Ruleaders Junk the Old Trotskyism

Scan page 6

Libyan leader Gaddați-anti-communist The leadership of the Party has always prided itself on its defence of orthodox Trotskyism against the attacks on it by the various political currents that have attempted to revise or abandon the Transitional Programme.

But since 1974 this facade of orthodoxy has increasingly crumbled to reveal beneath it an opportunist practice easily as degenerate as the worst tendencies that have attacked the post-war Fourth International.

Today the WRP stands as the most servile apologists for the anti-communist dictatorial regimes of Gaddafi in Libya and the Ba'athists in Iraq, and the uncritical camp-followers of the petty.-bourgeois leadership of the PLO.

No call In dropping any call for the construction of Trotskyist parties to lead the working class in these countries, in refraining from even the most timid criticism of these leaders, the WRP has abandoned the central task of the Transitional Programme-the fight to resolve the historic crisis of proletarian leadership.

And, as has so often proved the case with WRP positions, this has been accompanied by a conscious falsification of the historical positions of the Communist movement.

Quote distorted

A WRP Political Committee statement, "Salute Al Fatah" , published in Newsline on March 18 takes and distorts. a highly selective quote from Lenin's speech to the Second Congress of the Communist International:

"In Lenin's own words: The point about this is that as communists we will only support the bourgeois freedom movements in the colonial countries if these movements are really revolutionary, and further: "We believed that the only correct thing would be to take this difference into consideration and to replace the words "bourgeois democratic" almost everywhere with the expression "national The spurious reference given by the WRP to this bowdlerised "quote" (actually to be found in Second Congress of the Communist International Vol. I p.HI) is no doubt intended to deter readers from discovering that Lenin's position bore no resemblance to the liquidationism of the WRP.

In fact the full sentence reads as follows: "The point about this is that as communists we will only support the bourgeois freedom movements in the colonial countries if these movements are really revolutionary and if their representatives are not opposed to us training and organising the peasantry in a revolutionary way. (emphasis added).

"If that is no good, then the communists there also have a duty to fight against the reformist bourgeoisie, to which the heroes of the Second International also belong...

Unconditional duty Lenin goes on to spell out the • "unconditional duty" of communists to assert the independence of the exploited from the bourgeois democrats through the fight to organise peasants' councils.

But the WRP lays no claim to "train the Palestinian fighters in a revolutionary way". It makes no criticism-tactical or strategicof the PLO's petty bourgeois leaders, headed by Yassir Arafat.

And the WRP has made no call for the setting up of peasants' councils or any form of independent body within which Trotskyists could struggle for a proletarian class line.

• Instead. in Newsline of April 26 we read: «The International Committee of the Fourth International (run by the WRP) declares again its unbreakable solidarity with the PLO, sole representative the Palestinian people."

What has this position got to do with the revolutionary Marxism of Lenin and Trotsky? Is the WRP suggesting that the PLO has 'naturally" or 'spontaneous. ly' evolved into a revolutionary Marxist party?

Not exactly. On occasions it is possible to find in Newsline sentences in which "Trotskyists" declare sup: port for the PLO.

But it is not possible to find a sentence where the WRP calls for the building of a Trotskyist leadership for the Palestinian struggle, or in any way questions the leadership given by Arafat and his petty bourgeois and Stalinist cronies.

Lenin's position was entirely the opposite of this belly-crawling. The Theses on the National and Colonial Question, drafted by Lenin and quoted in the same volume (which is published by the WRP's own publishing house) spell out the following policy:

'The Communist International has the duty to support the revolutionary movement in the colonies only for the purposes of gathering the components of the future proletarian parties-communist in fact and not just in name-in all the backward countries and training them to be conscious of all their special tasks, that is to say, of fighting against the bourgeois-democratic tendencies within their own nation.

The Communist Internațional should accompany the revolutionary movement in the colonies and the backward countries for part of the way, should even make an alliance with it; it may not, however, fuse with it, but must unconditionally maintain the independent character of the proletarian movement, be it only in embryo. " (pp.181-2).

Any study of the positions of the WRP will reveal that they do not act on this basis at all.

In their increasingly hysterical attacks on all those who question their opportunism and liquidationism, however inadequately, they have gone so far as to state in Newsline of 6th June that:

"Our movement's alliances are based upon its revolutionary principles and its socialist internationalism."

Desertion of principle On the contrary, Messrs Banda, Healy and Mitchell, your policies are based, beneath all the bluster and vitriol, on a desertion of the principles of revolutionary Marxism and a complete capitulation to bourgeois and petty bourgeois nationalism.

