RE: Re: No to Nice

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

Domhnall writes:

The self-contradiction here is inspiring. For a start MK recognises that the
EU is 'part of the imperialist chain', then he complements this (correct)
assessment with a call to vote for the Nice agreement so that the EU
structures can be strengthened!!

-----

MK: Actually I have not advocated a vote for the Nice treaty. I've questioned 
the wisdom of campaigning on the specific issue of Nice. There is a difference, 
and it's more than semantic. And while there may be a self-contradiction in my 
thinking (which I'm willing to acknowledge if it is so proven), it is also 
important to try to unravel the complexity of the conjuncture and to get past 
linear modes of thought and employ dialectical reasoning in an effort to 
identify the most promising course of political action. This may well involve 
campaigning against Nice, but for now I'm not convinced, for reasons already 
stated and for more to follow.

The difficulty with drawing historical parallels is that circumstances have 
changed in the interim. I am not advocating a Kautskyist capitulation to 
national chauvinism, which is not really possible anyway under the 
circumstances, given the interpenetration of national capitals and the nature 
of the imperialist chain in 2002. Jean-Pierre Chévènement tried that in France 
and failed miserably, deservedly so. Nor am I suggesting that we loyally 
support our bourgeoisies in any conflict with the US bourgeoisie. The 
conditions of 1914 simply do not apply. What we have instead is a complex 
global interpenetration of allied and competing capitals linked in an 
imperialist chain with the hegemonic fraction(s) of US capital at its head. 
Such is the danger associated with the policies being advocated by those at the 
helm of the US state apparatus that even the US ruling class is deeply split. 
But for us on the eastern side of the Atlantic our potential opening concerns 
the split in the transatlantic ruling class, which I believe we can exploit 
without resort to national chauvinism or Habermas-type festung Europa. Thus we 
do not stop opposition to grotesque facts like the British occupation of 
Northern Ireland, the Spanish state's repression of the Basques, French 
neo-colonialism, etc., etc. Nor do we pretend that the "neutral" Irish state is 
somehow better than nasty, evil Britain. A truly equal opportunities 
anti-imperialism would be as critical of the Irish capitalist state. Instead we 
recognise the overbearingly hegemonic nature of US imperialism and we work to 
undermine it by exploiting the contradictions inherent in the imperialist 
chain. That is a service to all peoples, regardless of their geographic and 
economic circumstances.

You continue:

Today's British social patriots are seemingly ignorant of the fact that
their forces remain in our country and that they are still hated by people
living under their occupation. For Michael to point towards the evils of US
imperialism when his own country has forces in our country and in my village
is shameful to me. He may consider this too subjective but its objective if
you come from my village or county. Being part of an EU rapid reaction force
under the command of British forces (and no doubt Michael would like to see
the day where the 'combined' forces of European imperialists will challenge
those of the US imperialists) is just totally off the geiger-counter in
terms of an insult.

-----

MK: Subjectivity I can understand, but caricature is unnecessary. Most of what 
you say will come to pass regardless of the Irish people's views of Nice, or 
mine for that matter. Once again, I'm questioning the wisdom of focusing on 
this particular issue, not justifying militarism or British occupation of 
Northern Ireland, which I resolutely oppose. Perhaps I should make it clear 
that, in my imperfect way, I am trying to offer an objective reading of the 
conjuncture that might not be peppered with time-worn slogans designed to 
reassure Marxmail listers of my opposition to imperialism. I've posted enough 
here and elsewhere for my views (if they are really so important) to be known, 
and believe me, if there were any doubt about my orientations I'm sure the 
moderator would have chased me long ago, and quite correctly too.

