|
With the election of pseudo-socialists to power in Spain on March 14th, the Anglo-Saxon imperialist press went into overdrive saying it was a vote for terrorism. MIM would say of course it was a vote for terrorism: terrorism was the only choice on the Spanish imperialist ballot. On the one side was giving the Spanish government what it wanted: a vote for the war in Iraq. And on the other hand was giving Al-Qaeda what it wanted --withdrawal from Iraq. Spaniards suddenly voted overwhelmingly for withdrawal. (Whether or not the "Socialist Party" actually carries through with promises to pull out of Iraq by the end of June is another question.) The definition of "terrorism" is violence or the threat of violence against civilians to achieve a political goal through intimidation. Bush with Spain's help killed thousands of Iraqi civilians to remove Saddam Hussein. The troops are still killing Iraqis and preventing freedom of speech.(1) Likewise, somebody killed 200 Spaniards in the subway to achieve a political goal, maybe Al-Qaeda goals since Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. The Popular Party led by outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar sent 1300 Spanish troops to help Bush in Iraq; even though over 90% of Spaniards oppose the Iraq war.(2) Until bombs in Madrid blew up killing about 200 Spaniards on the subway, it looked like the Spanish people were going to be bought-off for another round of war. The reasoning of the public prior to the bombing appeared to be that Aznar had brought prosperity to Spain, so it would keep quiet about the war in Iraq. In reality, Spain has benefitted from the European Union through economic growth in conventional bourgeois terms. The European Union (EU) has the historic task of consolidating majority-exploiter rule especially in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece but also eventually eastern Europe, where MIM is not so sure the EU can actually succeed in creating a parallel and similar competitor to the united $tates. Currently parts of Europe like France, Belgium and England are solidly bought off imperialist states while other parts look spotty and the EU is aiming to fix all that. The EU gravy train combination with the Bush foreign policy outlook that we saw in Spain ended up derailed with the bombing. Combining a European economic outlook with a Bush foreign policy was never going to work 100% because of the inherent competition among imperialist powers. In this regard, France and Germany probably bet correctly on the trajectory of the EU. French reactionaries in particular made the calculation that the European pseudo-left would contribute to setting apart Amerikkkan and European interests. Suddenly the deal being offered by Aznar to the Spanish labor aristocracy did not look so good. The anti-war movement in Spain had been so wimpy that even with 90% public support it could not stop Aznar. All it could do is force Aznar to calculate what would happen if he sent too many troops and ended up drawing on troops less than loyal to his pet cause. Without an armed struggle in Iraq, the anti-war movement in Spain would be nothing at all. However, combined with the Iraqi armed struggle, even a very weak peace movement can cause a flip- flop of the petty-bourgeoisie under the right circumstances and that can mean trouble for imperialist military interventions. The fact that Spaniards are a tad less bought off with the redistributed spoils of imperialism than Amerikkkans are made this occurrence more likely. To the credit of the Spanish, they figured out the political motivations of the Aznar regime and held it accountable in the days after the bombing to tell the truth about the bombings. Aznar's government tried to blame it on local terrorists called the ETA when evidence pointed also to Al- Qaeda. Unlike Amerikkkans, the Spanish are not so sanctimonious to think that killing civilians in Iraq is unconnected to killing civilians in Madrid. Had Bush opted for a covert mission to capture Saddam Hussein he would not have had this problem, because the public would have ignored it. It was having an overt war that caused the Madrid versus Baghdad trade-off in the Spaniards' minds. It goes to show that if we can succeed in making all the covert wars overt wars, the petty- bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries may from time to time flip-flop in such a way that there is a backdown from war. What is killing us is the situation in the united $tates where a throroughly corrupt people does not have its own numerous overt and covert wars shoved in its face. Currently, the Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie can have the luxury of thinking 911 was "out of nowhere," which is why even though MIM has no people's army, the central task of creating public opinion is important. Uncle $am is going to twist the truth by twisting arms, which is why a people's army is necessary. However, in the meantime wherever people resist imperialism through armed struggle there is hope that the petty-bourgeoisie may flip-flop. While Aznar voted in front of cameras, class conscious Spaniards carried protest signs saying, "your war, our dead."