Skip to content or view screen version

LABOUR PARTY: BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS!

ED | 27.03.2003 02:17

Labour Party: Blood on their hands! The Labour Party has voted for war. It has voted to kill more Iraqi children and more innocent civilians. This should be no surprise. The Labour Party has always been a war party: it has always been prepared to kill innocent people to protect the interests of British imperialism. Now the Iraqi people face a barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles and thousands of bombs which will murder thousands and reduce their country to ruins. With the world distracted, Israel is preparing further bloody repression of the people of Palestine.

FIGHT RACISM! FIGHT IMPERIALISM! leaflet - Labour Party: Blood on their hands!

Labour Party:
Blood on
their hands!

The Labour Party has voted for war. It has voted to kill more Iraqi children and more innocent civilians. This should be no surprise. The Labour Party has always been a war party: it has always been prepared to kill innocent people to protect the interests of British imperialism. Now the Iraqi people face a barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles and thousands of bombs which will murder thousands and reduce their country to ruins. With the world distracted, Israel is preparing further bloody repression of the people of Palestine.

The United Nations is dead

This war marks a new stage in the post-Soviet world order: With the support of Labour imperialists, the US has shattered the system of international relations the UN represented. To maintain global domination, the US no longer needs or wants other nations to interfere. With its economy facing deepening crisis and massive indebtedness, and the euro challenging the dollar's global supremacy, the US must hold on to its economic ascendancy. It is trying decisively to change the balance through unilateral military power.
Until now, the UN had been a forum where the imperialist powers tried to regulate their relationships as they jointly plundered the world. Britain would veto resolutions which challenged its interests in Southern Africa. The US would do the same in relation to Israel and the Middle East. But the global crisis has turned the brotherhood of thieves into warring cut-thoats. The proposed French veto threatened the interests of the US and Britain. So together the US and Britain have changed the rules of the game. International law is now to be determined by force - by war. The UN is dead!

Britain's imperialist interests

In the lead up to the 1999 war against Yugoslavia, the then Labour Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, declared that 'nowhere in the world is so far away that it is not relevant to our security interests.' This war, the 100th overseas military campaign by British armed forces since World War II, is equally in pursuit of British strategic interests. The British ruling class is defending its overseas assets and oil interests, second only to those of the USA, and the global financial role of the City of London. British imperialism is using its alliance with the US to raise its global status relative to that of France and Germany, and to force them to defer to it within the European Union. Imperialism is at the heart of Labour's strategy. The Labour Party believes in this strategy as much as Tony Blair.

Labour: always a racist, imperialist party

Left Labour MP George Galloway tells us that the Labour government's foreign policy is 'far from Labour'. This is a complete lie. Labour has always been prepared to use military power to defend British imperialism.

Between 1945 and 1951 Labour:

  • Brutally suppressed the Malayan national liberation struggle;
  • Used troops to restore French colonial rule in Vietnam;
  • Blockaded Iran after it nationalised the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company;
  • Ruthlessly exploited the British Empire in Africa to aid British post-war reconstruction.

Between 1964 and 1970, Labour:

  • Unconditionally supported the US onslaught on Vietnam;
  • Defended apartheid South Africa, blocking all attempts to impose sanctions in the UN;
  • Sent troops into Ireland in 1969;
  • Tortured suspected freedom fighters in Aden.

Between 1974 and 1979, Labour:

  • Continued to defend apartheid South Africa in the UN;
  • Supported the Shah of Iran as he faced a mass popular uprising;
  • Began selling Hawk aircraft to Indonesia during the genocidal war against East Timor;
  • Ran a ruthless torture regime against Republican prisoners in the North of Ireland.

Throughout this period Labour has been a Zionist party. Its 1944 conference called for the expulsion of the Palestinian people to make way for a Zionist state. In a cynical ploy it recently begged the US to publish a 'road map' for Palestine to show its support for a Palestinian state. It has not said a word about the escalating slaughter in Gaza of Palestinians over the past few weeks.
In 1982, Labour in opposition supported the Malvinas War, and in 1991, the first Gulf War. In the last six years, Labour has waged more wars than the Tories did in the preceding 18. Yet no Labour MP has resigned from the Labour Party because of this record of incessant international aggression. The likes of Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, and Robin Cook want to have their cake and eat it. They want to criticise the Blair government but remain in the racist, imperialist Labour Party. They are no opposition at all.

Break with Labour! Build a mass anti-imperialist movement!

Last December the Labour left penned a letter calling on Blair not to go to war without the express support of the United Nations. They hoped that the UN would absolve them of their responsibility to oppose British imperialism. Now they have to be called to account. Labour has always been a party of war-mongering imperialism. It is not enough to call on Blair to resign. We must also call on Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway and the other so-called 'left' Labour MPs to resign from Labour: Even more: anyone still a member of the Labour Party who values social justice must rip up their membership card as Bertrand Russell did during the Vietnam war. Simple! No more excuses! Then we stand a chance of building a genuine, democratic and grassroots movement in Britain which rejects the whole rotten system of imperialism and puts the interests of the working class, the poor and oppressed to the fore.

