, of course, we stand for friendship with all people, with the suffering people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, with the Cuban people and with all struggling for their national rights and sovereignty. We stand for a world of equality and mutual respect between nations and peoples, an end to big power interference and aggression.

Article Index




International News

Mexico:

The "Monterrey Consensus"

by Pablo Moctezuma Barragan, Mexico

From March 18-22, more than 50 heads of state and representatives of 180 countries have been meeting in Monterrey, Mexico, in the state of Nuevo Leon, for the UN's Conference on Financing Development. For the first time, the institutions of international finance like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation have participated together with the UN to discuss options for world development, according to them for the purpose of reducing poverty, improving living conditions, education, equity between women and men, combating diseases and improving the natural environment. US President George W. Bush announced he would be present at the event.

The poor are many, and with the barbed wire fence people are calling "the Berlin Wall" or "the Wall of Poverty", the attempt was to avoid those coming to the UN summit seeing the destitute population surrounding them. With this "face lift" they wanted to "present a good face" to the foreign visitors. But the text called the "Monterrey Consensus", prepared a month and a half ago, fails to provide real solutions. On the contrary, it once again prescribes the neo-liberal policies of privatisation that have buried the countries in misery and increased poverty as never before. They recommend that the rich countries dedicate 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic products to development – now they provide seven times less – and with a sum of US$50 billion annually, they want to cut in half the population of the extremely poor by the year 2015.

The "Monterrey Consensus" which Washington is pushing, is the same old wine in a new bottle. In reality, the poor countries are poor because they finance the rich ones. With regard to the debt alone, last year they used US$200 billion to service it. In 2001, Mexico paid US$30 billion to service its debt. Our wealth is enriching the powerful countries. The poor nations have an external debt of US$2.130 trillion, but between 1992 and 2001 they paid out US$2.69 trillion. As well, for every dollar they put in with foreign investments, they take out three to five dollars and with the unequal terms of trade, they buy our natural resources at ever-lower prices. In truth, this is plunder. With the "Monterrey Consensus", the big powers want to continue it and make it legitimate.

Parallel to it, the Global Forum is being held with more than 500 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from the whole world in attendance, to analyse the globalisation process taking place in the world, and the Financial Forum: Debt or Development? organised by the debtors of "El Barzon". Cuban President Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who also have been attending the UN event, were invited to these parallel forums that had massive attendance.

The forums have been discussing alternatives to the monstrous foreign debt payments and there were large demonstrations, one on March 18, the day Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas expropriated the oil companies (1938), and on March 21, the birthday of Benito Juarez who suspended payment of the external debt in order to meet the needs of Mexico and its people. Each demonstration was expected to have more than 30,000 participants. The government of Nuevo Leon announced it has "enough jails for the rebellious" and that 3,500 security agents were to guard the event. The demonstrations were determined to avoid and isolate any provocations. Such demonstrations must be respected and not suppressed, as happened in Cancun last year. Globalisation is producing international solidarity among workers, youth and women world-wide who believe Another World is Possible!

Article Index



RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Daily Internet Edition Index Page