(3) Most of the people who died opposed the war in Iraq and did not even vote for Aznar's government, because the neighborhood they came from opposed Aznar. Stupid Polish lackeys rushed in to back Bush's war, by saying they will retain command responsibilities when the Spanish were supposed to take over in their sector of Iraq. The Polish lackeys still think they will be keeping the Bear off their back and shopping in Bloomingdales if they attack all the other countries in the world that won't be good enough Amerikkkan lackeys. We won't be surprised to see purse-strings loosen in the West to pay for rent-a-troops from eastern Europe in Iraq. The Polish and other eastern Europeans are going to have to think harder about what could possibly bring global peace. Into the European fray came those pundits who merely repeated what they read in the latest neo- conservative Zionist book--that the West refuses to believe the stated reasons by Al-Qaeda for its war. The Daily Telegraph in England said, "De- ideologized, postmodern man is particularly bad at grasping the ideological nature of its foes. . . .The desire not to take our enemies at face value, in word and deed, is the hallmark of much of contemporary Europe."(4) Yet, the Al-Qaeda videotape picked up in Spain did say that Bush's war in Iraq was the reason for this bombing, so in fact, it is the neo-conservatives not taking Al- Qaeda at face value. It's a sad reflection on the Anglo-Saxon exploiter population that the Daily Telegraph, Joe Lieberman and Edward N. Luttwak can get away with a cultural argument as if Muslims have been suicide bombing Amerikans and Zionists for thousands of years straight. The Muslims may think that is what they are doing, but in fact they pick among their doctrines and interpreters of Islam those that seem relevant to their time. That's what Muslims have always done and most religious people have always done. That's what people in all religions do and that's what gives one religion an edge over another, not some timeless command from some god. Of course there are documents and doctrines that support Luttwak's claim that Islam is fighting the same battle since the Crusades. However, those doctrines would have no popularity if their material causes are removed. This is something the religious of the world do not want to hear, but it is obvious and necessary to world peace. Religion is a divisive force for the species, because it rests on ideas that cannot unify the public through mutual scientific verification. Religion is the perfect justification for war in the hands of people like Joe Lieberman and Edward N. Luttwak. At the same time, religion is not so powerful that it can serve as a real and permanent cause of war unaffected by material events. Some permanent ideology of hate is a myth. In all the hoopla about "extremist" Islam, the West has managed to conjure up Hitler as well, clear evidence of a twisted demonization dynamic going on. David Brooks of the New York Times attacked Spaniards this way: "The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking. "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?"(5) MIM did an Internet search for "Spain" and "appeasement" and found 45 news articles--all of which turn out to be by papers in English-speaking imperialist countries--the United $tates, United KKKingdom and Au$tralia. We can speak of an Anglo- Saxon opinion on this question. In case, we did not get it, the New York Times ran two columnists both saying the same thing, Edward N. Luttwak in addition to David Brooks. Connecticut Senator and Democrat Joe Lieberman, a Jew also raised "appeasement," but we are disgusted by the upside-down usage of the word. It's an example why we have to remember the truth and forget who is saying it. Joe Lieberman's coming from a family that suffered in the Holocaust does not change what the historical policy of "appeasement" was. "Appeasement" refers to a British and French policy in World War II spearheaded by Neville Chamberlain that sought peace with Hitler in 1938 by letting him occupy Czechoslavakia instead of taking up the offer from the Soviet Union to attack Germany in concert. Of course we all know now that Hitler did not "settle down" after Czechoslavakia and went on to make a huge international war anyway. The propaganda is so thick in the Anglo-Saxon imperialist countries that many have convinced themselves that it is actually Al-Qaeda being appeased. Yet Al-Qaeda is not occupying any foreign countries. And just like Osama Bin Laden said, there were U.$. troops in Saudi Arabia since the 1991 Gulf War. It is the United $tates occupying Iraq and it is the United $tates that is the superpower that cowardly politicians around the world serve as lackeys. "Appeasement" in 2004 is going along with U.$. war plans and assisting in U.$. terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe.
|
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/international/europe/16SPIN.html
3. http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_075114846.html
4. http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/03/15/dl1501.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/03/15/ixopinion.html
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16BROO.html