France’s occupation in Mali: Past and present

mali france

Joel Cosgrove

Most mainstream reporting on events in Mali included various tropes, such as that Europe is under threat from Islamic fundamentalism, that the invasion of French troops was about freeing the local people, and the involvement of French troops was defended as being an undesirable but necessary outcome resulting from a bad situation. The defence for the invasion has been remarkably similar to that made for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq at the time.

As with Iraq and Afghanistan the reality is that the occupation of Mali has come about as part of an imperialist contest for political power and resources. Although the French government may be assuaged by the ease of its military’s entry into Mali, in operations such as these the invasionary period is one of the less difficult phases of an occupation.

During the first phase airpower was used effectively against fixed and clear rebel positions. Now the situation has developed. Already recent kidnap victims have reported of hideouts hacked into the side of caves, as well as petrol and ammunition dumps hidden in various parts of the north. There is now a transition to the type of irregular guerilla warfare that has proven so hard for the occupiers to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a recent article on the French adventure, long-term Middle East/North African correspondent Patrick Cockburn made a similar point:

This was one of the many lessons of the US takeover of Iraq and Afghanistan. Most Iraqis and Afghans were glad to see the departure of the previous regimes. Iraqis wanted an end to Saddam Hussein’s rule, but this did not mean that they welcomed foreign occupation. Similarly, in Afghanistan, foreign forces were initially popular and the Taliban discredited. But in both cases foreign forces soon behaved like colonial occupiers, and were resented as such. [Read more…]

The role of the centre-left in the campaign against asset sales

Joel Cosgrove

With the dismissal of the Maori Council’s water rights claim to the Supreme Court and the submission of the Anti-Asset Sales petition for a referendum, one phase of the broad campaign against the sale of assets has ended and the next has begun.

Within the initial campaign against asset sales there were three main approaches; the challenge in the courts, the attempt to build a protest movement, and the attempt to initiate a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum on the question.

Much faith was placed in the challenge made by the Maori Council in their appeal to the Supreme Court that the partial privatisation of the government-owned power companies would interfere with the ongoing Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. In the judgment Chief Justice Sian Elias outlined the reasoning of the court. In the reasoning it was claimed that the Crown provided reasonable assurances to Maori in regard to water rights, that the Crown had the capacity to provide equivalents and meaning redress, and that the Crown had shown a proven willingness and ability to provide redress.

The relatively quick resolution of the court case has meant that the majority of the news reporting and analysis has more recently been focused on the final moments of the campaign for the CIR.

The CIR campaign has been a relative success. It has achieved what it set out to do, namely to initiate a referendum on the question “Do you support the Government selling up to 49 per cent of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand?”.

At its core though the referendum campaign has been a passive one, focused around the efforts of the Green and Labour parties to win an organisational arm-wrestle between the two.

In a document leaked to National Party activist David Farrar, at the point where 300,000 signatures were collected, the Greens had collected 150,000 signatures, Labour 105,000 and the Unions with 40,000. What this confirms is the political dynamic that became clear over the length of the campaign. [Read more…]

April 27th: National day of action against asset sales

Its time for the Government to listen to the majority of Aotearoa/NZ. Want to organise a protest in a smaller town? Contact Joe at 029 4455702.

Auckland- Britomart 2pm.

Wellington- Pigeon Park, 2pm

Tauranga- Red Square, 10am

Napier- War Memorial Square, 2pm

Christchurch- corner Deans Ave & Riccarton Road to Hanmer Hot Springs Hotel, 2pm
Christchurch/HanmerHanmer Hot Springs Hotel (National Party regional conference) April 27th-28th

Dunedin- Octagon, 2pm

Nelson- Millers Acre, 12pm

Wellington seafarers on the invasion of Finland, 1939

wellington waterfront 1939

Fightback is a Marxist organisation that houses a range of anti-Stalinist historical perspectives. In this article Mike Kyriazopolous argues for a third camp position on 20th Century history, which can be summed up as “neither Washington nor Moscow but international socialism.”

Readers with a knowledge of the history of Trotskyism will know that the USSR’s invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939 marked a turning point for the movement. It triggered a fierce debate, and eventually a split among the US Trotskyists. What is less well known is that a contemporary parallel development emerged among the Wellington seafarers. The Evening Post of December 7, 1939 reproduced the full text of a long resolution passed by a stop-work meeting of the Federated Seamen’s Union which expressed its “profound sympathy with the people of Finland now suffering under a brutal aggression in pursuance of the policies of the Stalin – Hitler partnership.”