If we are going to proceed we have to make our choices effectively. Campaigning 
against the Nice treaty on the basis of its apparent capitulation to British 
imperialism, while being a very selective and misleading interpretation of the 
treaty's importance, would look a lot better if those same forces making such 
great nationalist plays against that treaty were not being so accommodating to 
the same hated, British imperialism sponsoring the Good Friday Agreement. And 
is it really an issue that Irish soldiers would potentially come under British 
command in a *European* rapid reaction force? Someone will command such a 
force, regardless of nationality, and within a *European* structure. 
Thatcherites will be making similar claims regarding British soldiers coming 
under German command. For all the undoubted symbolism of Irish troops 
submitting to British command and the grievances that would inflame, it's not 
relevant to a proper consideration of the fundamental problems we ought to be 
seeking to address. So let's be clear about the real basis for campaigning on 
the specific issue of the Nice treaty, the real interests at stake here, rather 
than engaging in a selective empiricism that uses well-worn and absolutely 
correct observations concerning British imperialism whilst obscuring deeper, 
less convenient and more complex realities. Nationalists in Sinn Fein and 
elsewhere (including punk Thatcherites in Britain!) are very easily able to 
sound off about the terrible consequences of the Nice treaty whilst making not 
a single dent in the structure of global and local capitalism. It is very easy 
to posture using the Nice treaty as a point of reference without in fact 
advancing the cause of revolution one iota. My argument is that in selecting 
this red herring certain forces are, unwittingly or otherwise, assisting US 
imperialism in its efforts to rein in restive European imperialists who are as 
alarmed at certain elements within the US ruling class as pretty much everyone 
else. If that means that, for a limited period onl
those of European imperialists, then we can and should exploit this. To repeat: 
this is not Kautskyist capitulation to national chauvinism. Rather, in the 
present circumstances it's about trying to save the planet.

You continue:

Britain wants out of the Falklands, Gibraltar and Six Counties, Michael
says. They are still here aren't they? They are still trying to recruit
informers, still spying on our people, still stopping cars and abusing
passengers.

-----

MK: All true. However, there is the bourgeois liberals' problem of political 
legitimacy, and the fact that any state is not one homogenous monolith, but a 
heterogeneous assembly of interests in which one particular coalition usually 
predominates as the hegemon. Blair et al represent that section of the UK 
state-capital nexus that wants to extricate Britain from its outdated 
imperialist commitments because they have bigger fish to fry elsewhere. For a 
punk Thatcherite empire loyalist who views Europe as a collection of nation 
states vying for power and influence in classical realist style, then of course 
hanging onto Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and anything else you can get your 
hands on is the name of the (zero-sum) game. But their time is past, and a new 
set of imperialists is ascendant, and their game is positive-sum, because it 
involves using British interests to leverage EU institutions for the benefit of 
those same interests. Thus it does not matter who has "sovereignty" over 
Gibraltar, because if you have the ultimate prize of EU-wide power, who cares 
if Spain has nominal jurisdiction over that piece of rock? The real, strategic 
decisions are being made elsewhere. The same is true for Northern Ireland, 
where the relative insignificance of Ireland as a player in EU politics means 
that its sovereignty over the six counties is no longer an issue for British 
imperialism.

The trouble is, of course, that France and Germany are playing the same game, 
if in their own respective ways. But there is sufficient understanding among 
all three that the first thing that they must do is to marginalise the smaller 
states within the EU by institutionalising their hegemony via circumventing the 
EU Commission, constructed as it is to favour the smaller EU member states, 
just as the US senate favours smaller states like Delaware and Vermont over the 
much more populated California and New Jersey. The trouble with this is that 
the British, French and Germans cannot agree on the best way forward because of 
their competing interests, most notably in agriculture where Germany now 
unhappily subsidises French farming interests under the CAP. Now, should the 
British left be supporting the British state's efforts to step up a gear and 
use the EU to further the interests of British imperialism? Of course not. But 
it should also be mindful that the biggest obstacle to progress for the British 
working class, and by extension that of the rest of Europe, is an increasingly 
irrational and overbearing US hegemon which is now unashamedly and very openly 
attempting regime change in Germany, if Richard Perle's revealing comments are 
anything to go by. Thwarting that hegemon means exploiting the contradictions 
and rivalries within the imperialist chain, and for Britain that means 
membership of the eurozone. Indeed there is the residual national bourgeoisie 
of Britain concentrated in the financial sector that would finally be destroyed 
once and for all were Britain to join the euro. This segment of UK capital 
bears responsibility for a great deal, including the smashing of the UK labour 
movement in alliance with US capital during the latter stages of the Cold War, 
and the vicious military occupation of Northern Ireland from about 1970 onwards 
(I know the troops went there earlier, but it's important to distinguish the 
reasons among the various elements of the UK state that put them there -- there 
were clear difference
nominally under Heath was about). So there is a case for arguing for greater 
British participation in Europe as a means of hastening the withdrawal of 
British troops from Ireland and elsewhere. It's maybe not the cleanest, most 
admirable means of achieving a united Ireland, but it's something to consider.

