This, according to legend, was the cause of the Trojan war. Whether true or not, what we can say in the modern era is that the face of major war is now the ugly face of capitalism at its highest stage: imperialism. There is a massive media industry employed by the controllers of capital, working day and night, to define the narrative differently. Nevertheless, it still remains as the German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote in the 19th century that, “War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means.”
In the case of the Western powers led by the US, state policy remains as Lenin noted in his seminal work: the creation and maintenance of a world order that facilitates the export of finance capital in order to exploit labour and natural resources across the rest of the globe. To do so entails ensuring compliance with this system by all those countries not part of the privileged sphere. Being forced to accept this situation, the people of less well-off countries suffer serious social and economic disadvantage. Failure to comply with the diktats of imperialism, however, results in heavy-handed economic and/or military sanction.
At this point it is worthwhile reflecting on James Connolly’s assessment that governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class. Capitalist governments led by the USA, therefore, see as a major priority the need to enforce the West’s global military domination as a necessary step towards preventing or challenging their ability to exploit what they like to call the Third World.
With this insight in mind, the rationale underpinning the current campaign by the US and EU to curtail the ever increasing economic and thence political influence of China becomes clearer. A campaign that is now being augmented by a brazen military threat as the US surrounds the PCR with a ring of military bases. Not that the imperialists confine their “projection of power” to the East. A NATO proxy war in Ukraine and now backing a genocidal campaign against Palestinians are but the latest conflict zones in an ongoing series of hostilities across every continent.
It hardly needs saying that Washington and its allies do not state publicly the underlying rationale behind their foreign policy and most certainly never explain the real reason for their never-ending series of wars. Were they to do so, it would most surely lead to problems with their own electorates. Evidence of this fact can be seen in the huge demonstrations in the US and UK demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, in spite of unqualified support by Biden and Sunak for the murderous Israeli assault.
The role of the West’s mainstream media in promoting acceptance and tolerance for their government’s military operations is of such significance that these agencies have to be seen as an integral part of the imperialist war machine. Media coverage is at best tendentious when not downright partisan.
Nor is the Irish state broadcasting company, RTÉ, free from being complicit in this strategy. The station rarely fails to refer to the “’Hamas-run’ health agency in Gaza” or neglects to mention the 7th October casualties when reporting the infinitely greater number of Palestinian dead. How monotonous too have become the repeated phrases, “Iranian-supported Hezbollah”, “Iranian-backed Houthi”… Yet when did we last hear of the US-supported, -equipped, -financed and -protected state of Israel?
The danger inherent in such slanted reporting is obvious. In the absence of a rounded and complete picture being provided to the public, warmongering governments are subject to few if any restraints. On one hand it misleads many in the West to accept their states’ spurious narrative “justifying” the aggression. Perhaps still more dangerous is that this misinformation leads to a sense of semi-complacency in that all too many underestimate the real risk of a global conflagration placing the very existence of the human species in doubt.
In this context it is useful to consider what is referred to as the Thucydides Trap. Based on observations made by an ancient Greek historian, the theory indicates that when a superpower’s position of supremacy is threatened by an emerging power, there is a significant likelihood of war between the two. The theory has received renewed interest in academic and military circles over the past decade in light of the above-mentioned growth of China’s influence on the world stage.
And while the concept has its critics and sceptics, it does nevertheless merit a serious hearing within wider society. After all, what is the purpose behind the US military encirclement of China and in time, will this situation become ever more fragile and fractious? Not only is it increasingly likely that the Chinese economy will outperform all others but there is also a definitive shift in global relations and alliances.
Exemplifying this transfer of allegiance is the growing influence of the BRICS group of countries, a fact reinforced recently by the South African government lodging a case with the International Court of Justice against US protectorate, Israel. Taken together, these two events alone can pose a challenge for contemporary capitalism with its dependency on financialisation, as G7 countries have shifted away from industrial capitalism.
Against this rather depressing backdrop it is important to review the prospect for peace. There is, after all, significant and energetic peace movements in many countries constantly making solid and unanswerable arguments against the horrors of war. Moreover, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets across the imperialist West demanding a ceasefire in Gaza.
