Building a mass anti-war movement

1999

Scanned print read by OCR, and not yet proofread: expect run-together words, dropped letters and, where a piece began partway down a page, a few lines of its neighbour. The printed page is the authority.

War in the Balkans - 14

Since the start of the current NATO war in the Balkans, the debate has raged on the left over how to build a mass campaign against it. Despite the way that the murderous bombing campaign has been quickly discredited by civilian casualties and blunders like the bombing of the Chinese embassy, mobilisations against it in this country have remained small. What are the politics behind this situation?

The problem is reflected in the divisions which exist on the left over the war. It is even divided over the role of NATO and its bombing campaign, with people like Ken Livingstone and Michael Foot and publications like Tribune (and its editor Mark Seddon) supporting it.

But there are other important divisions within the anti-war movement. One of these is between those who simply oppose NATO intervention and those who at the same time give serious support to the right of the Kosovan people to self-determination — including their right to demand an independent state.

Yet the issue of Kosovan self-determination and independence crucially influences the shape, politics, and size of the anti-war movement. This is because to leave it out, or play it down, allows the ideas of Serb nationalism to permeate the platforms of the campaign and the politics is projects.

This is a serious problem because most potential supporters of the ant-war movement strongly oppose the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar Albanians — which they see in the media every day — and will not support a campaign which does not address that problem adequately. Even those who don’t see NATO as a solution (or even see NATO as the problem) perceive the current anti-war movement as essentially pro-Serb and therefore will not become involved with it.

This problem has to be solved if the most effective anti-war movement is to be built. Unfortunately the organisation which quickly emerged as the main organiser against the war " the Committee for Peace in the Balkans " set its face against the demand of the Kosovans for independence and took a stance which became increasingly pro-Serb. This stance placed a political restriction on the development of the campaign.

The Committee for Peace in the Balkans, of course, is not a new organisation. This is the same Committee for Peace in the Balkans which existed throughout the Bosnian war and which was heavily pro-Serbia at that time. It held meetings which opposed self-determination for Bosnia and often even denied that atrocities attributed to Serb forces (the Bosnian Serb army) had taken place. It was led by Tony Benn, who despite his enormously positive role on the left over the years, has a reactionary position on Bosnia. Those of us raising material aid for Bosnia at that time through International Workers Aid, clashed bitterly with the Committee over Srebrenica and Gorazda. Even then Benn and others refused to accept the role that the repression of the Kosovans, in the 1980s, had played in the events which led to the invasion of Bosnia by Serbia.

The problem was compounded when the biggest far-left organisation working within the campaign, the SWP, took a similar view. They have done a good job in mobilising against the war both on the streets and in the setting up of anti-war groups, but the politics they have projected with virtually exclusive concentration on "Stop the bombing" and "NATO out of the Balkans" — bolstered the line of the Committee and became a part of the problem.

This is not the case in every locality, but it is in most places and given the size and organising capacity of the SWP it is a serious problem. Even ethnic cleansing often gets low visibility at meetings and rallies of the ant-war movement where the SWP are often the principle organisers.

On demonstrations, Serb nationalists have been happy to carry SWP placards (saying "Stop the bombing" and "NATO out") whilst chanting nationalist and anti-Kosovan slogans. This has happened repeatedly.

On an anti-war demonstration in Oxford Socialist Outlook supporters carrying placards supporting self determination for Kosova were subjected to the continuous chant of "Kosovo is Serbian" from Serb nationalists carrying SWP placards. Of course the SWP cannot be responsible for who carries their placards, but they are responsible for the what their placards say. Even a clear denunciation of ethnic cleansing on SWP placards, would help.

But that has not been the case. Both national demonstrations have been heavily tainted with Serb nationalism — and Kosovar Albanians on the side of it were heavily barracked by the bulk of the demonstration.

The Kosovars are the very people who have been ethnically cleansed by Milosevic and many may face a life-time as refugees — many others have been killed.

Of course they are completely wrong to support the NATO intervention, as most of them do. But it is also understandable why they support NATO at the present time — after years of persecution by the Milosevic regime. It is necessary to have a dialogue with them and seek to convince them who their real friends are rather than treat them as the enemy which was the case on those demonstrations. Sections of the demonstrations, of course, have closed minds on the Kosovans, but others have been miseducated by the politics of the campaign.

The SWP are obviously strongly anti-Milosevic, and they make that clear enough. But it does not resolve the problem, since it is quite possible to be a Serb nationalist and anti-Milosevic — which some of those involved are. On the other hand any mention of the rights of the Kosovars is another matter.

All attempts to change this situation have failed and this problem has led to the formation of a coordination of organisations, within the main campaign, supporting self-determination for the Kosovans and NATO out of the Balkans. This has been a useful initiative which has organised a successful public meeting on the issue and has organised join contingents on the two national demonstrations against the war which have taken place.

