Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Archive for the ‘International’ Category

Corbyn in Backstairs Dealing with Tories to Try for ‘Soft Brexit’.

with 5 comments

Yet Corbyn is widely reported to be doing everything he can to save Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn has said he will work with Conservative MPs to try to avert a no-deal Brexit.

The Labour leader met with senior Tories Sir Oliver Letwin and Nick Boles on Wednesday to discuss their plan for a softer Brexit.

Speaking afterwards, he said he was “reaching out to all groups in parliament” and “looking at all the options” to prevent no deal.

It comes with talks between the UK and EU deadlocked and just days left for Theresa May to secure new compromises before MPs vote against on her deal next week.

Independent.

Sienna Rodgers writes on Labour List.

All options are on the table. Some commentators and members are surprised – or perhaps just disappointed – that this remains the case: they expected that the twice-defeated Labour Brexit deal would be shelved by the party once support for another EU referendum was declared. But the leadership has made it clear all along that it is still looking to push for an alternative that involves leaving the EU (although also willing to whip for a public vote). The main reasons are two-fold: it is opposed to the idea, on ideological and electoral grounds; and it knows that a second public vote proposal is unlikely to pass in the Commons. Jeremy Corbyn has written in The Mirror today that “getting Brexit right” is his focus.

As well as publicly campaigning for “Our Alternative”LabourList understands that the leader’s office has been quietly working with the Common Market 2.0 group to draft a new Brexit amendment. Made up of Labour’s Lucy Powell and Stephen Kinnock, plus Nick Boles, Oliver Letwin and Robert Halfon from the Tories, this cross-party initiative has been campaigning for a deal consisting of single market membership and a new customs arrangement. They say it meets Labour’s six tests and only requires changes to the political declaration in Theresa May’s deal.

Perhaps Corbyn really believes that through these attempts at  backroom deals he is doing his best to secure a deal on Brexit that meets Labour’s six tests.

But the very way this is being carried out is deeply distasteful, not in front of Labour’s membership, but with Toires, and not doubt Corbyn’s famous pro-Brexit ‘advisers’. Playing along with Labour’s Brexit supporters will raise the hackles of the wider membership as well

It is equally hard to believe, despite the pro-leadership spin,  that anything that’s the result of negotiations with the Tories will meet this “2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?” and 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

The Labour List report continues on the last issue:

People’s Vote campaigners aren’t happy, of course, and say such moves contradict the conference policy agreed in September. But others contend that the composite motion – which promised “full participation in the single market” – is actually more in line with the ‘Norway Plus’ group plan than anything else. And the leadership is keen to point out that avoiding ‘no deal’ is the priority, and if a fresh public vote proposal has no chance of securing a Commons majority, isn’t backing a softer Brexit the only way to do that? Nonetheless, Clive Lewis – who is still a shadow minister – has called the latest strategy a “grave error”. PV-ers are determined not to back any kind of Brexit now. But with around 30 on the Labour benches prepared to defy the whip to vote against PV, it will be interesting to see whether that changes. If the mood does shift after their preferred plan of another public vote is substantially defeated next week, Common Market 2.0 could be the future of Brexit.

Here is  Clive Lewis:

Here is  alternative to the ‘Soft’ Brexit Labour leader’s.

On 23 March, six days away from the scheduled exit day, hundreds of thousands of people will march to demand a final say on Brexit.

We are coming together as the left in all our diversity to organise a massive left bloc and rally for the march, to put forward a clear left message and to bring as many people as possible on to the streets.

We are campaigning to transform society, not for the status quo. We are against Brexit because it is a massive assault on working-class people, on the environment, on migrants and on the communities that the left aims to represent.

We will put forward the positive politics of internationalism: for the transformation of Europe and Britain, for free movement, for international cooperation to stop climate chaos, and for solidarity between people and across borders. We urge everyone on the left to join us on 23 March at 11am at Grosvenor Square in London.

Marsha de Cordova MP, Clive Lewis MP, Kate Osamor MP, Caroline Lucas MP, Preet Gill MP, Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP, Rachael Maskell MP, Sandy Martin MP, Rosie Duffield MP, Chi Onwurah MP, Anna McMorrin MP, Sian Berry and Jonathan Bartley Co-leaders of the Green party, Amelia Womack Deputy leader of the Green party, Manuel Cortes TSSA general secretary, Joseph Healy Principal speaker of Left Unity, Michael Chessum Another Europe is Possible, Nadia Whittome Labour for a Socialist Europe, Zoe Williams Journalist, Julie Ward MEP

Guardian. 

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

March 7, 2019 at 2:05 pm

The Brexit Left and the Legacy of the 1970s Alternative Economic Strategy.

with 8 comments

Image result for State Intervention in Industry. A Workers’ Inquiry.

A High-Point of the AES years.

The Brexit Left and the Legacy of the 1970s Alternative Economic Strategy.

“…the AES represents a transitional strategy, capable of mobilising working class struggle around immediate issues within an overall and coherent framework of advance towards socialism.”

London CSE Group. 1979. (1)

After the Brexit Referendum result, in the middle of the “birth of a post-neoliberal order” in which right-wing forces are on the rise, we were informed that the left needs a “progressive vision of sovereignty”. For some, to adapt Walter Bagehot, the dignified part of this new socialist Constitution, lies in left-wing populism. To “excite and preserve the reverence” of left-wing thinkers, there is the prospect of a collective will arise from a federated People uniting resistance to neoliberal hegemony. This will be capable of standing up to the “post-democracy” of international oligarchs. For others, the efficient mechanisms of nation states, by which this “works and rules” there is popular sovereignty to create, “democratic control over the economy, full employment, social justice, redistribution from the rich to the poor, inclusivity and the socio-ecological transformation of production and society…” (2)

To combat right-wing national populism this left must be, it is said, itself national. Tying these two strands together, standing for the “little people” against “neo-liberal internationalism” and “cosmopolitan identitarianism”, Wolfgang Streeck chooses “the reality of national democracy imperfect as it may be, over the fantasy of a democratic global society.” A key element in such an approach is said to be a break with austerity, based on command of a sovereign currency. Some, standing out perhaps from Continental left-populists who are often  guarded about sovereignty, and reluctant to leave the EU,  claim that  Brexit offers the terrain on which to offer a “radical break with neoliberalism”. Chiming with the People’s Brexit cry this should be “a radically progressive and emancipatory Brexit narrative”. Modern Monetary Theory” (MNT), has, William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi consider, is the key to such a Labour Party strategy, its financial motor, if adopted within an efficient national framework. This, they hope, may offer the prospect of Karl Polanyi’s ‘organic rationality’ to counter the logic of markets. They are among an array of writers, some with long standing hostility to the European Union, predating any views about currency, that hector doubters about the radical democratic prospects of national sovereignty. (3)

Matt Bolton and Frederick Harry Pitts made some wide-ranging criticisms of this approach. They detect a coalescence of right wing and left pro-Brexit strategies based on will and the nation. Corbynism mirrors the obsession with ‘taking back control’ which underpinned the vote for Brexit, with the two movements even agreeing on the political agent needed to wrench back that elusive control – the nation-state. Both claim to be able to free society from the necessity of living through the economic forms of capitalism through the building of national barriers. Apparently different but strangely resonant, each shows the Janus-faced indeterminacy of populism in an era of democratic crisis.” (4)

Brexit.