The question is, though, whether such expressions of moral outrage will be sufficient to prevent an all-consuming conflict? Historical precedent offers little comfort. Most likely it will require direct involvement by the working class through grassroots organisations such as trade unions taking industrial action to prevent the movement of troops and munitions.
In Ireland, a good start would be firstly to fight to retain the Triple Lock on neutrality and second, to ensure the closure of the NATO military bases in Shannon and Aldergrove.
 |
Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. He is author of The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection to Parliament. Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney |
" How monotonous too have become the repeated phrases, “Iranian-supported Hezbollah”, “Iranian-backed Houthi”… Yet when did we last hear of the US-supported, -equipped, -financed and -protected state of Israel?"
ReplyDeleteMuch like the BBC referring to just "Republicans" but always "Loyalist Paramilitaries" since at least the 90's I remember. "Othering" is always done.
"Not only is it increasingly likely that the Chinese economy will outperform all others but there is also a definitive shift in global relations and alliances."
Nope, China's economy is perilous which is even more concerning. State bail outs of reckless property developers like Evergrande have shown the Chinese ruling class, those with wealth in China and the rest of the world how fragile it is. In the past 12 months they have begun once again to shift their own personal capital out of China and into the Australian property market for one, leading to ridiculous property price rises once again. This point isn't lost on Xi. At this stage it looks increasingly likely that he will make a concerted effort to take Taiwan for many reasons, among them being that war is good for their economy particularly the manufacturing base and also it would cement his place in history...something that appeals to his sense of nationalistic pride.
The BRIC group is interesting. Russia is a petrol station, Brazil exports sugar, soy beans and inferior grade Iron Ore (compared to Australia-this is why China relies on Oz Iron Ore so much), India refines oil into various products including petrol and China manufactures goods using stolen intellectual copyrighted goods from the West with practically zero innovation themselves. All of them are capitalist too, so I'm not sure how they could be construed as a threat to Capitalism. ( Yes, maybe a few autocracies there) Sure, Putin may have been on Carlson whining about the West being over but what great Russian invention has revolutionized life as we know it in the past 50 years? They are a petrol station for the rest of the world and that's about it.
There's a reason so many of their people want to live in the West and its a lot to do with how those countries are run. Get rid of the NATO Bulwark and be overrun by a vastly more numerous Russian army populated by their very worst prisoners. No thank you.
Footnote; Vladdy just murdered another political opponent without hesitation. Not a care what anyone would think.
DeleteSteve - I share your resiling from autocratic regimes. BRIC is just another capitalist enterprise. Because it is anti-West is no good reason to welcome it. We could support ISIS on that basis. But the West's endorsing of the genocide in Gaza has in my view the potential to cause it a crisis of legitimacy. Many people are likely to think if democracy commits or enables genocide then the fear of the autocrats becomes attenuated
DeleteHow can the West seriously criticise Putin yet endorse Netanyahu?
It is a despairing political age we live in. I have virtually no confidence that the future will serve up a decent world for our children. So disheartening.
All we can do is instill a sense of decency in our children coupled with compassion and a distrust of politicians Anthony. Anything else feeds the machine. Netanyahu gets the "Look the other way" endorsement from the majority of the West as the memories of those ISIS videos of decapitation and murdering of prisoners in hideously gruesome ways are still fresh in the memory. I know that ISIS and Hamas aren't the same thing but that's a point lost on the People, and when we saw dead naked teenagers being dragged from a concert into the back of a jeep with armed Jihadis the issue became mute as to the difference. The West simply didn't care what went on in Gaza up until that point and the massive Israeli reaction was expected though perhaps not this level of carnage against civilians. The horror is the dawning of realisation that the Israelis are not stopping until its a waste land. They should be made to pull out and the UN go in, but even if that happened I can't see Israel reconnecting the supply of electricity and water to what it considers an existential threat.
Delete' Steve R
ReplyDeleteFootnote; Vladdy just murdered another political opponent without hesitation. Not a care what anyone would think.'
