British Guiana
Recent events in British Guiana have shown us how feeble is our rulers’ real attachment to democracy. The Guianese workers are not to be allowed to support a party which might try to end the present dependance of Guianese capitalism on British capitalism, and to make Guiana instead an associate of the Soviet Union—that is to say, a party which might try to take Guiana out of one capitalist bloc and into another. There is no question at present, unfortunately, of a struggle in British Guiana between Capitalism and Socialism. According to reports from the colony, the “People’s Progressive Party,” the leaders of which have been dismissed from their positions as ministers by the Governor, is, in the terms of British politics, a cross between the Labour Party and the Communist Party; and neither of these parties is a supporter of Socialism. The policy of the “People’s Progressive Party” is the usual ragbag of reforms and improvements in capitalism: it promises better wages and housing, and is known to favour some measure of state-control over the sugar estates. Nothing in its propaganda, its policies or its activities gives it any claim to be a Socialist Party.
Reforms
Now if the “People’s Progressive Party” had kept to its reforms, it would probably have been left alone. British capitalism, and the subsidiary capitalist systems in the colonial empire, will tolerate a limited amount of reformism; in fact they work all the better for a few reforms. In the Gold Coast the Convention People’s Party is in office, in the eastern region of Nigeria the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons, and in the western region the Action Group. The People’s Progressive Party differs from these simply in the Communist affiliations of some of its leaders.
Risk of Bloodshed
It has been alleged that the action of the British Government in sending troops and warships to British Guiana, and suspending the Constitution, were prompted by a danger to life and limb within the colony. For example, the statement issued by the Colonial Office on October 6th said that there was a “risk of bloodshed” (The Times 7-10-53; following quotations are also from The Times unless otherwise stated). But this seems to be highly improbable. On October 5th, just before the troops were sent, the Times correspondent reported not the beginning but the end of a crisis; he said “the threatened constitutional crisis ended last week when the House of Assembly met . . . Elected ministers who had previously walked out from the House returned after consultation between the leader of the House, the Speaker, and the Governor.” (5-10-53). Two days later the correspondent was even more emphatic:
“Georgetown is perfectly normal and quiet to-day, and the excitement in London and elsewhere is not comprehended. There are no signs of impending crisis such as would justify a revocation of the constitution, nor of any disorder necessitating additional troops. An influx of newspaper correspondents is expected in the next few days, but they are likely to be disappointed at the absence of colourful events" (7-10-53).
The Times correspondent was even afraid that the sending of troops into a peaceful colony might alienate “moderate” opinion:
“Thoughtful observers feel that, unless the show of force is justified by the subsequent revelation of an imminent plot, it may well alienate public opinion that was turning from the P.P.P.” (8-10-53).
Thus it seems clear that there was no immediate fear of bloodshed; the ministers were sacked, the verdict of the Guianese voters was overturned, and the troops marched in solely because of the fear of the defection of the colony to another capitalist bloc.
Truth
The events in British Guiana have been instructive from another point of view. For many years "Truth” has been equalled as an object for lip-service in political speeches only by “Freedom" and “Democracy.” But to run a capitalist system without telling lies is to do the impossible. The sending of troops to British Guiana followed this approximate timetable:
October 2nd: The cruiser Superb left Bermuda for an undisclosed destination.October 4th: The Sunday papers said that the cruiser was bound for British Guiana.The Superb left Jamaica after taking on troops and refuelling. British Caribbean headquarters announced that it was to take part in manoeuvres off Jamaica on October 8th. Caribbean Area Forces headquarters denied the rumour that it had been diverted for emergency duty in the South Atlantic (6-10-53)—that is, that it had been sent to British Guiana.October 7th: The cruiser Superb arrived in British Guiana.
It might, of course, be said that it was impossible in the circumstances to reveal the destination of the cruiser in advance. But this is to admit the argument that the telling of lies is an essential part of the running of the capitalist system.