This is where the issue of Brexit enters. Plans based on MMT require sovereign states and sovereign money. If there is one thing that the EU is, it is a limit to such schemes. Yet, is this theory about to take earthy form? A large group, including Labour policy makers, and many who have attended talks on the matter, may be unwilling to base an anti-austerity strategy on a theoretical picture of the Production of Money. An adviser to John MacDonnell has gone so far as to comment that, “MMT is just plain old bad economics, unfortunately, and a regression of left economic thinking. An economy with its own currency may never run out of money but that money can become entirely worthless (5)

Is Labour moving in the national populist direction outlined, either positively by left theorists Mitchell and Fazi or negatively, by Bolton and Pitts? There is little sign of rage against “the moral failings of the international financial elite,” when we get down to the details of plans for an overhaul of taxation to increase revenues within a more equitable system. Nor are pondered proposals for “new models of ownership” a sweeping attempt on behalf of society to assert “social self-protection”. Indeed if anything Labour has been too cautious to offer a worked out reform of the Universal Credit system. They have preferred to float improbable limited experiments for a Basic Income – at least a more equitable idea than MNT’s “job guarantee programme” which leaves many more questions open – rather than a wholesale reform of social security.

A larger group nevertheless considers that freedom from European treaties and institutions is essential for some programmatic pillars: re-nationalisation programme, taxation and control over the financial sector and some direction of the movement of capital. Others contest that Labour’s public ownership proposals, investment and anti-austerity plans, are challenged by membership of the EU. This is strongly contested by many, above all by writers for Another Europe is Possible’s publications. Many will now point to the turbulence of the process of “transition” to Brexit. The prospect of a Hard Exit to trade on WTO rules, demanded by the Communist Party of Britain amongst others, leaves the country open to international markets, transnational companies, and states, headed by Trump’s US. Is this an escape from capitalist domination? It would seem that the principle of ‘sovereignty’ does not translate easily from political theory and Constitutional law into the world of economics and global politics. (7)

The “transition to socialism” is an uninvited guest in modern left debate about populism, Brexit and Europe. Yet there was a moment, a long moment, in the 1970s, when there appeared to be feasible plans in Britain – paralleling French Socialist, Communist and other continental European left parties’ strategic policies – that claimed to lead in that direction. The Alternative Economic Strategy (AES) was at the centre of discussion, “The AES formed the philosophical core of Labour strategy, culminating the 1973 Programme” writes Simon Hannah, “which stands as crowning moment of Labourite anti-capitalist thought.” It “was a declaration of struggle against capitalism”. Labour governments of the 1970s, it is claimed, thwarted the left’s socialist thrust. Today it is said that Brussels would play the role of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, the Parliamentary and media Right, Business, cautious trade union leaders, the IMF, and markets, all combined to face down efforts to shift power away from capitalism to ordinary people. (8)

The Rise of the Alternative Economic Strategy.

The Alternative Economic Strategy (AES) can be said to have originated in Labour policies developed after the 1970 election defeat, reflected in the 1974 election Manifesto. Elected in 1974 the Labour Party faced an economic crisis with a radical programme, including plans to nationalise 25 leading companies and the creation of the National Enterprise Board committed to “extending public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry” and “industrial democracy”. The left, with Tony Benn as Minister of Industry, Eric Heffer as his Minister of State, and Michael Meacher as his Under-Secretary, and advisers, Francis Cripps, Stuart Holland Frances Morell as advisers, had a strong, though not decisive,  presence.

Harold Wilson ignored proposals to bring companies into public ownership. After Britain voted to continue to be part of the European Economic Community in 1975, which the left had opposed, they lost their toehold in the Cabinet. The age of ‘Bennery’, best remembered as support for workers’ co-operatives Triumph Motorcycles, KME and the Scottish Daily News, to replace failing companies, had ended. Industrial strategy elements, such as the National Enterprise Board (NEB) and “voluntary planning agreements” floated around in limbo until Labour lost power in 1979. Famously Labour, faced with pressure on public expenditure, presented as severely as possible by Treasury forecasts, and the failures of income policies, gave in to a variety of interests demanding austerity. The swingeing cuts in state spending culminated in agreement to terms for an IMF loan, in 1976, which is considered the start of a shift from Keynesian economics to Monetarism.

This turn helped the development of the AES as a distinct counter set of policies. “By 1976” John Callaghan summarises, “the AES envisaged a programme of reflation and redistribution of income defended by import controls, and an extended sector of public enterprise, planning agreements and industrial democracy designed to boost investment and productivity.” In this shape the AES became the programme, of variable geometry, of the Tribune Group of Labour MPs, many trade unionists, stressing variously the manufacturing or public service aspects, and a variety of left-wing ‘think tanks’ such as the Institute for Workers’ Control, the Conference of Socialist Economists and the Cambridge Political Economy Group. It enjoyed wide backing in Constituency Labour Parties, and influenced many of the incoming ‘New Labour left’ members, including Marxists, inside and outside the party. Despite (or because of) this, Prime Ministers, James Callaghan adds, it was “effectively ignored”, amongst efforts by Tony Benn and his allies, to give some tangible ideas life. (8)

Stuart Holland began from these premises “In both domestic and international policy the modern capitalist State is plunged increasingly in the dark by the simultaneous trend to monopoly domination and home and multi-nationalism abroad. Keynesian policies are increasingly eroded both by the increased market power and self financing of the big league at home, and by their capacity to thwart government taxation, monetary and exchange policies.” The economy was weakening. The alternative, “industrial regeneration” lay in forthright measures. John Callaghan summarises, “urgent action was needed to assume control of the strong points of meso-economic sector, including its financial institutions, so that the state could a adopt new planning instruments. “The alternative was a crack down on union power and workers’ rights by a government adapted to decline by attempts to increase profitability at wage-earners’ expense.” Holland’s version of the AES focused on new public enterprise as a countervailing force to multinationals and planning through formal agreements and industrial democracy. (9)