The meeting conveyed its “admiration of their splendid fight against overwhelming odds in defence of their homes, of the conditions established in their country, and of their national culture. It notes that the Labour and Trade Union movements in Finland and all the surrounding Scandinavian countries have expressed their solidarity with the Finnish people and their detestation of the present unprovoked aggression.

“This meeting remembers the conditions under which the Soviet Government was first established in 1917 under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, and how it expressly repudiated the kind of aggression that Stalin and the present Russian dictatorship have launched. Marx and Engels, the founders of scientific socialism, vigorously opposed aggression against small nations. In 1917 the new Soviet Government appealed for, and secured, the support of workers throughout the world, largely because it stood for the freeing of small nations from their oppressors and for the determination of hostilities without annexations and without indemnities. The original Constitution of the Soviet Union expressly stated that it was ‘a voluntary union of equal peoples’ and that each constituent republic enjoyed ‘the right of freely withdrawing.’ Further, the Soviet Government at the  time gave practical proof of its sincerity by surrendering the rights it enjoyed over China and Persia under the former Tsarist treaties and by freely granting its independence to the Finland that Stalin is now endeavouring to crush.”

The president of the Seaman’s Union, Fintan Patrick Walsh, wrote to Trotsky in Mexico on 3 January 1940 enclosing a copy of the resolution. Walsh stated, “Although we down under are more or less outside the world affairs we nevertheless take a keen and live interest on matters effecting [sic] the international working class.”

Trotsky replied on 19 February, “Thank you cordially for your warm letter of solidarity. I enjoyed it the more that, in this period of terrible chauvinistic pressure in almost all the countries of the world, sincere and consistent socialist voices are rather an exception.” Five months later Trotsky was murdered by one of Stalin’s agents. Walsh, who had cut his teeth as a militant in the IWW in the US during the early 20th-century, was rapidly moving rightwards. By 1951, he would sell out the wharfies in their epic battle against the government.

What makes the Wellington seafarers’ resolution so significant is that, in my view, they had a clearer perspective than the great revolutionaries Trotsky and James P Cannon, who refused to condemn the invasion of Finland in their intra-Trotskyist polemics. (Although in his public writings, Trotsky was far more critical of the USSR’s invasion.)

Walsh was already an irredeemable bureaucrat in 1939. He was never likely to play a progressive role in politics, and his correspondence with Trotsky is more of a historical curiosity than anything else. What is important, though, is that the resolution was moved discussed and voted for at a meeting of rank and file workers at a crucial point in history. As such,the record of the seafarers’ position stands as a tantalising glimpse of the “Third Camp” politics that might have been in Aotearoa.

Sources:

Evening Post http://bit.ly/WyWr5z

Graeme Hunt Black Prince: the biography of Fintan Patrick Walsh

Campaign for a living wage

sfwu

by Ian Anderson

Working people are encouraged to accept the idea they should give a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. The problem with this is that within the capitalist system – even in the most developed economies – workers do not receive fair wages. This is because the economic basis of capitalism is that the wage rates (the price of a workers’ labour power) paid by employers are less than the amount of value produced by the worker. That is inherent within capitalism, it is how the employing capitalist class makes profit form the working class.

Under genuine socialism the working class majority would control the value it produces instead of that surplus value turned into profits for private capitalists.

While socialists are in favour of getting rid of the capitalist wage system we are also integrated in collective organisation around immediate demands for improved wages. The struggle for improved wages is not just morally correct. It leads to socialist and revolutionary conclusions at junctures where capitalism can’t meet the wage needs and demands of the masses of workers. So while we can’t win a “fair wage” under capitalism, socialists must support campaigns for improved wages and should endeavour to be at the forefront. Recent ‘Living Wage’ campaigns have sought to improve wages for the growing working poor in Aotearoa.

Service-sector unions have a key role to play in campaigns for living wages, as the service sector is particularly affected by casualisation and declining real wages. In recent years, Unite (a relatively newer union for underemployed workers, with its base in the fast food sector) and the Service and Food Workers Union (a more established hospitality union, affiliated to the Labour Party) have run nationwide campaigns for a living wage. [Read more…]