A study of Newsline over the last three months, and its coverage of the Zionist invasion of the Lebanon indicates how far the WRP has deserted these principles, turned its back on the most basic ABC of Leninism, and limped along lamely behind every vacillation of the PLO leadership.

The entirely legitimate struggle of the Palestinians against the colonialist and racially exclusive Zionist state of Israel and for a "democratic and secular state" of Palestine is one which highlights the reactionary role of the Arab bourgeoisie, and their dependence on imperialism.

Desperately afraid that the destruction of the Zionist state by the struggles of the oppressed masses would herald the impending destruction of their own apparatus of class rule in each country, the Arab heads of state have consistently obstructed the Palestinian struggle.

In Egypt even before the present "peace' efforts, the Palestinians were always restricted by the bourgeois nationalists from doing anything beyond issuing propaganda.

In Jordan reactionary Bedouin troops were mobilised to murder hundreds of Palestinian liberation fighters in 1971 and to drive the remainder across the border to Israel.

In Lebanon the tottering capitalist regime with its crumbling military forces could not itself contain the Palestinian and leftist forces, who became engaged in open warfare with the fascist Falangists and other right wing forces during 1976.

. It was left to the Syrian bourgeois government to send troops to intervene in the North of Lebanon (thus enabling the fascists to slaughter 3,000 Palestinians in the camp of Tel al-Zaatar), and station a 30,000 strong Saudi Arabian financed "peacekeeping force" in Lebanon.

But in South Lebanon the PLO held on to its military bases for operations into Israel. In March of this year the Zionists used the pretext of an Al-Fatah Commando raid as a cover for a wholesale military invasion aimed at wiping PLO leader Arafat-his por PLO leaders are now carrie Young Socialists and WRP Varina danialina- "I TAIN N out these bases.

The move failed, but al the same time it exposed the extent to which the Palestinians have now been denied active support by any section of the Arab bourgeoisie, and the political weakness of the PLO Rather than expose this betrayal of the Palestinians and address appeals for aid to the oppressed masses in the Arab nations, the PLO leader Arafat sent a cable to all Arab heads of state, demanding that they "shoulder your historic res ponsibilities", The Gaddafi dictatorship in Libya went one stage further in bankruptcy-and officially called for an emergency Security Council session at the United Nations!

No criticism The WRP uttered no criticism of either of these actions, though both were to be instumental in bringing about a fresh setback on the Palestinian struggle.

While the front page of Newsline on March 16 uncritically reported Gaddafi's turn to the United Nations, an 'International Com mittee Statement" on page 2 took an opposite line and trotted out the formally orthodox Trotskyist position.

"Place no faith in the United Nations-tool of US imperialism"

And while Arafat's telegram appealing to the Arab bourgeois leaders was twice uncritically reported in Newsline, the IC statement incongruously called on the "world working class" to:

"Combine the struggle against Zionism with the struggle against your own

Scan page 7

rait along with those of other on every demonstration by lembers.

bourgeoisie and the Stalinist agents of imperialism!"

Newsline on March .. 20 recorded even greater confusion, as WRP Generai Secretary Mike Banda "criticised the Syrian regime for its failure to support the PLO"

Since Newsline had been virtually full, for months on end, of reports and pictures of the Syrian military intervention into Lebanon against the Lebanese leftists and the PLO, one might have thought such an appeal foolhardy to say the least.

Diplomacy

But Banda's diplomacy on this issue was linked to the WRP's subservience to the PLO-which is a signatory to the five-power so-called "Steadfastness Front" formed last December in the wake of Egyptian president Sadat's bid to sign a "peace" with Israel.

Members of the Front are. Libya, Algeria, South Yemen, and PLO. and... Syria!

But in the event of the actual invasion by Zionist tanks, planes and troops, this Front proved not to be worth as much as the paper the signatures were written on.

Increasingly embarrassed by the impotence of the "Front", , the WRP gradually dropped all reference to it, for fear of exposing the hollow rehetoric on which it had been constructed.

But at a WRP meeting in •London on March 19, Newsline editor Alex Mitchell declared that the WRP's alliance with the PLO "brings the forces of the world socialist revolution together on a common programme of struggle."

Does this mean that both the WRP and PLO regard themselves as standing on the Trotskyist programme? Has the PLO affiliated to the WRP's International Committee?

Nationalist Or does it mean the WRP admits to having espoused the bourgeois nationalist programme of the PLO?

Meanwhile the imperialist powers were preparing a more subtle attack to supplement and complete the work of the Zinnist YT VAIL invaders-the dispatch of a 3,000-strong UN "peacekeeping" force.

