The Right of Might

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Hands Off Myanmar!
The Right of Might

Arthur Attwood 1913–2008

german-foreign-policy.com, May 16, 2008

A military intervention in Myanmar is supposed to help create a precedent for an institutionalised right to armed intervention in other countries. This is demanded by Western pressure groups supported by prominent German politicians. They are calling for the application of the "Responsibility to Protect", (R2P) concept that began appearing in Western documents in 2001, and was discussed for years in the UN – in spite of the resistance put up by states opposing Western hegemony. Disregarding their opinion, the UN General Secretary, Ban Ki-moon has appointed an "R2P" special advisor to promote the institutionalisation of this right of intervention. It justifies using military means in cases ambiguously defined as "crimes against humanity". It is currently alleged that this crime is being committed, if, in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a government refuses to allow all of the offered relief personnel into its country. It is not necessary to have the authorisation of the UN Security Council. De facto, this right of intervention can only be applied by the major Western nations with powerful armed forces. An influential German officer assisted in the elaboration of their concept. He also declared recently that nuclear first-strikes were admissible.

"R2P"

"R2P" is a concept that Western governments have been trying to institutionalise for years. It is centred around the basic assumption that each state has a responsibility to protect its citizenry ("Responsibility to Protect"). As "R2P" proponents argue, the fulfilment of this duty could be imposed from abroad through economic and political pressure, but above all with military means. Controversial is whether or not the UN Security Council must agree to the intervention. Leading "R2P" proponents argue this is not the case.[1] Also unclear is what kind of violation of a government's duty to protect warrants armed operations. Categories usually mentioned are genocide, war crimes, racist motivated mass murder and "crimes against humanity". Particularly the term "crimes against humanity" is open to interpretation and considerably lowers the threshold to intervention. Proponents of the "R2P" concept claim that national sovereignty must therefore be scaled back.

Commission Report

Since 2000, the "R2P" concept has been systematically gaining prominence. In August 2000, the Canadian government set up the "International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty", (ICISS) that studied the question for about a year. The commission's work culminated in a report, which has laid the basis for discussions and was transmitted to the UN General Secretary in late 2001. The commission, which also included hand-picked members from non-Western countries, was mainly financed by Canada and the USA.[2] One of the commission members was the German general Klaus Naumann, formerly the Inspector General of the German Bundeswehr. Naumann is also co-author of a recently published study, which proposes a new Western military strategy. This study has drawn attention around the world, because its authors explicitly declare that a nuclear first strike is permissible.[3]

Special Advisor

Ever since the public introduction of "R2P" through the Canadian paper, Western politicians have been seeking to have it anchored as a basis of UN policy. They are having success, in spite of the resistance of numerous nations defying Western hegemony, including the Peoples Republic of China and Venezuela. At the United Nations Summit in September 2005, 150 nations approved a declaration containing "R2P" formulations.[4] Following a heated dispute, UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has appointed a "special advisor", whose job is to promote "R2P" as a basis of UN policy. The advisor, a US citizen, is seeking to impose this concept and has already reached agreements with the German Foreign Ministry.[5]

Natural Disasters

The most recent offensive, using the pretext of the natural disaster in Myanmar, demonstrates the extent of the "R2P" proponents' plans. The local military government has for years felt under attack from the West, and for the past few months been confronted with threats of US air strikes, which is why it is not willing to unconditionally open up its territory to Western relief personnel, including soldiers.[6] The "International Crisis Group" (ICG) says this refusal by the Myanmarian government could be considered a "crime against humanity" and – in accordance with "R2P" – trigger a military attack.[7] In fact the Canadian "R2P" basic principles paper provides for "overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes" as possible triggers for foreign intervention.[8]

Government Advisors

These ICG findings are not so amazing. After all Gareth Evans is the ICG chairman, a leading proponent of "R2P", who, as co-chairman of the Canadian commission, played a leading role in the elaboration of the "R2P" basic principles paper. The ICG, one of the most influential organisations of global government advisors, has for years been campaigning in favour of "R2P". Among its members are influential personalities from various Western nations, such as the US financier George Soros and the expert Zbigniew Brzezinski and German politicians. Also with ICG membership are the former German Foreign Minister, Josef Fischer (Green Party), on the senior advisory board is Volker Ruehe (CDU) and Uta Zapf (SPD). According to its own indications, the German Foreign Ministry is one of its financiers.

Inter-Party Consensus

Several government ministers have already declared their accord with a military intervention against Myanmar and thereby signalled their agreement with a liberal interpretation of "R2P". In Berlin this interpretation finds inter-party consensus. Even in the "Left Party" – which is critical toward the Bundeswehr – a prominent parliamentarian is in favour of an intervention in Myanmar. "One goes in with the military and distributes the relief supplies. And if the local military gets in the way, one takes measures to be able to continue to distribute the supplies."[9] Relief organisations, such as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), are urgently warning against this approach, because in addition to the fatal consequences of a natural disaster, it would provoke armed conflicts – at the expense of the civilian population, whose suffering is allegedly supposed to be relieved.

Disparate Rights

If "R2P" is institutionalised, this would mean that the right of might will be formalised as the valid norm in global relations. The certain amount of protection afforded by the principle of sovereignty to weaker nations – in force in international relations since the 17th Century – would now be defunct. The major powers would only have to choose a pretext, to accuse an annoying government of "crimes against humanity", to justify military operations. The inappropriate handling of a natural disaster could possibly be grounds enough. The thought that "R2P" will be implemented against major powers because of the growing human rights organisations' protests, can be excluded and the thought that weaker nations would be entitled to the same rights and could militarily intervene in Europe or the USA is absurd.

