Outside The Gates - Geopolitics, Opposition to War and Cuba

In the late 1990s early 2000s, there was a period in which the medias - film, TV, press etc - produced fictions and documentaries about extraterrestial mass extinction being visited on the Earth by asteriods, comets or gigantic meteors. Serious, comedic, sometimes scientific and sometimes frightening, they, in the most part, played on the bipolar expectations of hope and dread in a superstition for the number 2000. In Christian countries at least. And there the Jesus Army marched in lockstep to the drumbeat of an elitist End Times theology, Armageddon for most and Rapture for the few. A cataclysmic millennialism. Whose computer burnt, the hard disc fried as the clock struck 00.00hrs 01.01.2000? Did any die with a "phtt" like a strangled, tired fart?

I had a right giggle about apocalypse with the person I was house sharing with at the time. "I would prefer to be around if it happened than not", was his sanguine take on the possibility of an asteroid strike.

It's a state of mind, a perspective, an attitude I have tried to adopt in the eventuality of a nuclear war being unleashed, at the same time struggling, trying in my own limited way, to see that it doesn't. Preferring to be around to find out if the likes of metronomic liar Dick Cheney get to action the next level of their insanity, and that I act as witness, while I can, to the sheer malevolence of a misanthropic ideology trying to outlive its sell by date.

Unlike the knowing acceptance, the fatalism of such a random and natural chain of events as an asteroid strike, the perpetual and nuclear war plans of Cheney's ilk are of our own making, human making. They are just that, plans, nothing more and as such can be changed. This may seem a forlorn hope what with the situation over the Middle East, regional tensions stretched taut; blocs being consolidated; the dogs of war on a slipping leash, and the lack of large-scale, continuous, non-violent mass participatory civil disobedience and direct action in the aggressor countries - the infamous Anglo-American alliance.

The recent marches in London (08.10.07) and the USA (27.10.07) for withdrawl from war in Iraq & Afghanistan and peace for Iran, were marginal. Ignored or derided by the mainstream media and treated with contempt by the establishment. On a dismal, wet Saturday in New York only 10,000 turned out, penned in on all sides by an "overwhelming" police presence.

The earlier and smaller demonstration in London was nothing more than a "police march" itself. Held on a Monday and in defiance of a ban on the planned march to Parliament, 5,000 turned out for a national call. The authorities condescended to the march going ahead. The military precision and application of well practised procedures by the Met Police to control a small peaceful demo looked disproportionate. "This is for your own protection," is the national security mantra employed to justify such tactics.

The police were successful with their hemming in and corraling until getting to Parliament Square, where the demonstrators managed to break the police lines and do a 'sit down'. They had a success of sorts in defying the law and the police maintained their composure - excessive physical force wasn't employed. The marchers were demonstrably 'contained' though. For their own protection of course.

Like New York's experience, though not as blatantly oppressive, it expressed an absolute lack of trust by the establishment in ordinary, everyday people peacefully exercising their long held and hard fought right to take non-violent action to oppose government policy when it is wrong. The only way to counter such tactics is to have as many people turn out as did in London for the monster march of 2,000,000 in 2003, when the police were overwhelmed by a peaceful and good natured demonstration. The police had then also maintained their composure, they couldn't do anything else. The West End was filled with non-commercial peace.

Civil society was much more robust and capable of mobilising impressive numbers just four years ago. Reading the report of the New York demo at TomDispatch , much the same decline in demonstration numbers has occured in the USA since that great outpouring of global anti-war sentiment just prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. I also got the impression of an apprehensive waiting on events within the American humanist tradition and came away thinking about the ambience, the timbre of the times, now, in Britain. What the hell was it? It has a not quite 'deja vu' to it, but more than a presque vu. Then the weak echoes of stories I had heard from my father and grandfather as a child started to be remembered about the 1930s, alongside the contributions from other commies of their generations. It got me on a roll, dredging up clips from the films and documentaries vaguely watched and retrieving obscure lines from now dusty books read and lodged at the end of some recess in my memory. A mish-mash of filtered reflections of a time before I was born, the period prior to the declaration of war against Germany on 3rd Sept 1939. The tone running through them all was also an apprehensive waiting, or for the minority, a suspended expectation on the possibility of war. Made dreadfully certain when Chamberlain came back from Nazi Munich waving a piece of paper declaiming, 'Appeasement'.

But there is a big difference. We were not the aggressor nation then.