The WRP leaders, acting perhaps on impulse or on some recollection of past principles of the communist movement, neadlined on March 20 "UN Does Zionist Dirty Work"

Next day Newsline carried a 'Comment' article which carried the text of the Security Council resolution, and declared:

"Anyone in the British (!) labour movement who takes seriously the fraudulent claims of the Security Council motion will soon learn differently. This decision, far from bringing 'peace and security' to the Lebanon or the Middle East is-and will prove to be--a cruel blow to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and a stengthening of Zionist imperialism in the Middle East" (March 21).

That same article was the last in Newsline to demand unequivocally "the withdrawal of all UN personnel from Lebanon"

In fact it was not the British labour movement that needed warning about the role of the UN, so much as the WRP's allies in the leadership of the PLO, and the self-styled "Steadfastness Front", , which spent 14 hours the next day deciding whether or not to support the UN Security Council resolution!

Their dilemma was soon at an end. Newsline of March 29 carried the headline "PLO pledges to aid UN". , ana an uncritical article declaring that 'the Palestinians see the UN troops' only role as removing the Zionists."

The same article added: "Arafat said the joint (Palesținian/Lebanese left) forces were ready to extend all facilities to the UN forces to succeed in their mission."

Newsline journalists, conveniently forgetting their March 21 warning lest anyone be fooled by the Security Council resolution, failed to utter a ward of LaILa LU ULIVI a VUIu VI criticism.

Next day they reported a meeting between Arafat and UN commander Major General Emmanuel Erskine, in which "Arafat pledged to help the UN force to ensure the complete and unconditional withdrawal of the Zionist troops from South Lebanon."

At that time however, Arafat was still insisting that the PLO "would not stop their commando raids behind the Zionist line" and on April 4 Newsline reported a PLO newspaper slamming "those self-deceivers who gamble on the UN forces" , and calling on the Palestinians to fight on.

But by April 10 Newsline had begun to scent a definite move by the PLO leaders to accommodate to the UN. and carried an interview with Lebanese leftist leader Samir Sobh expressing complete confusion on the role of'the UN in Lebanon, and declaring that he was "waiting to know" what the UN's intentions were.

Next day Newsline revealed that "Steadfastness Front" signatory, President Assad of Syria, was préssuring the Palestinian resistance to withdraw from South Lebanon-again with no WRP comment or criticism of either side.

As Arafat and his allies began to put more definite touches to their backstage deal with the UN forces, Newsline was clearly troubled by the prospect of militant Palestinians challenging his leadership.

Relief

April 27 therefore saw the WRP breathe a sigh of relief as an article "Fatah Unity Unshakeable" declared that there was no basis to "a number of recent reports about differences within Fatah.

And on April 29 a further article "Al-Fatah Unity is confirmed" quoted Arafat at length, and roundly denounced:

"the onnortunist forces "FrU and the counter-revolutionaries who placed, their hopes in an alleged disunity of the main commando group in the PLO"

But within days the reasons for the disgruntlement of some so-called "opportunists" was revealed at the very end of a Newsline lead article based on a Fatah political statement.

"Finally, the Fatah leaders decided to facilitate the mission of the United Nations Interim Forcé in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 'on the basis of the stand of these forces and their role as clarified :. between Dr. Waldheim and Arafat'"

Arafat had finally and predictably abandoned his earlier stance of rejecting a cease-fire.

But the Newsline loyalty went into reverse and began to denounce "provocations" "from rejectionist groups in the south" who have persisted in wishing to fight 11- 11- ine Lionists. And ine wKr uttered no criticism of Arafat's new capitulation to the UN.

Instead on May 19, Newsline suggested there was some ambiguity in the same Security Council resolution which they themselves had sternly (and not incorrectly) denounced as a hollow fraud on March 21!

"It is quite obvious that the UN forces are trying to carry out their mission as a deterrent force in Lebanon against the Palestinian Revolution. This is despite the terms of the UN resolution which established UNIFIL...

And, to their embarrassment, WRP journalists also reported that:

"Arab fighters, said to be radica Palestinians and leftist Lebanese" had continued to fight on against UN forces, despite Arafat's collaboration.

While Arafat trod softly, however, imperialism was lining up a further attack on the PLO-through the medium of the Lebanese At the beginning of April team nf ITs militarv experts* had begun talks LUCIAL bUsJ with Lebanese President Ellias Sarkis, drawing up plans for provision of $100 million worth of arms and military " equipment to reconstruct the Lebanese army.

