WDIE Masthead

Year 2010 No. 55, November 19, 2010 ARCHIVE HOME JBBOOKS SUBSCRIBE

Cameron's Mansion House Speech:

Reject the Foreign Policy of "Making Britain Great Again"!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Cameron's Mansion House Speech:
Reject the Foreign Policy of "Making Britain Great Again"!

NATO Looks to Expand Its Reach

Timetable Abandoned: US and NATO to Wage Endless War in Afghanistan

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML))
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: 020 7627 0599:
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
4 issues - £3.15, 6 months - £19.95 for 26 issues, Yearly - £36.95 (including postage)

Workers' Daily Internet Edition Freely available online
Workers' Daily Email Edition Subscribe by e-mail daily:Free / Donate
Subscribe to WDIE Lead Article RSS Feed (free) {Valid RSS}

Cameron's Mansion House Speech:

Reject the Foreign Policy of "Making Britain Great Again"!

On November 15, Prime Minister David Cameron presented his first Mansion House speech in which, by tradition, the government outlines its foreign policy at the Lord Mayor of London’s banquet and reassures the big financial institutions and monopolies that it is devotedly working in their interests.

Commentators were quick to point to the fact that the Prime Minister used the same phrase as his predecessor, “hard-headed internationalism”, to sum up the foreign policy priorities for the Con-Dem coalition. Gordon Brown used this phrase in his Mansion House speech of November 2007 to signal that his government would continue to meddle and intervene in the affairs of other countries in the interests of the big monopolies and financial institutions. Although at the time his speech was heralded as a departure from the so-called Blair doctrine, Brown too posed as the defender of “universal values” and one who would combine “soft power” with “hard power” as changing international circumstances dictated.

Cameron admitted that there was little to distinguish the foreign policy of his government from that of its predecessor and he also stressed the need to defend Britain’s “values” and the fact that the “special relationship” with US imperialism would remain unchanged. As is customary, he made much of the fact that Britain’s foreign policy has to be based on the “national interest”. By this is meant the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the majority. It is defined to take account of current realities, such as the severe economic crisis that has the world in its grip, but also the fact that there are both new economic powers and emerging powers in the world, such as China, India, Turkey and Brazil. He refused to accept that Britain’s “greatness” has passed and in particular refused to relinquish the government’s warmongering and interventionist role in the world. Indeed, Cameron also presented himself as a defender of “democracy and human rights”, but outlined a course to use the hard power of Britain’s military intervention with other means, including its position within the UN, NATO, the G8, G20 and EU, to advance the interests of the big financial institutions and monopolies.

The Prime Minister outlined three key areas in which he suggested there might be a change of emphasis but in general terms these is little distinguish his approach from that of previous governments.

First, he made much of the need for a more “commercial foreign policy” and for Britain to strengthen its economic ties with China, India, Russia, Brazil and Turkey and the need for all levels of government to work in the interests of the monopolies, but there is nothing new here. Nor in the fact that the government remains a firm supporter of the enlargement of the EU – the main vehicle for the advancement of the collective interests of the big European monopolies.

Second, in regard to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, which has destabilised the entire region, the Prime Minister pointed out that Britain has the second largest contingent of occupying forces and confirmed that they will remain in occupation until 2015. According to the Prime Minister, this constitutes a “hard headed, time-limited approach based squarely on the national interest”, a statement which exposes exactly the reactionary character of the government’s foreign policy. David Cameron then went onto boast that Britain’s armed forces are ready and able to be deployed anywhere in the world, a capability he thought would be enhanced by the recent military entente with France.

Third, as already announced in the spending review, the Prime Minister re-emphasised that Britain’s “aid” budget has been spared any cuts. Although the Prime Minister suggested that this was purely for philanthropic and humanitarian purposes, it is now well known that “aid” is used both as a subsidy for the big monopolies and as a way to continue to interfere in some of the world’s poorest countries, including those which were formerly British colonies. In recent years, such “aid” has been tied to military contracts in such countries as Tanzania and South Africa and pressure for the privatisation of utilities and other sectors of the economy in several countries including Sierra Leone.

The foreign policy outlined by the Prime Minister remains firmly set on the reactionary course of his predecessors. It is based on defending and advancing the interests of the rich rather than the majority of people in Britain by all means, including military intervention. David Cameron’s vision that Britain can be “great” again must be totally rejected and opposed. It is a reactionary imperialist programme leading to fascism and war. Instead, the working class and people must hold the government to account. WDIE calls on the working class and people to organise themselves and fight for their own vision, for an alternative, a foreign policy centred on the interests of the working people, at home and abroad.

Article Index

NATO Looks to Expand Its Reach

Kate Hudson, Morning Star, November 16, 2010

NATO leaders will be gathering for their summit meeting in Lisbon later this week and no doubt Afghanistan will be at the top of the agenda.

The big question will be how to get out of the disastrous mess they have made with minimum loss of face.

NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates have been putting heavy pressure on Britain to keep up military spending. It's clear that Afghanistan is the reason why.

The bill for the war is mounting – as is the death total – so the US wants Britain's input of blood and treasure to continue. But Afghanistan won't be the only talking point at the summit.

Also being discussed will be a new "strategic concept”, a document which outlines NATO's "enduring purpose”.

The last one was launched in 1999 while NATO was waging its illegal war on Yugoslavia.

On that occasion the remit was changed from the supposedly defensive posture of the cold war to one of offensive operations, engaging in "out-of-area activities”.

The war in Afghanistan is the result of that strategic concept.

But what will the new one bring in a time of rapid global change, where the very nature of security threats is being constantly redefined?

We've seen it in our own national security strategy recently, where "cyber warfare" has shot up to the top tier of threats that we face.