Trieste
In this connection, consider also the question of Trieste. The Western Powers—Britain, the United States and France—made a joint declaration in 1948 that the whole territory should go to Italy. Now, these Powers say that this declaration was made solely because of the difficulty in arranging to set up a Free Territory of Trieste, as agreed in the Italian peace-treaty (14-10-53). But this is very far from the truth, and is alleged only to conceal the history of opportunism which lies behind the attitude of the Western Powers to the whole Trieste question. At the Italian peace-treaty, the already strained relations between the West and the Soviet bloc ruled out the possibility of the West agreeing to hand over the whole disputed area to Yugoslavia, then a member of that bloc. The solution found was to create a Free Territory, with its own Governor. But shortly after the 1948 Declaration, Tito broke with the Cominform. This put the Western powers in a quandary. For while they have insisted all along that their intention was merely to do justice to all parties and to do what was best for the people of Trieste, in fact their attitude has always been ruled by expediency. They were not concerned with any minute advantages one way or the other which might accrue to the workers of Trieste by their being exploited by Italian or by Yugoslav capitalism; they wished to award the prize of the strategic and economic advantages which lay in the port of Trieste and its environs in such a way as to secure maximum advantage for themselves. Since 1948 this attitude has led them into much difficulty, since both Italy and Yugoslavia are either allies or potential allies of the Western bloc, and either would take great offence if the whole area were not given to it.
Opportunism
The attitude of the Soviet Union has been equally opportunist. When Yugoslavia was apparently firmly fixed in its alliance with Russia, the latter made every effort to secure Trieste for its protege; but since Tito’s break with the Cominform, Russia has strongly supported making the area a free territory, thus preventing the access of strength which would come to either country if it were given Trieste.
In such a game of power politics, with each great Power fighting unashamedly for its own hand, the interests of the Triestine workers are ignored. Both Italy and Yugoslavia seem to be prepared to go to war over Trieste, with all that that would entail in suffering to the people of both countries and of Trieste itself, rather than let the other country obtain undisputed control of Trieste and its immediate hinterland.
The Socialist Party’s position is clear. In a Socialist system of society such a situation could not arise. National boundaries would disappear, since they are only maintained by the necessities of a property-owning system. No States would wrangle and threaten over Trieste, since States would have dissolved along with the property system of society which alone gives rise to and maintains them.
Negotiate from Strength
The Labour Government initiated a large programme of rearmament, and the Conservative Government has continued it, under the slogan of “negotiating from strength.” The workers were assured that, although it might be thought that heavy re-armament would probably lead to a third world war, this was not so; peace would best be secured by piling up the munitions of war, until this country and its allies were so strong that its potential enemies would not dare to attack it. In advocating this solution, our politicians showed that they were still hankering after the conditions of the mid-nineteenth century; then, because Britain had embarked upon its Industrial Revolution decades before any other country, it was by far the strongest country in the world. There were no “big” or long-lasting wars because no other country could for long dispute the supremacy of Britain. But this was merely an ephemeral phase, a phase which could only arise where there was one giant and a number of pigmies; in the modern world, where there are a number of giants, to hope to restore the conditions of a hundred years ago is to be doomed to disappointment.
Increased Strength—on both sides
What has now happened to the "Negotiating from strength” argument? The Western bloc thought that if it had the atomic bomb it would be secure from attack; but then Russian scientists also evolved the atom bomb. The Western bloc thought that if it had the hydrogen bomb it would be secure from attack; but now Russia has exploded the hydrogen bomb also.
As President Eisenhower said on October 8th:
“The Soviets now have the capability of atomic attack on us, and such capability will increase with the passage of time . . , The Soviets now possess a stockpile of atomic weapons of conventional types and we must furthermore conclude that the powerful explosion of August 12 last was produced by a weapon, or the forerunner of a weapon, of power far in excess of conventional type ” (9-10-53).
So where do we go from here?
The march to war
The moral is simple. In a capitalist world there is no security against war. If one state tries to build up such a strength in armaments that other states would not dare to attack her, the other states will be afraid that the first country plans aggression, and will in their turn build up armaments. And although an armaments race does not make war inevitable, it creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion in which the unavoidable disputes between capitalist states can more easily cause war. Thus a heavy armament programme adopted in an effort to find security by one capitalist state among many, in fact leads not to security but to a greater likelihood of war.
Alwyn Edgar
Blogger's Note:
The Declassified UK website gives more background on events in British Guiana in 1953.
No comments:
Post a Comment