Differences between US troops in Dixie and UN troops in Palestine

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is a fundamental difference between US troops defending Black
students trying to go to formerly segregated schools in the 1950s and
supporting UN troops in Palestine today. In the international sphere, these
actions have the character of violent interventions sanctified by
"international law" when there is no such thing. The dispatch of UN troops
to Korea, for example, was totally at odds with the right of
self-determination of the Korean people. During the Vietnam war various
liberal politicians would often advocate replacing US troops with UN
troops. The antiwar forces, particularly those in sympathy with the aims of
the Trotskyists, fought vigorously against that proposal.

When Eisenhower sent troops to keep the peace in Arkansas, he was actually
implementing the program of the Reconstruction which had been defeated by
capitalist racist reaction in the 1870s and 80s. It was a death blow to the
KKK and to the White Citizens Council. It helped to break down a caste
system that was in defiance of the stated principles of bourgeois
democracy. Behind the dispatch of troops was the very real structures of
bourgeois democracy, which stood on the principles of law.

It is absurd to think of the UN in the same light. As I tried to point out
in the Phyllis Bennis piece I posted here the other day, the Security
Council is the only body that has the power to put troops in the field. The
General Assembly should have this power, but the big imperialist powers
would never allow countries like Cuba or Venezuela to have the same power
as the US or Great Britain. That in fact was the aim of the UN, to control
the world in the interests of the "allies" who were fighting against
Germany and Japan. The United Nations was born prior to the end of WWII and
was clearly seen as a structure that would continue to protect the
interests of this side after achieving victory over Hitler, Mussolini and
Hirohito.

It was of course an exercise in class collaboration to have Stalin backing
this scheme. It was part of his calculations to divide the world into a
Soviet sphere and one that would be controlled by the "peace-loving"
capitalist nations. As soon as WWII was finished, Anglo-American
imperialism turned its attention to the new enemy. Even when the USSR voted
against imperialist aggressions from its seat on the Security Council, it
was always in a minority. That is the only reason the Korean War could be
carried out in the name of the United Nations.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United Nations does not even
have the kind of modicum of universality it had before. There are open
acknowledgements of its relationship to other "peace-keeping" bodies like
NATO. I defy anybody who supports UN intervention to explain the class
differences between the United Nations and NATO. There aren't any. If the
United Nations operated on the basis of "one nation, one vote", then we
might begin to see the beginnings of some kind of analogy between US troops
in Dixie and UN troops in Palestine. However, when US troops were sent to
Arkansas in 1954, it was to uphold "one person, one vote". In
contradistinction, if and when UN troops are sent to Palestine today, it
will be to prevent that from taking place.


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/