The AES resonated widely on the left. Over the following years the AES inspired a variety of radical visions. For the London CSE Group, on the eve of Thatcher’s victory, the radical aspects of the AES offered a means to “impose greater working class political control on each of the forms of capital” and (without defining clearly what this meant) a rise in “socialist consciousness”. In their view, “the policies proposed represent a challenge to the control by capital of the internationalism of its commodity, money and productive forms, and in particular to the role of British imperialism in the world economy.” Geoff Hodgson had already argued in 1977 that that, despite Holland’s “weak” position on the state, “the only effective strategy of advance”. Core proposals, on Planning Agreements and a real National Enterprise Board, “can encourage a powerful interaction between mass struggle and legislature advance”. Hodgson continued throughout the decade to see “the Alternative Economic Strategy is a means of mobilising the working class for socialist ends.” The AES allowed many ideas to flourish. Mike Prior and Dave Purdy followed a curious byway. They proposed to develop a “socialist” social contract, based on wage and price restraint, as part of the alternative strategy to expand trade union influence and “impose conscious social regulation” on capitalism. (10)

In 1980, in the pages of International Socialism, the SWP theoretical journal, Bob Rowthorn talked of “the implementation of this programme as the first stage in a revolutionary process characterised by intense conflict and struggle.” It was both democratic containing, a “number of measures for extending the influence of the working class and its allies, and for exerting social control over the direction of the economy” and national “based primarily on changes within Britain itself, and does not consider the wider question of how to overcome the present crisis in world capitalism.” For Rowthorn, this involved “withdrawal from the Common Market”. By 1981 with Thatcher in charge, Rowthorn believed, writing in the pages of Marxism Today,  “A real challenge to capitalist power, as envisaged in programmes like the AES, can only succeed if either (1) the Left has overwhelming support in civil society — in which case the old military apparatus will disintegrate if the bourgeoisie seeks to overthrow the legitimate government by force; or (2) the Left has a strong foothold in the armed forces — in which case the Right, and its foreign allies, may be frightened to sabotage the economy, for fear of provoking a conflict which they might lose. Others had already pointed to the absence of a committed “revolutionary party” able to fulfil the promise of the AES and ward off such threats. Holland, however, had other obstacles in mind and had warned against “go it alone” Labour policies, without the backing of left parties in France and Italy, a view he was to develop in the 1980s. (11)

For some, writing after the AES had disappeared from sight in the 1980s, the strategy was bound up with the fate of efforts by Labour’s ‘transformative’ left to change the party. It marked the high-tide to, in Tony Benn’s words, “to build a bridge which links democracy with socialism and merges the arguments for one with the arguments for the other.” Inside the party it paralleled, in this view, attempts to bring together grass-roots inner-party control with a wholesale transformation of the state and economy. Yet Labour governments in the 1970s neutralised its radical thrust before, in the eyes of the left, democratic change – that is, the socialist left’s advance – inside Labour was, in the 1980s, first thwarted, and then driven back. The inability of these efforts to make headway coincided with the Callaghan government’s turn to Monetarism, described retrospectively as a “key moment in globalisation”. The strikes and party infighting that followed fuelled, it is said, the rise of Margaret Thatcher before ‘authoritarian populism’ appeared on the horizon. In response to the fall of the Labour government in 1979 and “left wing capitalism” Stuart Holland wrote of the failure “to defend their nominal autonomy” and their “capacity to command support for an autonomous development.” (12)

The issue remains, what kind of socialism was offered by this autonomous path? Government legislated planning and nationalisation, are, tradition has it, is not a socialist panacea. Benn believed that “capital” should be made “accountable to the people it employs”. “Planning agreements were to make the power of the major companies subject to the assent of the people who worked within them, without putting workers on the board.” The Trades Councils who produced the report, State Intervention in Industry (1980) pointed to the key role of “workers themselves being actively involved in formulating the policies”. Did this actually happen? Their report indicated that in practice, “The NEB distanced the government even further from shop floor representatives.” (13)

By contrast, Andrew Glyn suggested, in line forms of co-operation already existed within capitalism, ready to be taken over and perfected by social ownership Aligned to Militant at the time and critical of many aspects of the AES he stated, “As Marx pointed out in Capital, the same people who extol the organisational excellence of capitalist factories and businesses and the sophistication of the planning techniques available to the individual capitalist enterprise, also deny the possibility that the same techniques can be applied to the co-ordination of production between the different giant enterprises which dominate the economy.” Glyn continued, “why could not a workers’ government in Britain apply the same systems to planning the British economy?” (14)

This insight, awakened from the dead Engels’ Socialism Scientific and Utopian (1880). Marx’s comrade, noting the increasing “socialised means of production” and “socialised producers” at odds with private ownership. For Glyn, in today’s conditions, one could unleash the potential of these forms by a smooth ‘technical’ transition, by a legal change of ownership, to socialist relations of production. The Militant economist accomplished the not inconsiderable feat of ignoring decades of left thinking on the way the capitalist labour process meant deskilling and domination by management’s “organisational excellence”, not to mention the wishes of groups represented in the Trades Council’s Report. (15)

Despite the interest of important sections of the trade union movement, often organised through inter-union bodies such as Trades Councils, there was no mass movement inspired by the trade union leadership (anxious to negotiate with the Labour government), and only a minority interest from the rank of file, for this aspect of the AES, or for the Bullock Report on Industrial Democracy (1977). Many unions, and some on the left, saw collective bargaining as the horizon of their democratic input. Holland has since pointed out that he never channelled management’s right to manage. Workers’ rights were to remonstrate, debate, to get redress for grievances, but not to legislate over business plans or company accounting. This is an understandable pragmatic approach, but falls short of the hopes of radical AES supporters. Only in the calm of political marginalisation would prominent AES backer Geoff Hodgson write an account of how an economy might correspond to the Workers’ Inquiry’s aspirations. (The Democratic Economy. 1984)

The AES and Socialism.

How radical was the AES? Donald Sassoon wrote in his history of the European left, “to anyone willing to brush aside the fog of rhetoric …an industrial policy that is based on planning agreements and a stakeholding company is, in fact, a policy of coexistence and partnership with the private sector, aimed at improving the latter’s performance.” He observes that the AES was one of the “very few attempts by British socialism to develop an industrial strategy aimed at making capitalism more profitable.” A more balanced judgement would hold that the strategy was an effort to expand the scope of political action to change economic relations, within the boundaries of the possible. Yet, Sassoon also adds, this was not necessarily realistic: “economic independence” between countries could not be waved away. The plans were not thought through. One aspect of this stands out. What were the measures kept in reserve to prevent capital flight and financial movements that resisted attempts to “harness of the market power of big league firms”? Bob Rowthorn’s warnings about military intervention, and implicit call for a socialist armed forces strategy, aside, the example of the IMF loan, and the campaigns against ‘Bennery’ indicated that the scope for radical change within the institutions might have been narrow. (16)

It is not only historians who have poured cold water over the prospects of the AES. “It is simply not possible to make a mixed economy work in a socialist way.” wrote David Coates in 1981, “while the size of the private sector remains large and in the control of a class that is hostile to Labour radicalism, and at a time when the development of class forces has already produced serious problems of profit realisation and capital accumulation.” In other words, Britain was capitalist and had a capitalist state.