This is a new feeling. Something darker, a deep and looming foreboding in knowing we are in the wrong political space, alligned with the wrong countries and vaguely comprehending that the enemy is us. We are in the wrong place waiting on events we think we have no control over to unfurl around us. In the 1930s everyday people still retained the ability to shape the political landscape despite the catastrophe they faced. The people of the East End of London defeated Mosley's nazis and their police protectors at Cable Street by barricading everything east of Tower Bridge. To them the world owes an immense debt.

But there is a big difference. There was no nuclear missiles to amplify the unease, the trepidation then.

If a nuclear war starts this nation will not physically survive. As well as millions annihilated, our infrastructure will no longer exist. Believing we have no control over such an event can be very frightening. It is a rightfully fearful scenario and can be quite debilitating to a nation's view of itself, its self-confidence - especially one that strode the globe as a great imperial power imposing its political will.

There is no shame in no longer being the big boy on the block. It is shameful though playing poodle to the new pretender as they exceed even our worst imperial practises. It is shameful letting decisions on this country's future be subsumed to the geopolitical maneuverings of a malignant USA.

"There are no easy answers here, no snappy recommendations or full-proof solutions. The task is truly overwhelming. But it is clear that the true interests of the Arab peoples can only be served by Arabs themselves; reforms can not be imposed, true, but that is impossible to achieve under the current power relations - rulers setting themselves up as unquestionably superior to their people, TV channels promoting rampant consumerism and providing endless distraction, and uncountable multitudes seeking deliverance, escapism and, often, falling prey to extremism. For Arab countries to have some hope of a meaningful future (and indeed present), grassroots work must replace intellectual detachment, wealth must be invested in building self-sustained societies, and, most importantly, the dignity of Arab women and men must be preserved above all else."

Bombing and occupying Iraq hasn't helped the everyday Iraqi in changing their situation. It has compounded their misery by replacing Saddam with a puppet ruling elite who use death squads to maintain the chaos and keep their wealth accruing. The same is now being threatened for Iran, but this time the "Shock and Awe" will come with the 'added-value' of nuclear missiles. Everyday Persians are no different from everyday Arabs and they are no different from us - we all find the ruling elites getting more distant by the day and difficult to remove.

We are awaiting more powerful players, in a B-movie remake of the "Great Game", to exercise the decision making. It is what makes this time truely dangerous. The calculations of any ruling elite do not accord with the interests of ordinary, everyday people.

In Britain the political parties do not meet the complex and diverse requirements of the people, the simplest of those requirement being not to start wars. Any new political formation able to meet these needs is not there and the matrix of civil society, though able is not politically mature enough to form a new state. It is not a revolutionary time in Britain, yet.

To ensure that people who read this do not confuse my understanding of what civil society is with some meddlesome organisations that claim they are of civil society, such as the National Endowment for Democracy funded by the USA State Department and involved in colour coded regime changes; something I wrote earlier,

To think that an attack on Iran won't escalate to a regional, maybe nuclear war, or that it can be contained in the Middle East is missing the point.

On 22.10.07 the Guardian carried a story about Peak Oil. To quote from Ashley Seager's report;

"The German-based Energy Watch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by several percent a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel.

"Britain's oil production peaked in 1999 and has already dropped by half to about 1.6 million barrels a day."

$90 (£44) is approximately thrice the price of three years ago. The decline from Peak Oil can be slow or precipitous but it is happening and is the reason for our participation in the resource wars . Most of the remaining, easily extractable oil is on the Eurasian landmass, the geography on which the old "Great Game" was played out. Culminating in the widow making of the First World War. It was oil then, it is oil now but with only half the amount of oil remaining and a tripling of the global population, whose richest societies will fall without the oil as surely as if there were a nuclear war.

The big players in this game, the ones who will determine the outcome, are not the likes of Iran, but the power elites of the USA, EU, Russia and China. Entities other than states or blocs, commercial ones like Big Media, Big Oil etc will also have their oar in the decision making, but left out are those most affected by the outcome - the rest of the everyday world. The 'democracy' excluding them as effectively as does King Abdullah , the Saudi Wahhabist despot who was entertained by a fawning Brown government when on an official state visit to Britain recently.

It is not Iran or Islam being confronted by the Anglo-American Alliance but another bloc, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation fronted by Russia and China, both of whom are at home on the Eurasian landmass. It is not an away game for them.

