TERRORISM
left-wing ignorance
Carlos Guarita/Reflex Reagan administration's counter-revolutionary crusade. But, argues COLIN SMITH, it is not enough for the left to oppose Office his administration's main foreign policy concerns have been to restore the political, economic and military predominance of the US over the rest of the capitalist world and in particular over the sometimes rather recalcitrant allies in Western Europe. From the imposition of cruise missiles and support for Star Wars to full con- nivance in the attack on Libya the Thatcher government has been a wil- ling helpmate in the revival of Ameri- can power. It is no surprise therefore that Thatcher has also been the most enthusiastic champion of Reagan's ideological offensive on terrorism in the prime ministerial offices of Eu- rope. It is one of the most obvious aims of Reagan's offensive to use terrorism as a means to rob the popular struggles 20 for national liberation of their political
Brute force and "The fight against terrorism' has become the slogan of the Reagan. It has to work out its own attitude to the reality of terrorism, and not be seen to condone or support it. EVER SINCE Reagan sat in the Oval and moral legitimacy; to attempt to criminalise before Western public opi- nion all movements currently engaged in forms of armed struggle as well as most of those countries in the Third World who have in recent history overthrown imperialist backed re- gimes — Cuba, Nicaragua, Angola for example. Discussion as to the condi- tions and causes that lie behind armed struggles are violently suppressed. When George Schultz was urged recently by the Yugoslav foreign min- ister to look into the causes for Palesti- nian violence he fell into a fit of rage, pounding the table he announced "There is no connection with any cause - it's wrong'. Under this sort of schema the sole perpetrators of armed violence are evil men and women manipulated by anti-American, mostly pro-Sovie states (Reagan gave the list in July 1985 - Libya, Cuba,
North Korea, Nicaragua and Iran to which must now be added Syria) behind which looms the evil of evils, the Soviet Union
The Reaganite anti-terrorism offensive however has been given the aura of legitimacy not just by denouncing liberation movements as 'terrorists' but by the fact that there is such a thing as terrorism, and many of its actions are rightly abhored by ordinary people. In order for socialists to combat the Reagan-Thatcher offensive, it is necessary to clearly distance ourselves from terrorist actions, and to point out the difference between the small and isolated terrorist groups and mass liberation movements.
Among those who fall under the
International No 8 January/February 1987
catch-all of 'terrorism', it is possible to discern a variety of very different movements. First, there are genuinely terrorist groups, which may claim to act on behalf of the working class or 'the people', but are in fact elitist, militaristic sects with no or little connection with the workers movement. These include the Red Army Faction in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, or 'Action Directe' in France.
Then there are groups which have their origins in national liberation movements, which have subsequently degenerated into pure terrorism, and may be manipulated by state security agencies. The Abu Nidal group, operating out of Syria and at the behest of the Syrian security services is a classic International No 8 January/February 1987
example.
Third are genuine national liberation mcments utilising armed struggle as an adjunct to mass political struggle - the Provisional IRA and ETA in the Basque country fall into this category
In addition to this list are right wing terrorist groups trying to create a 'state of tension' provoking repression against the left — the bombings carried out by Italian fascist groups in the early 1970s are examples of this.
The groups which really are terrorist', even when made up of sincere militants who are not manipulated by state agencies — and this was certainly the case with the Red Army faction and the Red Brigades during their
WIMPY Carlos Guarita/Reflex The Oxford Street Wimpy bombing. initial stages — almost by definition fall prey to militarist deviations. In other words, they fall into the trap of judging everything by military 'success' abstracted from political considerations.
The need to preserve secrecy, protect safe houses, carry out bank raids to get money and conduct raids on arsenals to get weapons become the prime considerations. Military organisation inevitably produces a commandist structure which prevents any debate on political objectives, let alone a dialogue with currents in the workers movement.
This invariably produces an arrogant and contemptuous attitude to the workers movement itself and all forms 21
U of legal political activity. More and
'left wing' terrorist groups get cut off from their original objectives, and become prey to being used directly or indirectly by the state — either diagents, or indirectly through being the excuse for introducing repressive legislation. Inevitably such groups substitute themselves for the organised political activity of the working class. And often workers themselves can become the victims of terrorist bombings and shootings.
Armed actions by working class organisations where there is a military dictatorship, or indeed the activity of 'urban guerrillas' in Latin are a more complex question. example, in Chile today both Manual Rodriquez Patriotic Front) and the MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) carry on some armed
aside the overall politics of both these parties, with which we sharply disagree, ciple it is not incorrect to wage an armed struggle as an adjunct to, part of, an overall struggle to bring
The point here is that such activity must contribute to, rather than obstruct, the self-activity and organisation of the working class. Military activity of this sort has to be understandable both by working class militants and broader sectors of the workers movement. El Salvador is a clear case of the integration of armed struggle and mass organisation.
In general, armed activity, even by organisations with mass support, will not be understandable when there are
democratic liberties mass political action and workers self-organisation to take place. In such circumstances armed action often degenerates and brings down harsh repression. A classic example is the fate of the Montoneros, the left wing Peronist urban guerrillas in Argentina. power of Peron in 1973 the Montoneros built mass support, organised in broad fronts for youth, workers and other groups. Peronist demonstrations were often dominated by the Montoneros — to the fury of the trade union bosses and Peron roundly denounced them.
But the Montoneros continued their clandestine urban guerrilla struggle.
their armed was taken over by military rather than 'politicos'. Indeed state repression led to the deaths of most of the more experienced political leaders. The guerrillas turned to executions of corrupt trade union bosses, actions not understood by the workers. internal discipline led to executions of 22 guerrillas who had given away infor-
P P E M mation under torture. And the needs of being militarily successful overrode political considerations.
