AUT: ANSWER and the liberals/Auck anti-war lit

[Scott Hamilton <s_h_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Neil, you wrote


in the > existing  leftist/reformist/li-lab anti- war
> coalitions-operations.  In > general
> attendance only makes sense if these things draw
> fresh , honest > people looking  oppose all
capitalists and their > wars and plunder > are drawn
to them..

I actually disagree with this - I think you are
inverting Laura's reformist or (if she is a
revolutionary) opportunist approach and coming up with
something sectarian. What both these positions have in
common is a static picture of anti-war opinion: Laura
thinks most anti-war protesters are moderates and we
shouldn't argue with that, and you think most anti-war
protesters in existing coalitions are moderates and
perhaps not worth arguing with.

But opinions change, and right now I think many
moderates are rethinking their strateghy for stopping
war after Blix's exposure of the complete bankruptcy
of the UN. Moderates, most of them anyway, are not
going to change their mind after reading some abstract
treatise on capitalism or imperialism or the Spectacle
- they are going to be won over to a revolutionary
position only if that position is concretised as
proposals for strategy and tactics inside the anti-war
movement. That's why we have to be in coalition
meetings putting forward strategy and tactics that are
revolutionary. (Of course, we should have the more
abstract, 'big picture' arguments ready for the pub
and for the back pages of our papers.)

Yesterday we had a picket of the naval base in
Auckland to protest the sending of another frigate to
the Gulf as part of NZ's contribution to the War of
Terror, which the govt insists is not the same thing
as a war on Iraq (ha ha). The picket was initiated by
someone who seemed to be coming out of a liberal/Green
party background, but who wanted to see some militant
direct action to stop the frigate. He's pissed off
with the failure of the UN to stop this war, and
there's a real convergence between his politics and
ours *on the tactical level*. We helped him to set up
the protest and put it through the offical anti-war
Pop Front in Auckland.

The picket was very short notice and we only got 70
people, but we did get heavy media coverage, scoring
first item on the main TV station's evening news. The
text below is intended for our next bulletin, and
tries to push on from yesterday's symbolic picket to a
real picket/blockade. We plan to try to win the broad
anti-war group over to our plan at its next meeting,
and we think we have a reasonable chance, not because
the people at this meeting are already
revolutionaries, or are going to be immediately won
over by revolutionary theory, but because the tactics
we advance increasingly appeal to reformists angered
by the failure of reformism. Underneath the bulletin
excerpt is the text of the leaflet we handed out at
the picket. It was addressed to the naval personnel
and written by a guy who has a brother on each of the
ships involved in duties in the Gulf.

ONLY DIRECT ACTION CAN STOP THIS WAR -
LET'S GROUND THE ORION!

Hans Blix?s report to the UN has had one good result ?
it has blown apart any remaining illusions that the UN
and ?international law? can stop a US-led invasion of
Iraq. Despite tens of millions of dollars of funding
and thousands of hours of prying and prodding, Blix?s
inspection team has failed to find anything remotely
like a ?weapon of mass destruction? in Iraq.

Disappointed by his failure, Blix has been forced to
resort to accusing Iraq of hiding weapons, and of not
being cooperative enough with his team. For the Blix
and the US, an absence of evidence now counts as
evidence. As Britain?s Guardian newspaper put it, Blix
has not only shifted the goalposts ? he has widened
them enormously as well. Leaving the meeting where he
gave his report, Blix was photographed giving a thumbs
up to John Negroponte, Bush?s ambassador to the UN.
How much clearer could Blix make his real agenda?

Those in the anti-war movement who thought that the UN
and international law could stop the US war drive have
been proven sadly mistaken, and now need to look for a
new strategy to stop a holocaust in Iraq. Greens MP
Keith Locke is so angry at the ?failure? of the UN
that he?s talking about going to Baghdad to act as a
?human shield? against US invasion. Locke is still
under the illusion that he can pressure the UN and
Western governments to see the light, do the decent
thing, and stop the war ? he wants to appeal to their
sense of morality by putting his life on the line. The
reality though is that Bush and his cronies could not
care less about who they kill in their rush to get
hold of Iraq?s oil reserves. If Bush is prepared to
kill hundreds of thousands of Arabs, why should one
ex-commie from little old New Zealand worry him?

Locke would be a lot better off looking at the
alternative to appealing to Western government?s
non-existent morality. This alternative is workers?
direct action to stop the war. Increasingly, members
of the global anti-war movement are deciding that they
and not the politicians are the ones who have to act
to bring the military machine grinding to a halt.

Tony Blair has led the world in his enthusiasm for
Bush?s war, so it?s no surprise that Britons are
leading the way in taking direct action to stop the
military machine. British train drivers describing
themselves as ?conscientious objectors? have refused
to move a freight train carrying ammunition believed
to be destined for British forces being deployed in
the Gulf, and their union, which has an anti-war
motion on its books, has backed them up, refusing to
take disciplinary action against them. Meanwhile in
Southampton, Britian?s biggest military port, a
waterborne blockade is delaying the departure of
warships for the Middle East. Britain?s massive Stop
the War Coalition has applauded these direct actions
as steps in the right direction, steps that need be
taken across Britain and around the world.