That's according to 'Vladdy's' opponents who are not too saintly themselves when it comes to political prisoners welfare. Navalny, was funded by the West in order to do a Ukraine in Russia I.e overthrow govts the West didn't want to work with/ or couldn't bully. P.s I found his so called claim of survival from novochok poisoning quite amusing......I thought a mere droplet of that poison was lethal and yet 'Vladdy' managed to balls it up?lol
@Mick0 it's well established that Navalny was poisoned. That was the diagnosis by doctors first at Omsk, then when he was flown to the Charité Hospital in Berlin. Toxicology tests confirmed her had been poisoned with Novichok nerve agent, a favourite of Putin's operatives.
DeleteIt's illustrative of the decay and degradation of the Russian state that Putin is assassinating potential rivals (Prigozhin, Navalny) so openly. At least in the USSR days the state felt compelled to legitimise executions of dissidents through show trials. There was a nominal adherence to the law.
Who is going to investigate these murders? Nobody.
Bleakley, while I am reserving judgement on what happened to him in the prison, there is no room for doubt about him having been poisoned on the plane. The Bellingcat investigation was forensically brilliant.
DeleteBleakley,
DeletePutin didn't think twice about using a nuclear isotope to poison an opponent on UK soil so any attempts by anyone to suggest he wouldn't murder on Russian soil is just plain daft.
So Mick is happy with the murder of dissidents just so long as the regime is anti-Western. Putin is an SOB but he is Mick''s and so many other far right and far left cranks' SOB.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't argue with any of my points either. NATO is still a bloody good idea in the face of autocratic bully boys.
DeleteObviouslky he was murdered. Can I mention a mass murder on Gazan scale? That of the Chechens, destroyed and a repressive regime installed.The Punitistas will say that the Chechens were Jihadis, in a parallel description used by the Zionists to describe all Palestinian resistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_genocide
ReplyDeleteI think the first instinct is that he was murdered. But 'obviously' is not a term I think adds anything. It's a mere expression of opinion. I have that opinion also but 'obviously' requires evidence.
DeletePutin's war on Chechnya was every bit as bad as Israel's on Gaza. But his war on Ukraine is not as bad. Doesn't make it any more right. And the antipathy to his war is likely to lessen given the West's stance on Israel. Ukrainians can count themselves somewhat fortunate that it is Russia attacking them rather than Israel. We can just imagine the scale of child murder were the Hindley and Brady brigades let loose in the country as they have been in Gaza.
Cam Comments
ReplyDeleteNavalny’s demise in prison seems unusual in that his mother who visited him or spoke to him a few days before has stated he was in good spirits and not anxious about anything so it would appear he was unawares of any potential attack on him….
Now, personally, when I think of Khashoggi and his murder directed by the Crown Prince and who the CIA publicly pointed the finger at and Biden’s recent remark about retribution on those who harm any Americans (specifically if you’re Iranian) I can’t for the life of me recall the Americans bombing Saudi Arabia when one of their citizens, i.e., Khashoggi was ‘harmed’ by being murdered. In fact, what I do recall is the American State dept working around the clock to get the Crown Prince of the hook and eventually succeeding by telling him to make himself Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia and thus protecting himself diplomatically from international prosecution…no fear of being arrested if he should travel outside of Saudi Arabia and in return the Crown Prince being a man of great integrity signed the pro-Israeli accord…job done!
So, based on this international hypocrisy, the current outrage by the hypocrites of the West (those same hypocrites of the West who bemoan the suffering of the Israelis in Gaza) and the moral high ground being too steep to climb, is criticism of Navalny’s demise, like Khashoggi’s, simply in the moment, an act of pretentious foreign policy outrage rather than genuine political empathy?
The legacy of Navalny’s demise will be determined solely on the well established international diplomatic policy of ‘What’s in it for me’…….he, Navalny, himself, is unimportant as is his family, both for the short-term being ‘political sticks’ to beat Putin with but word has it he has a very broad back. Trump will certainly not bemoan his passing!