Coates developed this theme, pointing to the lack of instrument to transform this, , “…the Parliamentary Left prefer to meet the threat of the multinationals by using the power of one national state and its associated national trade unions, in spite of the vast evidence that the nation-state is less and less able to play that role effectively, and without considering that the Left’s purposes might be better served by attempting to build international linkages both within each multinational (between the workers at each plant) and between the different national trade-union centres and socialist and communist parties—linkages made possible and necessary by the interlocking nature of the capitalist economies, the similarity of the problems faced by the Western European working class, and the emergence of similar programmes to the AES in left-wing parties across the continent.” This leaves open the issue of what exactly the workers were to do to show solidarity. Yet it has the merit of pointing to the need for those who had elaborated these left programmes to work together. This has in fact happened, through the existence of the structures of the European Union, by legally empowered pan-Continental Works’ Councils, and the creation of political blocs inside the European Parliament. Open to criticism, far from solid or powerful, without a doubt, these moves are under threat by Brexit.(17)

Europe.

What of the Common Market, the European Economic Community, as the European Union was known at the time? Sassoon, and many others, observed “a staunch defence of the nation-state as the best instrument for the development of ‘socialist’ planning was part and parcel of the AES.” Looking back over the decade Stuart Hollande wrote on the “New Communist Economics” of the still substantial Communist Parties in France Spain and Italy, and noted moves, which extended to the French Parti Socialiste, towards programmes for “political and industrial democracy”, and planning embedded in the “democratisation of the economy”. Could their projects be coordinated with the UK Left? At the time European Parliamentary blocs were out of the range of sight. But alongside talk about the “transformation of capitalism” Holland did not fail to mention the need to “stem a national decline.” As Paul Auerbach underlines, behind the AES was the “implicit assertion of the possibility of economic renewal thorough unilateral national action”. (18)

Francis Cripps wrote in 1981, “The Alternative Strategy seeks to counterpose democratic national self-government against the anarchic pressures of a global market system.” “The mere fact that the Strategy is national in its scope is not sufficient to condemn it out of hand. Indeed, if successful, it would provide a progressive model for other countries with similar social and political institutions.” Leo Panitch and Colin Leys have claimed the “national policy autonomy” or national sovereignty..” “some degree of collective control over politics and society, and in particular over the flows of capital, trade and people” are pillars of left politics. (19)

There is much to say on what confronts the left today. It is clear that very few people would find much in common with the starting points for the AES. In Andrew Glyn and Bob Sutcliffe’s influential British Capitalism, Workers and the Profits Squeeze (1972) the historical decline of British decline and its profitability crisis needed a left response. Based on “converting the fight for the rights and conditions of the workers” it should lead to a “revolutionary political strategy inside the labour movement.” (20)

Instead the minds of some of the radical left today are focused on how terrible the European Union is. This is more sophisticated ways than Tony Benn’s description of Britain as a “colony” that should be “liberated” from Brussels. From the Left’s Senate, pours forth the icy realism of one of its oldest members. Waving, as one likes to imagine, his long fingernails, from the arch-conservative Paleo-Marxist bloc Perry Anderson fulminates: the EU is, “an oligarchic structure ever more indifferent to expressions of the popular will, even to legal appearances.” Economically it is a de-regulating body, the plaything of globalisation, and a facilitator of privatisation and market competition.” This space approaches the neo-liberal ideal of an economy protected from politics – the popular will. The Euro-Zone is a means to enforce not just fiscal discipline, but in the case of countries burdened with debt, headed by Greece, sell-offs and, more widely, austerity. Stuart Holland wakes up and concurs, “an anti-democratic disaster” that stands in the way of my “entrepreneurial state” ! (21)

Blue Labour fellow travellers William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi. The Socialist Workers Party imagines another Europe, but Callinicos warns, this “will be achieved through breaking the autocratic, neoliberal structures of the EU, not by pursuing the Utopia that they can reformed.“ (22)

And yet, Europe itself cannot be said to be Nowhere. “What makes the EEC a constraining power at the moment is not any directive from the Commission but Britain’s de facto integration in and dependence on the European Economy.” Left populism, from a splintered Podemos to a La France insoumise, dropping to 8% or less, in the polls,  is in crisis. The  demand  sovereignty resonates only  on the national populist right.The internationalists’ call to reform the institutions goes on, the march, together with our comrades in the rest of Europe, continues, through the political institutions governing this economy and above through alliances of the left and unions.  There is only one Brexit, with dreams of restored Imperial sovereignty, Popular Sovereignty, a People’s Brexit, attached. That is the only possible Brexit, one that leaves us without any hook into directing the continent, floating, as a directionless buoy, in the oceans of the world neoliberal economy. (23)

*****

  1. Crisis, the Labour Movement and the Alternative Economic Strategy. London CSE Group. Capital and Class No 8. Summer. 1979.
  2. What Is Needed Is A Progressive Vision Of National Sovereignty. Thomas Fazi. Social Europe. 19th of May 2017. Page 4. The English Constitution. Walter Bagehot. Oxford University Press. World’s Classics. 1928. Chantal Mouffe. For a Left Populism. Verso. 2018. Reclaiming the State. A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi Pluto Press. 2017. The Return of the Repressed. Wolfgang Streeck. New Left Review. 104/2. 2017. 
  3. William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi Op cit. The authors claim to be on the radical left. Their use of Polanyi draws on Blue Labour’s Maurice Glasman see: The Great Deformation Maurice Glasman. New Left Review. No 205/1, 1994. 
  4. Page 54. Corbynism: a critical approach. Matt Bolton. Frederick Harry Pitts.Emerald Publishing 2018.
  5. Cited in, Pete Green Is Labours economic policy really neoliberal? Open Democracy. 14th August 2018. See the various plans for finance and macroeconomics in The Corbyn Project. Robin Blackburn. New Left Review, 2018. 111/2.
  6. THE LEFT AGAINST BREXIT – AN INTERNATIONALIST CASE FOR EUROPE. : Britain should leave the EU on WTO terms’, Communists propose.Page 145.A Party with Socialists in it. A History of the Labour left. Simon Hannah. Pluto. 2018.
  7. Pages 57 and 59. The Retreat of Social Democracy. John Callaghan. Manchester University Press. 2000. See also: Chapter 5. The End of Parliamentary Socialism. Leo Panitch & Colin Leys. Verso. 1997.
  8. Page 32. Strategy for Socialism. Stuart Holland. Spokesman. 1975. Page 59 John Callaghan op cit.