The objective was obvious-to act jointly with fascist forces' to reassert direct bourgeois military control over the south of Lebanon which until the Zionist invasion had been virtually controlled by the PLO.

Armed presence

But it was not until May 25 that Newsline reported President Sarkis' repudiation of the 1969 Cairo Agreement which extended to the PLO the right to an armed presence in south Lebanon.

Sarkis emphasised his demand that south Lebanon be handed over "to the legitimate Lebanese authorities"—in other words the bourgeois government.

Arafat at no point questioned that the discredited puppet government of Lebanon-propped up by huge Saudi Arabian and US military aid-was the "legitimate authority"

Instead, Arafat and the PLO leaders signed a fivepoint agreement with Lebanese Premier Selim AlHoss in which, according to Newsline, the PLO:

«* Assured the Prime Minister of its eagerness to facilitate the mission of UN forces in the fulfilment of total Israeli withdrawal from the south and re-establishment of Lebanese sovereignty there.

*Condemned all negative practices and violations in the south, and expressed full readiness to exert all efforts to stop such violations as soon as possible in order that Palestinian-Lebanese ties may be preserved.

*Emphasised its intention to end armed manifestations in the south to help the legitimate authorities in the execution of their duties and extending their sovereignty."

Abandoning even the pretence that a continuation of armed struggle was possible under such conditions, Arafat announced that:

"All we want from the Arab states, including Lebanon, is to allow us to maintain a political and information presence and to set up education centres.."

comment on this capitulation by Arafat-which is a 180-degree turn from the policies the WRP was advocating two months before.

It took even the pliable hacks on the Newsline editorial board and the WRP Central Committee a day to work out a way of explaining their abrupt volte-face.

But the PLO leadership had provided themselves with a cover, which the WRP gratefully used: the setting up of a regular Palestinian army and of a Palestinian "government in exile"

"During the civil war in Lebanon and the Zionist invasion of March this year, the armed struggle was the dominant aspect of the Palestinian struggle. Today, the political struggle has the dominant role" , declared Newsline.

After three months in which there had been not so much as a mention of socialism or even politics in the context of the Palestinian struggle, Newsline journalists suddenly announced that:

"Discussion of such a [socialist] programme within the PLO is now [!] possible"

And, rushing to defend Arafat-whose actions have now struck a substantial blow against the Palestinian struggle-the Newsline uses the most backward arguments to prevent any attack on the PLO leadership:

"Attempts to block political development [!] and to undermine the leadership of the PLOwhich has proved itself in the battle against imperialism and Zionism-can only split the forces of the Palestinian national revolution in the face of the concerted imperialist plot now being hatched in the "To attempt to undermine this leadership ... is to play into the hands of the enemies of the Palestinian national revolution"

The WRP' thus. sets its face not only against the building of a conscious Trotskyist leadership within the Palestinian movement, but also against the rejectionist forces already within the PLO that responded to the five-point deal with the Lebanese bourgeois government by challenging Arafat's leadership.

One of the rejectionist forces not in the PLO is George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine which withdrew from the PLO in 1974, denouncing Arafat and the PLO leaders as "sattelites of reactionary capitulationist regimes"

On this analysis, though on little else, we are forced to agree with Habash.

The trail of confusion and capitulation left by Arafat in the south of Lebanon demonstrates unmistakeably his inability to offer any lead to the Palestinian and Arab masses that stands independent of the Arab bourgeoisie.

If the balance of military forces in. Lebanon is really such that the PLO has had no choice but to bow to UN and Syrian pressure and make a tactical retreat from direct military action, a principled line would involve not meekly signing away the right of the Palestinians to continue the armed struggle, but using every avenue to the Arab masses and international workers' movement in order to denounce and expose the treachery of the Arab bourgeois heads of state.

Political break

Arafat and his petty bourgeois co-thinkers are incapable of such a political break.

Under these conditions the WRP's declaration that they regard the PLO as the "sole representative of the Palestinian people" is no more than a roundabout way of declaring that the WRP has abandoned any call for a Trotskyist party to lead the Palestinian struggle, handing the Palestinian masses over to Arafat.

It is their failure to make this call for the building of a Trotskyist party-either in the Palestinian struggle or in the case of the self-styled "progressive" dictatorships in Libya and Iraq-which points to the actual degeneration that has taken place in the WRP leadership.

Our final article in this series will examine this process of degeneration.

Continued

Scan page 8

Stalinist tanks greeted by hostile crowds in Czechoslovakia in 1968 On 15 June Folrose Books publishes 'Communists' Against Revolution,

----- pull-quotes -----

—By— John Lister