Britain could still have a decisive role in securing peace, depending on the timing, by joining the Euro and starting trading with it and/or the Pound, instead/alongside the dollar at the London Petroleum Exchange. At least 7 other countries are considering or in the process of diversifying their currency holdings and looking to trading oil in Euros. Not just minor countries but important players like China, Venezuela and Russia. We would not be alone if we did it. Our problem, Britain's problem, is extricating ourselves from a lot of the cultural, economic and political US tentacles that permeate nearly every facet of British society. This will not be easy judging by the depth the middle classes are addicted to an imported commodity fetishism, recently displayed during the launch of Mac's iPhone here. (What's so wrong with "make do and mend"? )

There is another deeper problem, longer entrenched and with more historical baggage. Britain's official relationship with Russia and China has been one of mutual suspicion for centuries. Their intelligence and counter-intelligence services have been at it against each other since at least the Crimea and Opium Wars. Britain the great sea based empire, Russia and China the Eurasian land based ones. The Russians really hacked off the British establishment by declaring power to the soviets in 1917. An event still working its way through Russian politics. (Nationalsim was a force as decisive as Communism in defeating the proto Anglo-American alliance intervention following 1917 and the German led Nazi invasion during World War Two. Putin being ex-KGB and a case in point.)

The disastrous war in Iraq and the high oil price has given Russia a more powerful position in the world and it scares elements in the British establishment no end. A multi-polar world and competing centres of capital accumulation have not, nor ever been in the thinking of the British imperial establishment.

The new head of MI5, Jonathan Evans gave a speech on the 'terrorist' threat to the Society of Editors the day before the Queen laid out the new programme of the Brown government, which contained more 'anti-terror' proposals. Evans' statement made headlines for claims of an increased terrorist threat from children. He also said that MI5's capacity to tackle the threat was being weakened when resources have to be deployed to counter Russian and Chinese intelligence services operating in Britain. Wow. Really? Our imperial history and the present wars are not what is making for an increased terrorist threat from children? "It's not us responsible for it. Honest. It's them over there!" What are Russia and China doing exactly? Spying. Which is part of the job description for Director General of MI5.

Evans has exposed the seriousness with which the establishment consider the rise of Russia and China, and whom they see as the real threat.

Another aspect of his speech concerned the language, the words he thought the media should be using when writing about terrorism. Not to censor of course, this is Britain after all, but for the media to take on trust the language MI5 think appropriate for them to publish.

Brown, the PM delivered a speech on 12th Nov 07 about foreign affairs. At the Lord Mayors Banquet, the City's annual shindig for international finance capital, he praised the 'special relationship' we are supposed to have with the USA, as being "our most important bi-lateral relationship". This is wrong. More dunder-headed internationalism than "hard-headed internationalism". The reality of our position and relationship to global power, is as a minor league player who needs multi-lateral relationships if we are ever to have any say in geopolitical affairs. At present all our other relationships are determined by the policy goals of the USA, "our most important bi-lateral relationship"

One of the reasons my contributions are quite sparse compared to other essayists on the internet, besides my laziness, is because I read a lot of books and essays. And watch a lot of films. In some ways I'm quite lucky with my time, that due to the disability of multiple sclerosis it is impossible for me to find employment - not that I wish to endure the exploitation of my labour. The receipt of benefits just keeps the wolf from the door.

Over the last six weeks I've read five books, not much for some but more than most. The first book in this latest batch was the revised edition of Tom Englehardt's 'The End of Victory Culture'. A work of American cultural and political history covering the last half of the 20th century, and which I wish I had read earlier.

He puts film centre stage as the most important artistic medium with which to analyse the political timbre of a time and a country. The depiction of USA foundation myths of Indians and Cowboys, Independence, Civil and Imperial Wars, in the cinema, on tv and in comics through the 50s to 80s, are all about being surrounded, under threat and needing rescue. Usually women and children being threatened and needing rescue. It's the Bush administrations favourite gloss in justification of their drive for a uni-polar world. The head of MI5, Jonathan Evans seems to be reading from the same film script.

Englehardt has written of the book that he didn't know he knew so much, couldn't figure out where the knowledge came from. Somehow I think he has discovered the simple truth of Michael Hamburger's phrase, "writing is a process of learning".

Then I binged on James Ellroy - The Big Nowhere, L.A. Confidential, White Jazz and American Tabloid. The first time I've ever read any of his work. The four books cover some of the same time-frame as Englehardt's, specifically the 50s and early 60s. Brilliantly scabrous. Feral. Complex. Completely jaundiced in its view of America, where everybody is operating an alternative, corrupt and selfish agenda, violently ripping each other off. Where self-interested alliances replace friendships, which are only temporary, are not based on principle but what short-term benefit they may bring to the participants. Who then betray each other having always assumed the worst. The epitomy of a paranoid and extreme individualism.