  9. Crisis, the Labour Movement and the Alternative Economic Strategy, London, CSE Group. Capital and Class No 8. 1979. Pages 156 – 157 Socialism and Parliamentary Democracy Geoff Hodgson. Spokesman 1977. Geoff Hodgson. Britain’s crisis and the road to international socialism: a reply to Jonathan Bearman. International Socialism, 2/7 1980. On a Socialist Social Contract see: Out of the Ghetto. Mike Prior and Dave Purdy. Spokesman. 1979.

  10. Bob Rowthorn. The Alternative Economic Strategy.International Socialism. Spring 1980. Bob Rowthorn The Politics of the Alternative Economic Strategy Marxism Today. January 1981.The Eclipse of Politics: the Alternative Economic Strategy as a Socialist Strategy. Donald Swartz. Capital and Class. No 13. 1981.

  11. See The Impasse of Social Democratic Politics. Leo Panitch. Socialist Register. 1985/86. Merlin. Page 244 Stuart Holland. Capital, Labour and the State. In: What Went Wrong, Explaining the Fall of the Labour Government, Edited by Ken Coates. Spokesman, 1979.

  12. Pages 90 to 91. Tony Benn. Interview with Eric Hobsbawm. In The Forward March of Labour Halted? Eric Hobsbawm. Verso. 1981. Page 9. Pages 96 and 157 – 8. State Intervention in Industry. A Workers’ Inquiry. Coventry, Liverpool. Newcastle N. Tyneside Trades Councils. 1980. Russell. 

  13. Andrew Glyn. Capitalist Crisis: Tribune’s ‘Alternative Strategy’or Socialist Plan. Militant Pamphlet, 1979. Stuart Holland said in 2017. “One of the main claims about my proposals in the 1970s was the allegation that I wanted civil servants to run industry. I didn’t and I don’t. They’re not qualified, not up to it. You need professional managers (my emphasis) in holding companies with a strategic remit from the government. I made that argument in shaping the case for the National Enterprise Board, submitting that the NEBshould have such a remit for six main roles, including regional development, gaining direct information on the cost and profit structures of big business, using this to counter transfer pricing by multinational companies, locating more R&D in the UK, as well as long-term innovating investment not influenced by the short termism of stock markets.” Martin O’NeillStuart Holland Hope amidst despair?Renewal. Col 25. 34.

  14. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific Friedrich Engels. Various Editions.

  15. Page 525. One Hundred Years of Socialism. Donald Sassoon. Fontana Press. 1996.

  16.  Labourism and the Transition to Socialism. David Coates. New Left Review. 1/129. 1981.

  17. The New Communist Economics. Stuart Holland. In Eurocommunism. Myth or Reality?Paolo Filo della Torre, Edward Mortimer, Jonathan Story, Penguin 1979. Paul Auerbach. The Left Intellectual Opposition in Britain 1945 – 2000: the Case of the Alternative Economic Strategy. Socialist History Society Conference. September 26-7 2003.

  18. Francis Cripps. The British Crisis—Can the Left Win? New Left Review 128/1 1981. Page 170. The End of Parliamentary Socialism. Leo Panitch & Colin Leys. Verso. 1997.

  19. Pages 215 – 6. Andrew Glyn and Bob Sutcliffe British Capitalism, Workers and the Profits Squeeze . Penguin. 1972.

  20. Page 539. The New Old World. Perry Anderson. Verso. 2009.  Martin O’NeillStuart Holland Hope amidst despair? Renewal. Col 25. 34.

  21. Why the Left Should Embrace Brexit. Thomas Fazi and William Mitchell. Jacobin. 29.4. 2018. The Internationalist case against the European Union. Alex Callinicos. International Socialism No 148. 2015.

  22. Vol. 2. Page 284. Marx’s Capital and Capitalism Today. Antony Cutler, Barry Hindess, Paul Hirst and Athar Hussain. Routledge. 1978

Protests in Algeria against President Bouteflika’s bid for a fifth term.

leave a comment »

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "algerie manifestations"

No to a 5th Presidential Term for Bouteflika.

Fresh protests against fifth term for Bouteflika in Algeria

France 24 reports.

Hundreds of people demonstrated on Sunday in the Algerian capital against President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s bid for a fifth term, as the ailing leader was scheduled to go to Switzerland for a medical checkup.

Police sprayed tear gas, brought in a water cannon and rounded up several people as shopkeepers pulled down their shutters, an AFP journalist said.

But turnout was much lower than on Friday when tens of thousands took to the streets including in Algiers, where demonstrations are strictly banned.

Security forces arrested more than 40 people after that protest, which saw police fire tear gas to block a march on the presidential palace, prompting demonstrators to respond with stone-throwing.

….

Bouteflika, who uses a wheelchair and has rarely been seen in public since suffering a stroke in 2013, announced on February 10 that he will run for another term in office.

The president’s office has announced that Bouteflika will travel to Switzerland on Sunday for “routine medical checks” ahead of the April 18 presidential election.

He has had a long battle with illness and has frequently flown to France for treatment.

Bouteflika is Algeria’s longest-serving president and a veteran of its independence struggle who has clung to power since 1999 despite his ill health.

Les manifestations se multiplient en Algérie contre le pouvoir en place. “Pouvoir, Assassin”, “Il y en a marre, il y en a marre, il y en a marre de ce pouvoir” ou encore “Ni Bouteflika, Ni Saïd” chantaient les manifestants réunis dimanche à Alger.

 

Written by Andrew Coates

February 25, 2019 at 1:25 pm

As Tory Crisis Turns to Jeeves and Wooster Farce Labour Should Fight Brexit in Campaign for Election.

with one comment

Image result for gussie fink nottle quotes on newts

Tories Debate Theresa May’s Future and Brexit.

Fintan O’Toole considers that the paranoid fantasy behind Brexit has now turned into a Marx Brothers Farce (Brexit looks like it was written by Marx Brothers).

Turning to the classics of the labour movement others would suggest that P.G.Wodehouse offers a better guide.

Aunt Agatha May is still trying the marry the Conservatives to a Mr Withdrawal.

Tory MPs meet today at the Drones Club to decide on the fate of this leader.

Fink-Nottle Mogg (MP, Market Snodsbury) whines that the British newt industry is threatened.