Kiwi protesters recently pointed the way to direct
action down under when they picketed the Devonport
naval base in opposition to the departure of the
frigate Te Mana for the Gulf. The Devonport protest
was small, because it was organised at short notice,
but it represented widespread uneasiness about the
Clark government?s support for the War of Terror and
love affair with the Bush administration. The Council
of Trade Unions has come out against war on Iraq, and
urged its members into the streets to protest. On
February the 15 an anti-war march will be held in
Auckland as part of an international day of action
expected to draw millions into the streets. We need to
use this march and the anti-war concert scheduled for
the following day as a platform to organise direct
action to stop an airforce Orion leaving for the Gulf
from Whenuapai airbase at the end of February. If we
can stop the Orion we can throw the Clark government?s
war plans into chaos, and chalk up a victory for
direct action that will echo through the anti-war
movement around the globe.

Not Another Gallipoli !

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has in recent
days proudly added his military muscle to the
Blair-Bush force preparing to commit war crimes in
Iraq. More importantly for the working people of
Aotearoa/New Zealand, the ?Labour? Government of Helen
Clark has in a quieter, more devious way demonstrated
its willingness to commit NZ military support to this
action by sending naval frigates Te Kaha and Te Mana
to the Persian Gulf on alternating deployments. The NZ
government wants to sacrifice its own workers in
uniform to satisfy the bosses behind Bush and Blair.
Clark is swapping military assistance for the hope of
a ?free trade? deal with these US bosses. According to
economic analysts, such a deal would mean the removal
of restrictions on Genetic Engineering, the buying up
of the New Zealand countryside by US bosses, the
ending of state subsidies for expensive medicines, and
the privatisation of the New Zealand health system by
U.S. multinationals. This is what the crews of Te Kaha
and Te Mana are being asked to fight for!

Some recent history: in early August 2002, the frigate
Te Kaha made public relations visits to North and
South East Asia as part of the Five Power Defence
Arrangement (FPDA). At least, that?s the official
story.  A relic of British colonial interests in South
East Asia begun in 1971, the FPDA annual regional
exercise involving Britain, Australia, Malaysia,
Singapore and NZ has been used by the NZ Govt as a
cover to disguise Te Kaha's real, unofficial mission.
The frigate?s ports of call, which included non-FPDA
members Japan and South Korea, were part of the NZ
Government's promise to the US that it intended to
help in drumming up support for an increasingly
unpopular war on Iraq. When the US sent Helen Clark a
last-minute urgent request for Te Kaha in November,
her claim that the frigate was going to be part of the
?War on Terrorism?, but not part of a war on Iraq, was
nothing more than a pathetic lie. Even hawkish former
National Govt Defence Minister Max Bradford hit out
and told Clark that the ?War on Terrorism? and Iraq
were not separate issues. That?s only honest political
statement Bradford has ever made.

Before Te Kaha left, a social gathering of Rating
(Non-Commissioned) Officers, crew members of Te Kaha
and other naval personnel at Ngataringa naval sports
facility, and the ?Wets? was held in Devonport. At
this meeting there was open discussion of the fact
that the frigate was leaving to support a war on Iraq,
though military protocol demanded that this fact be
kept secret. After all, any punitive action or
reprisals against ordinary naval staff for a breakdown
in military discipline on the matter would only be
taken as an admission by the government that its
intention was to hoodwink the NZ public into believing
that Te Kaha?s entry into the Persian Gulf theatre of
operations had nothing to do with preparations for
criminal genocidal war on the people of Iraq.

With their contributions to Bush?s war, the New
Zealand and Australian governments are going to help
complete a task begun on the shores of Gallipoli in
1915. Then, as a part of a British Expeditionary
Force, the Anzacs were to spearhead the eventual break
up and destruction of the entire Middle East. For
evidence of this, we need to look no further than the
monuments dotted all around NZ commemorating the First
World War?s ?Glorious Dead? ? monuments which show
?Palestine? most prominent among the conquests they
record.

?Al Nakhba? (The Catastrophe) refers to the
Palestinian description of the 1948 establishment of
the apartheid state of Israel. Equally, it describes
ANZAC Day. For the ordinary soldiers who were coerced
to kill for profit, the spirit of ANZAC is no more
than a perversion of tragedies by jingoistic sabre
rattling designed to put fire in the belly of the next
generation of cannon fodder. If you don?t believe
this, then consider the patriotic fervour that was
expressed at ANZAC Cove in Turkey last year by young
apolitical NZ tourists who were whipped up by
political rhetoric about the need to preserve
?Freedom? in the aftermath of Sept 11 ? rhetoric that
comes from by militarists only interested in taking
freedom away.

For all rank and file NZ military personnel, there is
great honour in refusing to kowtow gutlessly to US
demands for war.  Dishonour and shame will come to
those who do otherwise. The workers will be your
judges.


Anti-Imperialist Coalition Phone 025 280 0080 Email
anti_imperialist@xxxxxxxxxxx
Meets 7-30pm Wednesdays, Trades Hall, 147 Great North
Rd, Grey Lynn Auckland.
http://www.antiimperialist.org.nz/







=====
"Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---