Instead of activity aimed at preparing the workers, politically and militarily, for an impending military coup, the Montoneros, and the smaller ERP 'Guevarists', acted on the illusion that the guerrillas themselves could confront the full military might of the
When the army coup actually came in 1976 this proved to be a hopeless illusion. In fact the guerrilla war had demoralised and disorientated the mass of the working class, leaving them 'softened up' for the full savagery of the army's 'dirty war; after 1976 when up to people were slaughtered by the military.
A similar balance sheet could be drawn up of other urban guerrilla groups, such as the Uruguayan Tupamaros, an organisation which waged perhaps the most successful urban guerrilla struggle in the 1970s, but which was incapable of turning large scale but passive support into mass political organisation of the workers.
subordinating. armed action to mass organisation and political objectives must also apply to national liberation movements, even if
terrorism if often the
price for the failure of
workers' struggles their armed struggle is already complemented by organisation. Otherwise, bombings and shootings can be turned into political weapons in the hands of reaction. It is hard to explain for example what political purpose the IRA Birmingham bombings in 1974 served and how they contributed to the defeat of British imperialism.
Although it would be dangerous to adopt alarmist positions on the current influence of this Reaganite offensive, it is undoubtedly true that such terrorist activities such as hijackings, kidnapping hostages, apparently random bombings and shootings - particularly of civilians — are met with revulsion by the great majority of people in Western Europe. These events have more than a passing resemblance to atrocities of gang warfare and the mafia especially to an audience that has little or no real experience of the bloody brutalities of the class struggle and daily life in for example the Middle East or parts of Central and South America. The fact that these acts are committed in the name of 'national liberation' or of 'socialist revolution' does not at all mean that there is not more than a kernel of moral and political truth in his popular detestation.
N
In this situation what should the position of socialists and Marxists be? We are faced here perhaps with a Scylla and Charybdis between which we must steer. On the one hand we must avoid giving any credence to the ideo-
offensive of Reagan Thatcher which would promote reaction and be tantamount to reneging on our duty to build support for genuine struggles for national liberation and
On the other hand we must also keep away from seeming in any way to condone the activities of such terrorist groups as the Abu Nidal faction, The Red Army Faction in West Germany or Action Directe in France.
Terrorism is often the price which the workers movement or national liberation movements pay for failure. The Red Brigades in Italy arose out of the frustration of a decade of titanic struggles which, because of the suffocating influence of the Italian Communist Party, resulted in very little in terms of advance for the left. And obviously the turn of some sections of the Palestinian movement towards terror tactics is a product of the defeat of more than a decade of armed struggle, and the desperation which the repeated massacres of Palestinians have wrought among many in the Palesti-
Thus in distancing ourselves from terrorism, socialists have to point the finger at those who are the real underlying cause of terrorist activity - in the first place imperialism, and particularly United States imperialism itself. The hypocrisy of Reagan waging a crusade against 'terrorism' while supporting the contras in Nicaragua
dozens of similar counterrevolutionary cut-throat movements will not be lost on either readers of this journal, or millions of people world-
Even if we oppose terrorism on political and even moral grounds, the opposition of socialists is not equivalent to pacifism and disavowal of all use of arms. In crimes against the innocent, in crimes against humanity, in the spilling of blood by the millions of bucketfuls, imperialism has nothing to teach even the most wanton and reckless terrorist. The use of force is an inevitability in bringing down this system of organised butchery. But in attempting to turn this fact into a guide to immediate action, whatever the circumstances, terrorism results in violence using the wrong methods, at the wrong time, and often against the wrong people.
Those who practice it are the enemies of revolutionary socialism, which is based on the notion that the liberation of the working class is the activity of the working class itself - not that o: self-proclaimed armed vanguards. d
International No 8 January/February 19:
M
The news that the United
States has sold weapons to
'terrorist' Iran has caused a
scandal of near-Watergate
proporations, which
threatens to destabilize the
Reagan presidency. What
lies behind the decision to
sell arms to Iran. PAUL
LAWSON investigates.
PRESIDENT REAGAN'S administration is now embroiled in a scandal which threatens to become as serious as the Watergate scandal did for Nixon. The root cause is the same — secret operations carried out illegally at the behest of the President and his advisors. And the response of the administration has also been the same — an attempt to sacrifice lower-ranking officials to guard the President and his immediate circle of advisors. The whole affair casts a cruel spotlight on the way that the administration works and its real foreign policy objectives. In particular it exposes the hypocrisy of the 'antiterrorist' offensive launched by Reagan.
The basic facts of the Iran operation are not now in doubt. The US government has been selling arms to Iran for over a year. It has probably encouraged the Israelis to sell arms to the Iranians for the past five years. An attempt has been made, via the bizarre visit to Tehran by ex-National Security Advisor Robert MacFarlane to develop more friendly relations with sections of the Iranian government. A huge slush fund from the arms profits has been used to finance the contras and CIA-backed right wing insurgents in Angola and Afghanistan.
Why should the US want to sell arms to Iran? After all, when the Gulf war began, many people suspected the US of covert support for the Iraqis. The answer to this is twofold. First, it is now obvious that only Iran can win the Gulf war - it certainly cannot lose it. Huge reserves of Iranian manpower have been bloodily sacrificed in the war to overcome the Iraqi advantage in weapons. This has pushed the Iraqis onto the defensive and wrecked their economy. There is little doubt that Iran will emerge as the strongest power in the Gulf region. It will be better for the US to do business with the Iranians than see them develop better links with the Russians who share their northern border.
Thus the explanation given by Reagan that he was seeking to develop better relations with Iranian 'moderates' is probably genuine. But it is more complicated than that. Israel has 23
----- pull-quotes on this page ----- IRANGATE Top left clockwise: North, Poindexter, Shultz and McFarlane testify All the