Roderick Spode Johnson wants to build a Giant Collapsible Channel Bridge to stem links with Europe.

Madeleine Basset says,  ‘Today I danced on the lawn before breakfast, and then I went round the garden saying good morning to the flowers.'”

There is not the slightest likelihood of a Jeeves shimmering into view, full of fish suppers, to sort out their difficulties.

As Labour is poised to offer an alternative to the Conservatives the most important thing is to have proper left-wing policy on Brexit.

We have had enough of the Heralds of the Red Dawn of Lexit

We have had enough of those who talk of a “real” working class, the left behind, all, apparently Leavers, to lend support for their ‘raise the drawbridge on Europe.

We have had enough of the belief that a go-it-alone Socialist Britain would be a Beacon for the World.

We are fed up with the pretence that Labour will negotiate a “better deal”, slightly less ruinous than the present one.

No automatic alt text available.

Labour needs to take account of the “other Britain” of urban, multinational poor working class and lower middle class districts, and the majority of the labour movement,, across the country, which opposed Brexit. Not to mention the growing anti-Brexit constituency as a whole.

Another Europe is Possible has called for opposition to Brexit and a People’s Vote to be part of Labour’s campaign and manifesto.

This letter published in the Guardian summed up the stand:

“To quote the official policy passed at Labour conference 2018, we want “a radical government: taxing the rich to fund public services, expanding common ownership, abolishing the anti-union laws and engaging in massive public investment”.

As the party of working people, Labour must defend all the rights threatened by Brexit – workers’ rights, environmental protections, free movement. With the Tory deal published, the realities of Brexit are clearer than ever. Fighting effectively for a radical Labour government means committing to giving the people a final say, and campaigning for remain in that referendum.

In Europe, just as in domestic policy, Labour must offer a radical alternative to the status quo. Our movement must champion a revolt across the continent against austerity, neoliberalism and anti-migrant policies and for a democratic, socialist Europe.

Labour’s policy is shifting, but is not yet committed to stopping Brexit. We will continue the campaign to win Labour to a vision for a radical government leading the fight to transform Europe from within the EU. To this end, and to provide anti-Brexit Labour supporters with a platform, organising framework and programme of activity, we intend to create an independent campaigning coordination within the campaign for a Corbyn-led Labour government.

Today Paul Mason joins the debate, giving some indications of what our aims should be.

Labour should prepare to fight neoliberalism within the EU – Lexit is not an option

Paul Mason, “The cancellation of Brexit and the election of Jeremy Corbyn would transform the mood in Europe.”

At a Europe-wide level, if the UK remains, Labour should announce that, in government, it would form an alliance of left governments inside the EU pushing for the complete reform of the Lisbon Treaty. The aim would be a new treaty, removing competition rules which promote privatisation and outsourcing, and modifying the state aid rules to allow both a national and a Europe-wide industrial strategy to support high-tech jobs, innovation and growth.

As a non-Euro member, there is little a left government could do directly to counter the way Germany games the Eurozone to promote jobs and growth at home, while maintaining austerity and poverty in the periphery. But it could promote, at Commission level, the policy of fiscal stimulus designed specifically to counteract the misdesign of the single currency.

Here, the recent manifesto published by Thomas Piketty is worth a look. It proposes tax rises of €400bn, mainly on corporations and the assets of the rich, and spending the revenue on innovation, democratisation and the integration of migrants.

This manifesto took up a whole page in le Monde yesterday..((.Nous lançons aujourd’hui un appel pour transformer les institutions et les politiques européennes »)

I did not notice any British signatories…..

Yet.

The upside is that it would create, at a pan-European level, both money and democratic control for fiscal stimulus and a redistributive programme. The downside is that it is explicitly designed to avoid a “transfer union” – whereby rich countries pay for public services in poor ones. But unless it becomes a transfer union, the Eurozone is simply a union for transferring wealth and growth from the periphery to the north European centre.

At the very least, a left-led Labour government could constructively join the discussion around Piketty’s manifesto. Events are moving so fast, and uncertainty so high, that people have barely registered what a remarkable change for Europe the withdrawal of Article 50 would be.

A left-wing Labour government, with a mandate to cancel Brexit and reform the EU, would radically transform Europe. Because, whatever happens to Piketty’s plan, it would come to power on a programme of fiscal expansion and redistribution, intending to overcome any Brussels-mandated obstacles to nationalisation and industrial policy. It would change the atmosphere. It would empower the parties of the left at national level, and could immediately engage Labour-controlled cities with the innovative left administrations of Barcelona, Berlin and Amsterdam.

There are many obstacles to cross: May has to go, her deal has to be defeated, the Tory party has to fall apart and – either in an election or in a second referendum – the xenophobic backlash has to be defeated.

But the British left has to stop dreaming about Lexit. One of the things we have genuinely learned from the process of trying to leave the EU is the extensive nature of its status as a regulatory superpower. Even a Britain ruled by the Socialist Workers Party and the Morning Star would find itself forced to comply with Commission directives. Paradoxically, a left exit from Europe is only possible if Europe itself goes left.

For two-and-a-half years Labour has dutifully and painfully tried to make Brexit work. But parliament has been sidelined, time has run out, and the space for a Labour-designed version of Brexit has disappeared. If anybody has betrayed Brexit it is Theresa May. Once her deal is thrown out, the moral authority of the 2016 referendum evaporates. It’s then either no deal or no Brexit.

And if it’s no Brexit, watch the blood drain from the faces of European neoliberalism: I’ve been with Jeremy Corbyn as he’s hit both Brussels and the Hague with messages of uncompromising clarity: neoliberalism is over, austerity is a catastrophe. But to the stunned audience of centrist social democrats, Corbyn’s words always seemed like a message from afar. If we play this right, we can take it into the heart of Europe.

Exactly.

Communist Party of Britain Calls for “Mass Campaign” for “People’s” Brexit.

with 5 comments

“Deluded deliberations of ‘left-wing’ and liberal remainers” says Communist Stalwart.

An emergency resolution submitted by the party’s Oxford branch said the agreement would “prevent our country from adopting any radical programme that would reassert workers’ rights, require firms to adopt mandatory sectoral collective bargaining and enable industrial regeneration through state aid and the comprehensive public ownership of utilities.

“It is a charter for big business, as set out by the government’s business advisory council, and principally designed to protect financial services” at the expense of other sectors of Britain’s economy.

The congress rejected arguments that the agreement should be accepted as preferential to bids by Labour’s right wing, the Liberal Democrats, Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the Greens to reverse the electorate’s 2016 decision to leave the EU, with mover Dave Stavris arguing that it would preserve all the worst aspects of EU membership.