[1] The Responsibility to Protect; www.crisisgroup.org
[2] Neben US-Stiftungen und dem kanadischen Staat trugen die Regierungen Großbritanniens und der Schweiz kleinere Beträge bei. Der Bericht ist unter dem Titel "The Responsibility to Protect" erschienen und unter www.iciss.ca abrufbar.
[3] see also The Grand Strategy
[4] "Art. 139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organisations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." World Summit Outcome Document, September 2005
[5] "The Responsibility to Protect". Podium Globale Fragen mit Prof. Edward C. Luck am 26.02.2008 im Auswärtigen Amt in Berlin; www.auswaertiges-amt.de
[6] see also Overt or Covert
[7] Gareth Evans: Facing Up to Our Responsibilities; The Guardian 12.05.2008
[8] The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001; www.iciss.ca
[9] Die Linke: "Da muss man militärisch eingreifen"; Tagesspiegel 13.05.2008

"Incorruptible, He Couldn’t Be Broken"

WDIE is posting this New Worker Obituary of May 16, 2008, by Eric Trevett, President of the New Communist Party.

By any standards, Arthur was a remarkable man. Up to his 80s, he was still doing his long distance walking. "You can get 20 miles under your belt before breakfast," he said, adding: "You see, I do prepare for these marches. I oil my boots." All this in spite of having heart problems that required surgery. He took part in the historic two million strong demonstration against war in February, 2003.

Arthur left school at the age of 14. He became a skilled electrician by virtue of the fact that he had a variety of jobs requiring that skill. He also studied at the local technical school for his qualifications, after working hours.

Arthur’s working life saw him serving the working class in a wide variety of capacities. He was often a shop steward, became a full time trade union official and was an effective political activist. Arthur joined the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) in 1941. He served on the CPGB’s Surrey District Committee for a number of years before joining the New Communist Party in 1979.

Arthur saw no contradiction in being an active trade unionist and a communist. He knew that the struggles for better conditions in the trade unions could not in themselves end the exploitation of the working class. He became a communist in order to supplement those struggles with the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of working class state power.

In an illustrious career, his courage, dedication, tenacity and adherence to his political principles earned him the respect and confidence of his fellow workers.

Like thousands of others in the British labour movement, his principles were never discarded for the lure of a comfortable career. Incidentally, he never considered the employers to be in any way the "partners" of the working class and trade unions. He saw them as being adversaries whose profits were obtained from the exploitation of the workers he represented.

Employers who pleaded poverty when faced with workers’ wage claims left Arthur quite cold. He knew since the days of the legislation ending child labour, the employers had always claimed they couldn’t afford to meet the workers’ demands. They always continued to make huge profits.

In his turbulent working life, some events stand out in the Arthur Attwood story. The first concerned his role in the struggle of the RAF personnel stationed in India to get demobbed and returned to Civvy Street.

The second concerned the difficulties following the "ballot rigging" affair in the Electrical Trade Union, which led to the defeat of the communist leadership of the union by a right-wing faction dominated by communist turn-coats. To consolidate their victory, the rules of the ETU were then changed, banning CP members from holding office. Any ETU official who was a member of the CPGB was forced to resign from office or renounce their party membership. Some, to their eternal shame, sold-out. Arthur was the only one who didn’t. He took the principled stand and resigned from office to return to his trade as an electrician.

After the ending of the Second World War, the British ruling class were faced with a problem in India; the Indian people were involved in the struggle to end colonialism.

The British administration thought it would be a good idea to defer the demobilisation of the RAF personnel in an effort to restrain the Indian masses. The great and the good of British imperialism overlooked a number of facts as well as underestimating the strength of the anti-colonial movement itself. Large contingents of RAF personnel in India were conscripts. A considerable number of them had trade union and political experience. They were motivated and had the ability to organise and develop an effective campaign in spite of military discipline and the punishments that could arise from mutiny.

There was also in the ranks of the RAF substantial sympathy and support for the people of India in their struggle against colonial oppression. There were also grounds for other complaints including bad food.

The campaign for demob started at the Drigh Road maintenance depot where Arthur Attwood was stationed. There a committee was formed and steps decided on by a mass meeting held in darkness so that speakers could not be identified. These tactics initiated from Drigh Road were repeated in a rolling campaign that enveloped most if not all the RAF bases in India.

Following these developments, Arthur Attwood was charged with being one of the ringleaders and was held in solitary confinement.

But he never lost faith in the RAF personnel and the working class he was representing. Incorruptible, he couldn’t be broken. He was buoyed up by the efforts of his wife and family, his comrades – including labour movement activists well known figures like the lawyer and socialist D N Pritt – and thousands of servicemen’s well wishes, most of whom he’d never met.

It was the wholehearted involvement of the labour and trade union movements whose pressure was mainly instrumental in getting the Labour government to retreat from its vicious persecution of air force personnel. On July 3, 1946, the government announced that all charges of incitement to mutiny in connection with the January events had been dropped.

His part in the RAF mutiny was covered in The Days of the Good Soldiers by Richard Kisch and Mutiny in the RAF by David Duncan and it was the subject of a Channel 4 documentary in 1996 that was made with Arthur’s assistance.

In relation to the events following the banning of communists in the ETU, George Seinfield, Daily Worker industrial correspondent, had this to say about Arthur Attwood: "Throughout the controversy around the rule, he made clear to the executive council and area committee, to branches, shop stewards and rank-and-file members, that he would not desert the party in which he had been active for many years. Refusing therefore to comply with the rule, he at once went to the labour exchange looking for work as an electrician. Arthur Attwood’s firm stand on principle ran true to character."

Arthur remained true to his principles to his last breath. He will never be forgotten.