You continue:

Let's start with supplying his argument with some supporting statistics. The
British state subvents the six counties to the tune of £3.5 billion a year -
that's the difference between revenue taken in through the various forms of
taxation and that spent by the state structures. That's approximately 30% of
the total spend for any pro-Unionists looking for an economic legitimisation
for partition and British involvement in Irish affairs. Of that £3.5
billion - £1.1 billion is spent by the Ministry of Defence and on the RUC -
which get recycled into the military-industrial complex.

-----

MK: Even if these statistics are true, and I find it hard to believe that today 
so much can be squeezed, although no doubt the economy has improved since the 
relative cessation of hostilities, there are other important considerations in 
a cost-benefit analysis of occupation. You neglected to mention that part of 
the armed struggle was waged in Britain itself, including most successfully 
London, where the damage caused by various bombs was enough to convince the 
British state's capitalist sponsors that enough was enough, get talking. Hence 
the Downing Street Declaration, GFA, etc. And of course elements of the British 
state (MI6 most obviously) had been talking to republicans for years, despite 
Thatcher's strictures against "talking to terrorists". In other words, even 
taking at face value the figures you cite, the costs of policing and enforcing 
this subvention outweigh the benefits, and why bother anyway when there is a 
cleaner way of achieving what used to be accomplished via colonialism? 
Traditional left-nationalist reasoning hits the buffers when faced with this 
conundrum, and either it switches its focus to outright anti-imperialism 
(broadly conceived as capitalism) or instead veers off into national chauvinism 
(cloaking pro-capitalist policies in an inflammatory nationalist posture) 
which, given the current Sinn Fein leadership's policies, looks like the route 
that SF is taking, with the blessing of its US sponsors.

You continue:

As many Republicans
have long realised, Britain gains alot in terms of military experience and
development in the six counties. Their Army is far better trained and much
more experienced than the US army.

-----

MK: True again, but once again time does not stand still. One need only look at 
the state of the British army (overstretched, poorly equipped to fulfil the 
ambitions of its state commanders) to see that priorities have changed. There 
are many different reasons why Blair in particular seems to be such an 
enthusiastic and passionate warmonger. The major, overriding reason is 
Britain's awkward strategic position vis a vis the EU and the US. Paradoxically 
Blair must manically support US militarism in order to rein it in even a 
little, and especially in order that his position at the top of the UK state 
apparatus is not undermined by the likes of Richard Perle looking to impose 
democratically elected leaders who "are with us" as opposed to against us (such 
is the sophistication of Bush administration policy wonks). He has the examples 
of Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, and even Anthony Eden, to remind him that, 
if so aroused, the US can easily undermine British interests without going to 
too much trouble. A sterling crisis here, media smears and disinformation 
there, financial backing to the opposition, all these are very possible and 
well-exercised in practice. There is strong residual opposition to UK 
colonialism within the US, and the occupation of Northern Ireland is viewed in 
this manner by certain important elements of the US ruling class. Hence 
Clinton's deep involvement in the recent "peace process" which produced an 
outcome much to the satisfaction of the broadest swathe of the US ruling class: 
a beginning to the end of British occupation involving a transition to a united 
Ireland that is as incorporated into global capitalism as any other state you 
might care to mention. And Sinn Fein is an excellent vehicle for managing such 
a transition because it can carry the nationalist constituency and thereby 
manage the political and ideological components of the transition so much 
better than the alternative parties. Thus another blow is struck against 
anachronistic colonialism, whilst capitalists are reassured that
the guardians of the transition are no threat to capitalism, whatever 
anti-UK-imperialist rhetoric might be employed during the transition process. 
And now, where the EU/US rivalry is even more pronounced than it was under 
Clinton, having such a safe set of guardians actively campaigning to 
effectively weaken its uppity EU rival from within suits US interests very well 
indeed -- the best of all worlds.