And London district’s Alex Gordon quoted the Morning Star to the effect that, rather than Ms May’s deal being described as “Brexit in name only” it should be labelled Leave in Name Only — “if you’re lino they’ll walk all over you.”

But the party vowed to oppose both the deal and undemocratic efforts to keep Britain in the EU, saying that the left should fight for a general election to return a left-led Labour government that “meets the needs of working people and frees us to initiate international relations based on co-operation and peaceful development.”

Party members would work to build a mass campaign for a People’s Brexit and congress called for a big turnout for People’s Brexit launch meetings in London and Halifax this Thursday.

Communists call for mass mobilisation against May’s bogus Brexit

The Communist Party of Britain’s allies, the “thriving through chaos” revolutionaries of  Counterfire want to make a go-it-alone Britain a “beacon of hope” for the whole world.

Britain is not leaving a progressive paradise but a bloc with chauvinistic neoliberalism hardwired into it. The left has no business defending membership and promoting reform of a rotten structure. The sooner the structure collapses the better.

The left should rather be mobilising in the streets and workplaces to scrap neoliberalism at home. That could make the island a beacon of hope for struggles on the continent and an ally of progressive peoples everywhere. The task is not easy but it faces the left in every country. We have to rise to the challenge if we do not want Britain becoming an off-shore tax haven for the super rich.

Liberals lament Britain leaving the European Union, but the politics of the bloc is increasingly right wing and nasty, argues Vladimir Unkovski-Korica

(an academic and a member of the Serbian  Marks21. Serbia is not yet a full member of the EU).

Image may contain: sky, outdoor and water

If a “mass moblisation” lights this Lighthouse, the new Pharos, what exactly is a successor to the Tory government going to do to negotiate a ‘People’s Brexit’?

Where is there own ‘draft’ of a negotiation strategy replace the May draft agreement?

Or are they too willing to tumble out into the good graces of the WTO and Trump with a ‘hard’ popular anti-austerity Brexit?

Answer comes there none.

But there is little doubt that these statements indicate yet more signs of growing polarisation in British politics.

If you want to know what these people think of the pro-European left and campaigns such as Another Europe is Possible CPB supporter Nick Wright offers a clue,

Is a 21st century National Government of class collaboration taking shape?

It is significant that liberal opinion, whether in the poisonous form of Guardian and BBC journalism or as the deluded deliberations of ‘left-wing remainers,’ is most implacably opposed to the stand taken by the Labour leadership on these issues.

The sight of people who once marched against the Iraq war marching in lock step with Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, George Osbourne and David Cameron shows just how deeply embedded liberal ideas are in sections of the left.

Answer:

The Armistice and the Literature of the Great War.

with one comment

Image result for the general sassoon

Siegfried Sassoon.

 

Both of my grandfathers fought in the Great War. My English forebear was, like his brothers, a socialist and a Clarion cyclist. Perhaps inspired by Robert Blatchford’s patriotic seizure at the outbreak of hostilities, Alfred, after a few pints with his friends, walking from Bethnal Green to the City, signed up. My Scottish ancestor,  James, was also a socialist. Less taken by the fight against the Boche and a member  of the ILP, which had a strong anti-war sentiments,  he was swept up by conscription.

I properly got know Alfred when, retired from his work in the Print, and very elderly, he and his wife moved to Bounds Green in North London. He talked of Dickens (I have his complete set) and his Labour beliefs, but never spoke about his war. My mother told me that he had been so desperate in the trenches that had tried to nerve himself up to shoot himself in the foot to get out as wounded. He told her that the officers had been brave, helped by spirits. My grandmother’s first husband, of Huguenot descent like her, had been killed. Left with a small child she got no support from his family. Alfred took to her. They married and had two other children.

Neither of my grandparents ever wore a Poppy. The East Ender said once a few words, not complimentary, about the British Legion who produce them. They did not need to display one; my parents never had one: I do not need to wear one.

Some of the books and poems that we read about the Great War stay in our hearts. Sassoon’s lines in Memoirs of a Fox Hunting Man (1928) “And here I was, with my knobkerrie in my hand, staring across at the enemy I’d never seen.” The words of An Irish Airman Foresees his Death (1919) “my country is Kiltartan Cross, My countrymen Kiltartan’s poor, No likely end could bring them loss, Or leave them happier than before.” (W.B. Yeats). And the immortal, “The Old Lie: dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori. (posthumously published in 1920, Wilfred Owen).

The chapters in Robert Graves’ Goodbye to All That (1929) on his harrowing service in the first wave of the Somme offensive, holds a special place in the literature. He captures “feeling “empty and lost” amongst the slaughter, death sentences for “cowardice”, army pettiness and incompetence, alongside the soldiers’ good sense and humour. Wounded in the cemetery at Bazentin-le-petit church on 20 July 1916 These experience is complemented by the memorable pages of Vera Brittain’s Testament of Youth on her work as a nurse  in the Voluntary Aid Detachment, which took her to london, Malta and  France.

The most obvious difference with literature in French and German is that authors from these countries were writing about battles taking place on their own landscape. Barbusse’s, vivid, trench language-filled,  Le Feu: journal d’une escouade, 1916 is blood and fury. Babusse added sonorous appeals against national hatred . With its passion it stands head and soldiers over the to-be-Panthonised, Maurice Genevoix’s Ceux de 14, photographic realism, gutted of politics. Ernst Jünger’s Stahlgewittern (Storm of Steel is technically one of the finest, but politically already full of the nationalism which wroke havoc in Germany.

There is more common decency and humanity in writers such as Graves than anything that a cheap-jack journalist or ‘radical’ has written in the last few days.

Sunday, one hopes, with see these cited amongst the witnesses of the Great War.

Turkey Shells Kurds in Syria.

with 2 comments

Turkey, US finalize steps for joint patrols in Manbij

Turkey and US to Jointly Clear Northern Syrian Manbig of Kurdish YPG forces.

While the rest of the world was looking at the Khashoggi killing in the Saudi Istanbul Consulate…

The state run Turkish News Agency Anadolu announces today:

Turkey, US finalize steps for joint patrols in Manbij  Kasim Ileri

‘Mission rehearsals and interoperability training for combined patrols are complete, says Pentagon

Turkey and the United States have completed preparations for joint patrols in northern Syria’s Manbij area, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The patrols are part of a roadmap between Turkey and the U.S. that focuses on the withdrawal of forces of the PKK’s Syrian affiliate YPG to stabilize the city, which is in Aleppo province.

“Mission rehearsals and interoperability (note: ???????) training for combined patrols outside Manbij city are complete,” said Cmdr. Sean Robertson. “Both forces are resetting in order to begin combined patrols.”

