Labour and the War— Red Flag or Union Jack?

Scan page 3

is that the Fleet should be Island is of Britain" (Alex

John Silkin — the 'disarmer' who beats the drum for a bigger THROUGHOUT the Falklands crisis, the main Labour leaders have been flag-wavers not for the Red Flag but for the Union Jack.

Many of them collaborate with the Tories daily. But on issues inside Britain they usually make at least some show of hostility, some gestures towards standing for working class interests against the Tories and their class.

But in war - and indeed in international conflicts generally - if the first casualty is truth, then the second casualty is these leaders' sense of shame.

For decades the Parliamentary Labour leadership has gone hand-in-hand with the Tories on Ireland, bar a few occasional and minor reservations. And likewise on the Falklands.

Flicker

In all the speeches from the Labour frontbench since April 3, there is not a flicker of the idea that the workers of Britain and of Argentina have a thousand times more in common than either have with their rulers. it is not argued, but merely assumed, that Labour should stand in the same camp as the British ruling class maybe But joining the cricining:

common effort.

In the first Parliamentary debate after Galtieri's invasion, John Silkin (titled Labour's "disarmament" spokesperson!) criticised the Tories... for running down the Navy in favour of Trident! Douglas Jay echoed him: 'I trust that this event will put paid to the policy of unilateral disarmament of the Royal Navy"

And the whole Labour front bench, including Michael Foot, has backed the Tories, only quibbling occasionally.

Avoid But in different ways and to different degrees, some have dissociated.

"Avoid military action" is the weakest variant. On May 4, 73 Labour MPs called for an immediate ceasefire. This, the Labour Weekly editorial of May 7 said, would "allow a breathing space for negotiations"

The April Labour NEC Navy! said that the government should use the UN and "avoid military action" The TUC General Council passed a similar motion. The Labour MPs in the European Parliament supported a motion from the cross-EEC Socialist Group for halting the fleet and simultaneous withdrawal by Britain and Argentina.

In other words, all these wanted peace _ merely by appealing for it.

in Tribune in the early weeks of the crisis Richard Clements proposed a more consistent line of reliance on the UN. 'What Labour should now propose is that the UN itself establish a peace-keeping operation on the Falkland Islands. It would not need to be large in number and the Royal Navy could be used to supply it and ensure its safety"

Fantasy

Behind the talk of peacekeeping, this is nothing but a proposal for war by Britain and a number of allied nations, rather than war by Britain alone!

When Chris Mullin took over the editorship on May 7, Tribune's line changed sharply, crossing the political divide to active campaigring against the war.

But still not on a clear basis. The May 7 issue of Tribune showed that a section of the Labour Left - after some weeks of self-effacement and uncertainty — had hit on an idea to square their circles.

The fleet should be withdrawn, Mullin argued, Britain should use economic sanctions against Argentina, and the islands should be ceded to the UN.

The beauty of this line seemed to be that it opposed war while also proposing firm action by 'Britain" against the Galtieri junta. And it could be made to sound anti-capitalist. Michael Meacher criticised the banks' lack of patriotism, shown by the loopholes in the economic sanctions. "Business interests must be safeguarded even if it means selling the country short But it is all fantasy politics. Since when has the international banking system been a clean, socialist method of international action, in contrast to the squalor of war?

The reference to the UN is also a clutching at false solutions. The much-vaunted Third World majority in the UN may often prevent it from acting, but when it does act decisively it acts as the agent of the associated big capitalist powers.

Its hands are no cleaner than Britain's.

And - crucially - the whole argument is still within the terms of a search for lines of action by 'Britain" , rather than action by the working class.

Silent

Tony Benn, though silent in Parliament on April 3, came out for withdrawal of the Fleet much | earlier than Tribune. At first he was half-hearted - "My advice, for what it is worth, is that the Fleet should be withdrawn" - then bolder and bolder. Though favouring reference to the UN, he has not taken up the call for economic sanctions. • Benn's attitude, it seems, is the closest to the rank and file. Labour Weekly reports that the overwhelming majority of the letters sent to it have been for withdrawal of the fleet.

"Most Labour Party activists here were immediately alarmed at the apparent gung-ho nationalism of Michael Foot in the emergency debate. The last thing the Labour Party ought to welcome now is being tied to the outraged imperialism of Tory backbenchers" (David Spilsbury, April 16).

Honest

Most of the letters published also said the islands should go to Argentina. The argument was simply that 'the Falkland Islands are lost" (Chris Johnson); that 'the sooner Britian returns these colonies to the nations that they are part of, the sooner Britain can play a honest role in world affairs" (Nigel Knowles); or that 'these islands ... are as much a part of the national territory of the Argentine as Rockall Island is of Brit:

Wood).

The more elaborate arguments look very much as if they are making a virtue out of what is perceived as necessity. These comrades oppose sending the British fleet, they do not go in for the clever schemes about economic sanctions, and so they think) there is nothing for it but to let Galtieri have the islands. The islanders can be deported and compensated.

There are a few letters in Labour Weekly from people who clearly are not Silkin-type jingos but can't accept the anti-war line.

Denis Jones asks why we should presume a rule •that islands should belong to the geographically nearest power"

State

And Juan Moreno finds "disgusting" the idea that because the islanders are a small group on the other side of the world, they "have less than our human rights. They can be occupied by regime under which one person disappears every four hours, and we should do nothing" (April 30).

On the rights of the Shore: backing the Tories four-square islanders, surely Juan Moreno is right. But the comrades who denounce Thatcher's "war of petty prestige and the crudest chauvinism" are also right. • Supporting rights does not mean supporting every action that is supposed to defend those rights. By the very nature of the British state, Thatcher's fleet acts in the interests of Tory and British ruling class prestige. Any benefit to the islanders is doubtful and strictly incidental.

Therefore we must oppose - indeed, wage class war against -Thatcher's war. And (though if this war were to change into one where the issue were Argentina's national rights against British domination, we would have to side with Argentina, even under Galtieri), that does not mean supporting Galtieri in this conflict.

An international working class policy offers a third alternative: class action for the defeat of both sides.

This policy can set the workers of both Britain and Argentina on course to combat the reactionary self-promotion of their Daily rulers, and to use the war crisis to hasten the overthrow of those rulers.

It promises no miraculous immediate results: but surely nothing is more fatal for socialists than to turn away from mapping an independent policy for the working class to illusions of quicker results through manipulation of other forces, or resigned acceptance of the alternatives posed by the existing reactionary powers.

On one score, however, immediate results are called for. A labour movement that passively allows its leaders to herd it behind an imperialist power's war effort is cutting its own throat. Scattered demonstrations, rallies and protests have shown sections of the British labour movement beginning to reassert its independence - but they have been too few.

As the horrors of war escalate, we need an urgent drive to get the labour movement out on the streets against this war. The basis for uniting local committees and demonstrations should be the simple slogan: Withdraw the Fleet. And our siogans from Socialist Organiser should be: Black military supplies! The enemy is at home!

----- pull-quotes -----

maill .anh