I got a bit annoyed with 'American Tabloid', the first of the four I read. Not with its depiction of the CIA/Mafia/Hoffa/FBI/Howard Hughes common determination to undermine the Cuban revolution and ultimately to assassinate Kennedy, which seemed real not fiction, but with the projection of a corrupted America to encompass the ideals of the Cuban revolution. Raul Castro, Fidel's brother was the lynchpin for the importation of the drugs that helped fund the Bay of Pigs fiasco and which Ellroy's protagonists tried to rip off. Really.

This sort of 'insinnuendo' should be confined to the fictional pages of 'Hush-Hush' magazine and CIA counter-intelligence manuals.

Which brings me to a political disagreement about Cuba being conducted on the internet. On the 13th August this year, Dissident Voice carried an article by James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya titled "Cuba: Continuing Revolution and Contemporary Contradictions". It's a long piece and I read the whole dry thing, not thinking much more on it. Then I read a 'Reflection' by Fidel Castro at Granma which was sharply critical of something said or written about Cuba but didn't mention any title or author and only fully realised who the targets were when reading a response from James Petras .

I had to read the jointly written, original essay again and Fidel is right. Under the guise of claiming to be a friend of Cuba and having the interests of the revolution at heart, it is in fact full of suggestions and arguements that, if acted on would leave Cuban society open for business on the empire's terms.

There are only two sentences of the Petras/Eastman-Abaya essay I want to comment on.

"While most Asian and Latin American countries lagged behind Cuba in the 1960s, they have far surpassed Cuba in diversifying their economies, developing competitive export manufacturing sectors and lessening their export dependence on a narrow group of exports. By adding value to their products, Asian countries have increased earnings, which has led to higher wages and a better ‘fit’ between advanced education and occupational opportunities."

Which of the two authors wrote this I don't know, but it is well problematic. From the 1960s untill farely recently most Latin American countries were subject to US imperial interests and their ruling classes were oppressive in the extreme. Employing death squads to keep their privilege. Some were agri-monocultures, like the infamous 'Banana Republics' whose "export dependence on a narrow group of exports" was deliberately engineered to be so by Washington.

What strikes me most about the economies of Asian countries, those not being warred on by the empire, is the iniquitous sweatshops and factories perpetuating the poverty conditions people endure to produce the cheap products at Wal-Mart and the expensive T-shirts for sale in the fashion houses of the West. Then there is the siting of pollution causing industries like chemical production plants . Whatever value is added to their products does not stay in the country, just pollution, poverty and mass death. I think Cuba is right not to try and emulate such results by accepting imperial investments in their economy.

The timing of publication is interesting - just before Cuba enters an election process the envy of most Americans, if they only knew.

Fidel's response to the piece was stinging, the title says it all; "The super-revolutionaries". It stung Petras so badly that he had no option but to reply and in which he concentrated on the critique of his and Eastman-Abaya's essay coming from Gonzales Casanova. I haven't read the Casanova piece, don't know who he is so cannot comment on the allegations made by Petras. I was interested in the history James Petras claimed for himself as he tried to justify his contribution.

It seems he has worked for movements throughout the world, I assume in offering advice. With MST and CONLUTA in Brazil, unemployed workers in Argentina, electrical workers in Mexico and petroleum workers in Ecuador. Petras has also been involved throughout Europe and in the Philippines. There is no indication whether the advice was accepted, rejected, acted on, failed or was having success. I have no idea.

What I do know is that Fidel and the Cuban people have conducted a revolution in their country with great dignity. In the face of extreme violence from the empire; sabotage; terrorism; invasion; attempted assassinations and a sustained blockade, the Cuban people have made quite stunning social advances. The everyday politics of struggling against the empire for 50 years has helped bring about a position in Latin America where alternative forms of trade and development are being implemented outwith the dictates of the IMF or World Bank. The US economic hitmen are being sidelined.

There is a situation on the Cuban mainland I am even more interested in. Guantanamo. The notoriety of this torture prison will be one of the nouns, alongside Iraq and genocide that the Bush presidency will be remembered by. Every time his name is mentioned the nouns Guantanamo, Iraq and genocide will be heard.

Guantanamo is not just a torture prison either. It is a vast US naval base that is constantly expanding and reconfiguring its buildings and infrastructure. A $16.5 million camp is being built inside the base to house "10,000 Caribbean migrants", with a possibility of expanding to accommodate 35,000. When I read the Reuters article I wondered where Blackwater would be housing its mercenaries once they were forced out of Iraq.

Blackwater , bloated with contracts worth billions from a US government committed to privatising war, is extending its business portfolio to include intelligence services. Cofer Black, ex-CIA heads up 'Total Intelligence Solutions', now part of Erik Prince's personal military formation, which has been referred to as the empire's Praetorian Guard. To be profitable, 'guns for hire' require deployment.