Without providing an exact date, Robertson said the rehearsals were grounded in synchronizing Turkish and American forces’ ability to conduct patrols outside of Manbij.

“The mission rehearsals address safety and familiarizations (Note ??????) with combined tactical operations,” he said.

The training program included rehearsals of mounted patrol operations, weapons training, IED procedures, vehicle recovery, stabilizing traffic control points and situation de-escalation exercises.

Another spokesperson for the Pentagon, Lieutenant Colonel Kone Faulkner, said the patrols “should be in shortly.”

A defense official, who asked not to be named, told Anadolu Agency that the patrols are expected to begin in “a couple of days” or in “less than a week”.

This happened on Sunday:

Turkey Strikes U.S.-Backed Kurds After Erdogan’s ‘Final Warning’.

(Bloomberg) — Turkey fired on U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish militants in northern Syria on Sunday, moving ahead with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s vow to rout them from his country’s southern border.

Turkish howitzers targeted positions held by the YPG fighters on the eastern flank of the Euphrates River that splits northern Syria roughly into eastern and western halves, state-run Anadolu news agency said. Turkey had earlier pushed out the American allies from most of the border areas to the west of the river, seeing them as an extension of PKK separatists it’s battled for decades at home.

Sunday’s shelling, albeit limited in scope, threatens to increase tensions between Ankara and Washington, which backed the Kurdish fighters because it saw them as best equipped to drive Islamic State fighters from Syria. The attack on YPG came just two days after Erdogan accused the U.S. of stalling on a June agreement to push the group away from the town of Manbij on the western flank of the Euphrates, and said he was warning Kurdish fighters for the last time to retreat.

Turkey shells US-backed Kurdish fighters’ positions in Syria: State media.

Middle East Eye.

Turkey’s military has fired artillery shells at a Kurdish armed group in Syria that is backed by the United States but deemed a terrorist group by Ankara, state-run Anadolu news agency has reported.

The shells targeted “shelters” of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) east of the Euphrates River in the Kobane region of northern Syria on Sunday, Anadolu said.

The move comes two days after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued what he said was a “final warning” to those who would endanger Turkey’s borders, saying Ankara was determined to focus its attention on Syrian Kurdish fighters east of the Euphrates.

The bombardments also come a day after Erdogan hosted a summit in Istanbul on the Syrian conflict with the leaders of Russia, France and Germany, in which they adopted a joint statement committing to work “together in order to create conditions for peace and stability in Syria”.

The strikes targeted YPG positions and trenches on a hill near the eastern bank of the Euphrates, across the river from the city of Jarablus, AFP news agency reported.

The YPG, which has been a key ally of the US in the fight against the Islamic State group, took control of large areas of northeast Syria in 2012 as government forces pulled out to fight rebels in the west

However, Ankara is bitterly opposed to the group, regarding it as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has waged a deadly insurgency in Turkey since 1984.

The PKK is designated as a terrorist group by Turkey and its Western allies.

Washington’s support of the YPG remains a major point of contention between the US and Turkey, NATO allies who have seen relations deteriorate over the last two years.

Both oppose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but Turkey’s military incursions have recently focused more on Kurdish fighters near its border.

Turkey has launched two offensives west of the Euphrates since 2016 to repel “radical” fighters from its border and prevent zones under YPG control from joining.

The offensives include an operation against YPG forces in northern Syria’s Afrin region earlier this year, which saw thousands of Kurds displaced from their homes.

Spokesperson says Turkey violates US-Turkish agreement on Manbij

Kurdistan 24.

RBIL (Kurdistan 24) – Sharvan Darwish, spokesperson of the Manbij Military Council (MMC), on Sunday accused the Turkish-backed Euphrates Shield rebels of targeting MMC positions in Manbij and villages near the city, such as al-Harima, Kareidiya, and al-Hamran.

“A woman who was working in an olive field with her family was severely injured. This deliberate acts by these factions, acting under direct Turkish command, violate the terms of the initiative put forward by international coalition forces with the Turkish side to end tensions and conflicts, and establish security and stability in this area,” he said about the Turkish cross-border shelling that happened Sunday morning.

On June 4, Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, met with US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, where the two endorsed a “general roadmap” for Manbij that was “conditions-based,” and included the establishment of joint Turkish-US patrols on the demarcation line separating the MMC and the Turkish backed forces. So far, US troops are still in Turkey for training to create these joint patrols.

“We in the MMC, in order to create stability, have worked hard with the international coalition forces to implement this initiative, which is in the interest of our people in Manbij, specifically for the people living near the demarcation line,” Darwish explained.

“The factions operating under the banner of the Turkish army [could damage] any serious and sincere approach [by Washington and Ankara] working for the benefit of the local population,” the official warned.

He accused the Turkish-backed factions and the Turkish army of provoking tensions, which could lead to war and an “end to the stability in Manbij,” suggesting they were “tampering with civilian lives.”

The MMC “confirms to the public that repercussions to these provocations are directly borne by the Turkish military forces, which support and push these factions to carry out these acts,” Darwish argued.

“While we stress that we will take the measures required to deter these successive provocations, we ask the parties concerned to prevent escalation and tension for the Syrian situation to work.”

Darwish also noted that the current tensions were destabilization the security of Manbij, which it had not witnessed “since its liberation from Daesh [Arab acronym for IS].”

Turkish armed forces shelled the People’s Protection Units (YPG) positions east of the Euphrates River, in Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava), with Turkish state media, Anadolu Agency, claiming the attack was “within the scope of self-defense.”

The Turkish bombardments targeted “the villages of Zormikhar, Charikhli, Siftek, and Ashme, all of them located west of [Kobani], with tank, mortar, and howitzer fire,” the YPG said in a statement.

In the shelling, Mohammed Kobani, a conscript was killed in the village of Zor Maghar, and two others were injured.

The Democratic Union Party (PYD) on Sunday accused Western countries of remaining silent toward Turkish provocations and cross-border bombings following a quartet meeting between Turkey, Russia, Germany, and France on the Syrian crisis, in Istanbul.

“We emphasize that, without this position, Erdogan would have not dared to bomb northern Syria,” the PYD alleged.

“Therefore, we call on everyone not to submit to the blackmail and threat of Turkey, and to do their duty to create a solution to the Syrian crisis, without excluding the representatives of the real people of Syria,” the PYD concluded.

Editing by Nadia Riva.

Just to remind people what people in Syria have faced, the tragedy of Yazids has been put on film by the Kurdish activists.

Heartbreaking film on Ezidis introduces the Kurdistan Memory Programme

Written by Andrew Coates

October 30, 2018 at 1:47 pm