You continue:

Having said that they don't gain much economically from the North - but what
we really need to look at is what risks they run through losing control of
the six counties. These include destabilisation of the whole of the 'United
Kingdom', radicalisation consequent to national democracy in Ireland and the
sort of moral defeat which the British Tories and even Liberal Establishment
would feel.

-----

MK: This buys into the mythology propagated by the punk Thatcherites. The UK 
state apparatus is very capable of surviving the "loss" of Northern Ireland. I 
don't believe for a second that there would be a destabilisation of the UK, 
other than because of opposition from the very same punk Thatcherite empire 
loyalists whose day passed with the 1980s, if not actually earlier. Sure they 
can still cause trouble, but they are all so past it and ready to die of old 
age that they have only nuisance value. As for the Irish state, that's a 
different proposition, although I think that my previous answer re Sinn Fein 
may also cover that one. As for moral defeats, another sterling crisis 
manufactured by the US would represent a far bigger loss to the British state 
and its New Labour guardians than the uniting of Ireland.

You continue:

This anglo-centric nonsense is disturbing. Harold Wilson is an object of
ridicule amongst Irish Republicans - the man who did nothing to end
Apartheid on his own doorstep. 

<snip>

It is common for
British leftists to ignore the imperialism of their own forces and to focus
on that of other imperialisms - but that behaviour will not go unchallenged
on this list particularly when it is coupled with an opportunistic criticism
of Irish bourgeois policies.

-----

MK: Please stop sloganising. As anyone who knows will tell you, I do not ignore 
British imperialism. Wilson is the object of ridicule among many, but to 
attribute to him personally the sins of the British state in Northern Ireland 
during his prime ministerial tenure is to misunderstand the nature of the 
British state against which you struggle. It is significant that Northern 
Ireland was employed by elements in the army and security services to undermine 
Wilson himself, via the Clockwork Orange campaign orchestrated by, among 
others, Colin Wallace. Especially during the 1970s and 80s Northern Ireland was 
an arena in which competing elements of the British state conducted their own 
private civil war at the ultimate expense of the local population, who were 
often used as proxies by the likes of MI5 and MI6 conducting their own turf 
wars in the process of trying the establish their hegemony within the security 
apparatus. All I am suggesting is that you augment your fundamentally true 
analysis with other elements which would provide, hopefully, a more accurate 
and nuanced perspective on events past and present. 

You continue:

Yet again we are encouraged to support the construction of an admittedly
anti-democratic EU imperialist monolith with threats of human extinction.
The writer appears only too concerned with the 'extinction' of those peoples
in the imperialist centres. Those of us living in colonial and neo-colonial
states have had to suffer prolonged extinction for centuries at the hands of
the imperialist cut-throats. We are also asked whether there can be any
alternatives to 'strengthening the EU state apparatus' then told that TINA.
Yet, MK admits the ability of the US to change EU structures as it desires.

-----

MK: Again, save the rhetorical flourish. My references were to saving the 
planet, which accounts for humanity as a whole, not just the fortunate minority 
of the North. Nor have I admitted that the US can change EU structures as it 
desires. EU structures are a bit more robust than that. The US operates at the 
national level to undermine those structures, and often does not have to try 
too hard, as with Berlusconi and Aznar. At other times you get more obvious 
direct interventions, as with the recent German elections and aftermath, the 
thwarting of the PCI in Italy, and the history of British sterling crises since 
1945. And no one is excusing imperialism or the specific experience of 
imperialism in Ireland. The question is, which way is forward. Part of 
revolutionary struggle involves assessing, as objectively as possible, the 
relative strengths and weaknesses of the different social classes, the 
possibilities (or otherwise) for class alliances, and the courses of action 
most likely to succeed. Sometimes the choices are easier than others. Right 
now, with so much at stake, I think that there are bigger fish to fry than the 
specific one of the Nice treaty. I also question the motive behind SF's stance 
on the treaty since it is hardly consistent with that taken on the GFA, unless 
you accept the scenario outlined above. In other words, we should be careful 
not to be hoodwinked by those who use the "correct" rhetoric, talking left and 
walking right. But I appreciate the chance to engage with you on this.

Michael Keaney


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.