No to War! No to Sanctions!
Victory to the Intifada! Hands off the Middle East!
Workers and oppressed peoples of the world unite to destroy imperialism!

For further information about Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! and its activities, phone 020 78371688, or write to FRFI, BCM Box 5909, London WC1N 3XX or e-mail rcgfrfi@easynet.co.uk. Visit our website at www.revolutionarycommunist.com

 

ED
- e-mail: rcgfrfi@easynet.co.uk
- Homepage: http://www.revolutionarycommunist.com

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

The above is an insult

27.03.2003 14:41

The author of the above consistently uses 'The Labour Party' as shorthand for 'The actions of a Labour Government/The inactions of a Labour Government'. This isn't just sloppy - it's a slap in the face to the tens of thousands of ordinary Labour members and local officers who spent a good chunk of their lives over the years supporting the idea of parliamentary reform - legislative revolution. This country would have been a very different place without the Labour Party and its predecessors in the Trade Union movement. I'm not saying the party didn't make mistakes in the post-war years, but without it there would have been no health service, no legalisation of abortion, no minimum wage, no gay rights, no racial equality. It did what it could at the time. The ordinary members have always wanted more, but held on because it was the only way of checking Tory rule, and that it did.

I left the party over ten years ago - like many members I acknowledged its shift to the right by withdrawing my support. But to suggest that this is where the party has always been is to fundamentally misunderstand how politics has developed since Thatcher. There were a lot of good people in the Labour Party, and there still are - George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, Dennis Skinner. Beneath them are a whole bunch of decent, perhaps naive, people, who chose Labour colours in their youth because the party they knew then WAS anti-war, WAS pro-justice, WAS about equality of opportunity. Old habits die hard. But they are decent, caring people, and for you to condemn those people with a few paragraphs of revisionist bluster is despicable.

Mr Loveblanket


peace, Mr Loveblanket!

27.03.2003 15:46

Fair points. But don't get too stressed out; everyone knows the RCG are nutters, no-one takes them seriously.

ageing hack


Huh ?

28.03.2003 01:54

Hey Loveblanket...get a clue! The rank and file let Tony the Phoney run loose and this is what you have ! Labour has slept walked their way into disaster. RCP said nothing about changing abortion laws so put that canard away.

The time is now to make plans for the Labour Party's demise !

thevoiceofjustice


You are either for imperialism or against it

31.03.2003 20:16

Aging Hack, you're obviously a Kautskyite hack.

To paraphrase Bush, you are either for imperialism or against it. There is no third way, although some people try to make one by saying they oppose the war but ally with sections of the party waging it. This is classic Kautskyism.

Lots of people who thought of themselves as 'caring' did join the Labour Party, that is true. It does not change the fact that Labour committed the many crimes above and more. The responsibility for this lies partly with left hacks in the old disintegrated Communist Party and now with their heirs in the Socialist Alliance who have always promoted myths about Labour and spread illusions in it. Today they are trying to sooth the consciences of these people and letting them no there is no problem with being a member of an imperialist party while being against the war its waging.

Yes, Labour did bring in the Welfare State. Now they are getting rid of it. They brought it in because of pressure from the working class, because of the existence of socialism as an alternative in Eastern Europe, and because capitalism could afford it in the days of the post-war boom. It was brought in to preserve capitalism from revolution. It shouldn't be forgotten though that the capitalists could only afford it because British imperialism was able to squeeze such enormous profits out of Africa, Asia etc. To regard the fact that Labour brought in the welfare state as making it progressive or socialist is clearly racist as it means that it was alright for Africans or Asians to live under virtual slavery so capitalism in Britain could be a bit more friendly.

Flinging about accusations of people being crazy is very cheap and not a political way of dealing with a difference.

?


You are either for imperialism or against it

31.03.2003 20:16

Aging Hack, you're obviously a Kautskyite hack.

To paraphrase Bush, you are either for imperialism or against it. There is no third way, although some people try to make one by saying they oppose the war but ally with sections of the party waging it. This is classic Kautskyism.

Lots of people who thought of themselves as 'caring' did join the Labour Party, that is true. It does not change the fact that Labour committed the many crimes above and more. The responsibility for this lies partly with left hacks in the old disintegrated Communist Party and now with their heirs in the Socialist Alliance who have always promoted myths about Labour and spread illusions in it. Today they are trying to sooth the consciences of these people and letting them no there is no problem with being a member of an imperialist party while being against the war its waging.

Yes, Labour did bring in the Welfare State. Now they are getting rid of it. They brought it in because of pressure from the working class, because of the existence of socialism as an alternative in Eastern Europe, and because capitalism could afford it in the days of the post-war boom. It was brought in to preserve capitalism from revolution. It shouldn't be forgotten though that the capitalists could only afford it because British imperialism was able to squeeze such enormous profits out of Africa, Asia etc. To regard the fact that Labour brought in the welfare state as making it progressive or socialist is clearly racist as it means that it was alright for Africans or Asians to live under virtual slavery so capitalism in Britain could be a bit more friendly.

Flinging about accusations of people being crazy is very cheap and not a political way of dealing with a difference.

?