Maybe I overdid the James Ellroy binge, this is not the early 1960s and the story told in 'American Tabloid'. Or is it? The Bush regime acts as gangster capitalists, exercises power with the instincts of organised crime, so it shouldn't be put passed them.

It never ceases to amaze me when political writers criticise countries under the constant pressure of military intervention from the empire. It is as though they do not recognise that the enemy is us - the Anglo/American alliance.

It is not just Cuba this is happening to, Iran gets it as well. It's much easier with Iran. Following the 1979 Islamic revolution the secular left, like my comrades in the Tudeh, were annihilated. There is no love lost between myself and the Mullahs. But I do not fall into the trap of continuing the demonisation of the President, the Persians and the state of Iran, unlike some writers claiming to be of the left and anti-imperialist.

In two articles on the Guardian's Comment is Free, Peter Tatchell has forcefully and emotionally written of the plight of Arab-Iranians living in the oil rich south west Khuzestan province. Some are facing execution by hanging, condemned by what Tatchell calls the "racist Iranian state" . The use of capital punishment is one of the easier criticisms to level at the Iranians.

Unfortunately for Tatchell, the Iranians will dismiss his concerns for the people of Khuzestan and accusations of anti-Arab racism by saying, "Get your own house in order before lecturing us on racism and killing of Arabs." Britain is a major partner in the genocide being committed against the Iraqi Arabs. Over one million Iraqis have been killed since the illegal invasion. The only way a people can treat another with such contempt is to consider them 'Untermenschen', less than human.

There is no mention in either of Tatchell's pieces that Khuzestan has been targeted by the Anglo-American alliance for disruption. Last year Seymour M. Hersh reported on the ongoing attempts to destabilise Iran by infiltrating the Iranian border for reconnaissance and sabotage. Earlier this year, Condaleessa Rice set aside $85 million of State Department money to 'aid' ethnic, religious and regional groups in Iran in their opposition to the Tehran government. It is disingenuous in the extreme for Tatchell to fail to mention this information.

I have no idea whether those executed were involved in any activity against the Iranian government. Nothing warrants the death penalty. But what I do know, is that any country while under attack militarially and politically, which Iran is, will see any campaigns for provinces to attain federation status as a threat to the integrity of the state and capable of lethally weakening it. Especially if it is the province where the oil is. A state that is authoritarian will resort to murderous suppression in the first instance to stop this from happening.

Federal status is one of the demands of a group with offices in London and Denmark that Tatchell refers to . An armed group of Kurdish Iranians, the PJAK, who were chased out of Iran into Iraq, also has the same demand. It was reported in the Guardian by Michael Howard in August. (An informative article by Pepe Escobar at Asia Times Online about the Kurds, has the PJAK receiving covert support from the USA and Israel.)

A few words about Gilad Atzmon. I've written previously about Gilad on a couple of occassions. The first was in response to an article of his which reminded me of a political problem I encountered at the beginning of the first Intifada while I was working as the Eastern District Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain. That article, which was supportive of Gilad was titled 'Zionist Exceptionalism' .

The second time I wrote was in response to an interview Gilad gave to Mary Rizzo at PeacePalestine. This time I had a difference with Gilad's position on the academic and cultural boycott of Israel which I support. The article can be read here .

The reason I'm writing about Gilad again is because he is coming under a sustained attack from people claiming they are of the 'left' and support the Palestinians but who use a disgusting language that betrays their allegiance to the ADL. They are now attacking the IndymediaUK administrators. An example from an email I received from Gilad;

“You useless piece of shit. And you complain of bullying tactics whilst betraying a woeful ignorance of racism. What a wanker you are, whoever you are…”
(An offlist email from Mark Elf the man behind Jews Sans Frontieres to FTP a Palestinian Solidarity )

FTP has started a web page with the full catalogue of tactics employed against him and his colleagues at Indymedia UK. The website can be accessed here.

Finally. Earlier in this essay I wrote about the lack of active participation in Britain against the war. It seems that the leadership of the progressive forces in the world and the optimism accompanying them, have migrated to the global south. South America is busily intergrating with an energy grid and building other infrastructure outwith the IMF and World Bank. They are starting to become innured to the shock therapy of neoliberalism imposed on them for most of the last 30 years, as written about in a recent article by Naomi Klein . A not uncritical but positive review of her book 'The Shock Doctrine', that should not be missed, was posted to Focus on the Global South on 13th November.