The organisations involved in the coordination recognise that opposing the bombing and NATO intervention is crucial, and any analysis which is weak on this is absolutely wrong. The war is now being fought over the future credibility and role of the NATO alliance and the outcome will shape world politics, as well as the role of NATO and US imperialism in Europe, in the next period. But to limit your position to demands on NATO and the role of US imperialism is to concede ground politically to the Serb nationalists and those in the British labour movement who are soft on the Milosevic regime.

There is another, rather smaller, division amongst the left over the war as well. That is with those who play down the role of NATO to the extent of presenting its intervention as at most a side issue. The most significant of these are the AWL. They deny any strategic interest of NATO or US imperialism and argue that Serbia (a bankrupt country of 10 million people) is a sub-imperialist power in the region. This leads them to have no significant mention of the role of NATO in their propaganda material.

What is the solution to the war?

Of course the issues of the right of self-determination and independence for Kosova do not only affect the politics of the anti-war movement but also the rather crucial issue of the outcome of the war. Without supporting the call of the Kosovans for independence, socialists have no solution to the conflict other than abstract appeals to a future socialist society or to workers unity across the Balkans. Such appeals have no basis in reality without a solution to the national question in the region. Any solution which leaves the national question unresolved will not be a political settlement and will not be a solution.

Paradoxically most SWP speakers on anti-war platforms say, when pushed, that they support the right of the Kosovans to self-determination but not the way the Kosovans have chosen to exercise it through independence now. In fact most SWP speakers strongly oppose the Kosovans demands for independence now.

They use many different arguments to back this position. Some say independence would make things worse because the Kosovans would drive out the Serb minority. Others say that independence is too difficult in the Balkans because the populations are too mixed! The end result is the same, however. The Kosovans may have the right to self-determination, but if they use it to choose independence they will have to get it without the help of the SWP.

People who support the war, like Ken Livingstone and Mark Seddon, argue that supporting NATO is at least doing something to oppose the ethnic cleansing whilst opposing NATO means doing nothing for them. Of course this can be ridiculed by argued that NATO have not been very successful in defending the Albanians Ñ which is spectacularly true. They reply by calling for a land invasion. We can argue that this would not defend the Albanians either, but none of this answers the real issue which is what is our proposal for defending the Albanian Kosovans? In the same way they argue that we call for independence for Kosova but propose no means of achieving it. The only forces capable of achieving independence (if they were prepared to but at the present time they are not) are NATO. Even a NATO protectorate (the most likely solution if NATO have their way), some argue, is at least a step towards independence (in that it gets the Kosovans back into the country and the Serb forces out) and we have noting to offer in that respect.

All this raises the issue of the arming of the Kosovar people and concretely of the KLA and whether it should be supported. Of course the anti-war movement should not take a position on the KLA. That should not be the basis of any alliance against the war. The Socialist Party, for example, opposes NATO, supports the right of the Kosovans to self-determination and independence but opposes the arming of the KLA. It is never-the-less an important debate within the anti-war movement precisely because it involves the issue of a solution to the conflict, something the anti-war movement must be concerned about.

To repeat the point. Once you oppose the right of the Kosovans to liberate themselves you must face the fact that the other available "options" are either one imposed by imperialism or abstract appeals to a socialist future or workers unity.

To avoid this it is necessary to argue, as Socialist Outlook does, that the KLA should be both supported and armed. This does not in any way imply political support for them. In fact we never support nationalism as an ideology but only nationalist movements which are acting in defence of the rights of oppressed peoples. We don’t support the politics of the KLA either, what we support is the right of the Kosovans to both defend themselves and pursue their choice of independence. In any case the KLA does not have a single political character. It has several currents within it and can best be described as a national liberation movement in-formation. It is growing rapidly and its politics are evolving. It cannot therefore be judged by a snapshot of what exists at the present time.

At the present time the KLA is the only force on the ground which can defend those Kosovans which are still inside Kosova; both the minority which are still in their homes and those who are scattered in the hills hiding from the Serb army. Not to support giving them the means to do so seems a strange thing for socialists to argue.

Some argue that the KLA are too weak to challenge the Serb army and that there is no way they can get the refugees back home in the near future. This is true. But it is not an argument against arming them it is an argument for arming them. Neither NATO or any-one-else is in a position to get the refugees home in the near future, other than into an unresolved political situation. That is the situation the war has created. The chance of persuading the bulk of the refugees returning to a ravaged country under those political conditions is problematic. The Kosovans may have to rely on their own resources, with all the support they can get, and conduct a long-term campaign.

There are those on the left who argue that whilst the KLA remain weak they will seek support from NATO. This may well be true. We should urge them to beware of the company they keep and only accept aid, including arms, without strings. But the real way to avoid this is to ensure that they get help from the real friends of the Kosovan people, the socialists organised in the anti-war movement.