|
|
|
Last Updated: Sep 8, 2008 - 8:44:44 AM |
Russia, it was said, was still reeling from the loss of its empire. It
had formally accepted the right of countries like Ukraine to
self-determination. But among its leaders, some sought ways to bring
the 'near abroad' back into the fold. As a result, all the countries on
Russia's borders were actively seeking the protection of European
powers and America. This, in turn, was interpreted by the Kremlin as a
kind of encirclement. Tensions with Poland were running especially
high. And then the Russian army invaded Georgia.
The response of the trade union movement and the democratic Left was
swift – universal condemnation of a blatant act of aggression, an
obvious attempt to seize control over a country whose independence
Russia had recognised. Georgia had no better friend than the
international labour movement which stood by its side at a difficult
moment.
That was in 1921 – not 2008.
The parallels between the two invasions – the one organised by Stalin
behind Lenin and Trotsky's back, and the one Putin organised behind
Medvedev's back – are too numerous to list.
And of course there are differences too. The regime in Georgia back in
1921 was something unique in history, a genuinely revolutionary
democratic socialist society, dominated by a mass social democratic
party, trade unions and cooperatives. Georgia today, though a
democracy, is run by a right-wing party and promotes liberal, free
market values.
Russia today is not the Russia of 1921 – certainly no longer making the
claim that when it sends it troops into neighbouring countries it is
somehow promoting a better future for all mankind. Stripped of
Leninist-Stalinist ideology, Russian aggression directed against
Georgia (and other neighbours) increasingly resembles the imperial
foreign policy of the tsarist regime.
One of the biggest differences between the Russian invasion of Georgia
in 1921 and the one that took place this summer has been the reaction
of the Left around the world. Of course the knee-jerk anti-American
Left instantly blamed George Bush for the war, and looked for evidence
of sneaky neo-cons putting in appearances in Tbilisi in the days
leading up to the outbreak of fighting.
One expects no more from the Chomsky-Galloway Left, but the reaction of
the mainstream trade union movement was muted, to say the least.
Especially when contrasted with the vigorous defense of democratic
Georgia that unions and their labour parties in the 1920s carried out.
Regardless of Georgian unions' dislike for Saakashvili and his
right-wing, anti-union policies, they united in defense of their
homeland when faced with the bullying and then the open aggression of
Putin's Russia.
Many leaders of the Georgian unions volunteered to join the country's
armed forces – armed forces which like those in 1921 were quickly
routed by a far superior Russian force.
The head of the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC), Irakli
Petriashvili, issued an appeal to the unions of the world in which he
wrote, 'I am writing to you to draw your and international trade union
movement's attention to the unprecedented fact of aggression that is
being carried out by the Russian Federation against the independent
state of Georgia and that has already taken away the lives of hundreds
of civilians among them ordinary working men and women, members of
trade unions affiliated to GTUC.'
Petriashvili pointed out the deaths of dockers, union members in the
port city of Poti. He mentioned that unions in countries bordering
Russia (particularly the Baltics and Ukraine) had already indicated
their solidarity with Georgia.
And he ended his appeal by saying, 'We would appreciate very much any
help in this crucial moment from the international trade union movement
that would alleviate the consequences of this catastrophe.'
I don't think this was just an appeal for humanitarian assistance. The
Georgian unions were expecting their brothers and sisters in other
countries to offer them political support and to condemn the Russian
invasion.
In late August, Georgian unions held a rally at a Russian checkpoint at
the village of Igoeti. 'You cannot bring Georgia to its knees with
bombing,' they said. 'There is no place for aggressors in Georgia.'
Petriashvili spoke at the rally and said the unions would hold protests
every day until the occupiers leave Georgia.
So, how did unions – and in particular the International Trade Union
Confederation (ITUC), to which the Georgian unions are affiliated –
react?
The response of the international labour movement so far has been to
call for humanitarian aid – and not to say a negative word about what
Russia has done.
The ITUC, which claims to represent 168 million workers in 155
countries, initially called on all sides to cease firing and to
withdraw to their positions prior to 7 August.
But when Russia blatantly violated the European-brokered agreement and
kept troops inside Georgia (and then recognised the breakaway provinces
of South Ossetia and Abkhazia) the ITUC had nothing further to say.
One reason why this is happening is that unions in Russia – which are
also ITUC affiliates – have not come out against the aggression
committed by their government. The ITUC finds itself between a rock and
a hard place, not wishing to take sides when two of its affiliates are
having a little spat.
In normal times, that might make some sense. Even in conflicts, the
historic role of the international trade union movement has been to
play the role of honest broker – and has done an excellent job,
especially recently, with Israeli and Palestinian unions.
The fear of saying something controversial, of alienating or angering
the Russian unions – or perhaps the fear of angering the Putin regime,
which might then take it out on Russian unions – has immobilised the
international labour movement.
Instead of leading the way as it did in the 1920s, unions have lagged
behind politicians. The British and French foreign secretaries – both
socialists – have been outspoken in their expressions of solidarity
with Georgia when faced with Russian aggression. But the unions are
saying nothing.
Back in the 1940s, a book was published in New York called The Russian
Menace to Europe. It was a collection of articles explaining how
Russian aggression was built-in to the nature of the regime, and needed
to be answered by collective security in the West.
The authors of the book were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The
editors, themselves democratic socialists, argued that Stalin's Russia
was continuing the aggressive, expansionist policies of the tsarist
regime.
What was true of Stalin is even truer of Putin. The only difference
today is that the ideological nonsense of Leninism-Stalinism has been
stripped away and all that remains is naked Russian aggression.
The Russian Menace to Europe deserves to be reprinted – and its message
passed on to a new generation on the Left and in the trade union
movement.
As Russian tanks crossed into Georgia in August, commemorating the 40th
anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by re-enacting it in the
Caucasus, the silence of the international labour movement was and is
unacceptable.
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|