No doubt NATO wants to redefine itself too. And expanding global reach is a central goal.

That was made clear last month by US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder. Putting it bluntly, he said: "We're launching NATO 3.0."

That sounds like bad news and it is.

"It is no longer just about Europe – it's not a global alliance but it is a global actor," Daalder said, confirming many people's fears about NATO's aspirations.

"We need to look for opportunities to work with countries we haven't worked with before, like India, China and Brazil."

But what exactly does it mean for NATO to "work" with a country? Is NATO "working" with Afghanistan?

Or is the remit of NATO to extend into non-military areas? Is it now to be a military/economic/political bloc with global reach?

Daalder has actually identified three of the four most rapidly growing economies in the world – Russia being the fourth. And Russia has already been invited to the NATO summit.

It seems clear that these issues are now being intensely debated in the US.

A recent Washington-based think tank report, covered in The Economist, recommends developing partnerships with countries such as India, Brazil and Australia, which are located in parts of the world that have more relevance for contemporary security issues than the traditional Atlantic-European focus of NATO.

Secretary general Rasmussen offers a different but also very worrying angle on future intervention.

"I would not exclude the possibility that we can get engaged in coming years if we see failed states being a potential threat because they offer a safe haven for terrorists."

News of other internal debates has also broken out into the open.

The question of US nuclear weapons in Europe under the guise of NATO is now hotly contested by a number of European states.

Germany, whose Foreign Secretary Guido Westerwelle is extremely anti-nuclear, has recently demanded that US nukes are taken out of Germany.

The US has said No, claiming that it has to be a unanimous NATO decision. You can imagine how that has gone down in Germany.

Tensions are also high with NATO-member Turkey. Barack Obama, following his cancellation of Bush's plans for missile defence in central Europe, has come up with a new missile defence scheme that he wants NATO to embrace.

The trouble is that campaigners kicked the proposed radar out of the Czech Republic, and now the US wants to put it in Turkey.

Turkey does not want to host the system and it also has other problems with NATO's orientation in the Middle East.

It opposes NATO sharing intelligence with Israel – not surprising after the Mavi Marmara attack – and it insists that NATO strategy should not describe Syria and Iran as threats, when it sees them as its neighbours with which it wishes to retain good relations.

With NATO seeking to redefine and reposition itself in a rapidly changing global situation, the peace and anti-war movements need to be alert to these strategic developments.

The summit must be closely observed and analysed, not least because of Britain's continuing central role in Afghanistan.

David Cameron's stated timetable is to withdraw British combat troops by 2015. But this timeframe is five years too long.

A significant majority of the British population oppose the war in Afghanistan. Too many lives have been lost already. This is a war that must end and our government must bring pressure at the NATO summit to bring it to a rapid conclusion.

Kate Hudson is general secretary of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

As NATO leaders gather in Lisbon for their summit, join CND, the Stop the War Coalition and the British Muslim Initiative this Saturday November 20 to call for Troops out of Afghanistan. Noon at Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park, London, marching to a rally in Trafalgar Square. For more information visit www.cnduk.org

Article Index

Timetable Abandoned: US and NATO to Wage Endless War in Afghanistan

Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, November 12, 2010

The mainstream news media and alternative sources alike have seized on a recent revelation – though it is hardly such – published by McClatchy Newspapers that "The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to remove emphasis from Barack Obama's pledge that he would begin withdrawing US forces in July 2011."[1]

An article in this series of over a month earlier, "US And NATO To Wage War 15-Year War In Afghanistan And Pakistan,"[2] documented that much and more, and any attentive reader of news on the Internet during the preceding weeks would not have been surprised by the McClatchy feature.

On October 25 Edmund Whiteside, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council Secretary, spoke at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, and according to the local press said, "Expect the war in Afghanistan – the longest military engagement in both Canadian and American history – to continue for a 'very long' time." In his exact words, "Afghanistan will be a very long military venture."

His position will be confirmed at the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal next week, as will a major commitment demanded by the US-dominated military bloc's new Strategic Concept to be adopted at the meeting: The retention of nuclear arms in NATO's arsenal and the continued stationing of American nuclear bombs in Europe. Whiteside also argued: "Canada says that it doesn't need ballistic missiles. But Canada is part of a nuclear policy alliance. There's no getting around that...."[3]

On November 8, the day before the McClatchy article appeared, the spokesman for the 152,000-troop, 50-nation, NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, German Brigadier-General Josef Blotz, stated that "no timetable has been set for withdrawal of coalition troops from Afghanistan”.

Blotz confirmed that "There has been no timetable yet."

In regard to transferring security control to Afghan forces, he said, "We will not [proceed] according to a fixed timetable, it will be carried out based on conditions to be achieved over the next couple of years."[4]

On November 11, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada spoke on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Seoul, South Korea and said that "he's decided...to keep troops in Afghanistan in a noncombat training role after Canada's combat mission ends in 2011”.

Associated Press cited a senior Canadian government official verifying that his nation "will keep 750 military trainers and 250 support staff in Afghanistan until 2014...”.[5]

A similarly bleak perspective on any withdrawal - or beginning of one - next year was offered on the preceding day by the commander of British forces in southern Afghanistan, Major General Nick Carter, who "gave a devastating assessment of the war effort in Afghanistan”.

Carter admitted that "In my tour I lost 302 soldiers. Most of them American. The cost in blood and treasure has been enormous." He added that NATO wouldn't know if it was winning – whatever that word signifies in a war already in its tenth year and escalating to new heights by the day – until June of 2011, "when the fighting season begins again" and the Atlantic Alliance and the Pentagon can "compare Taliban attacks with this year”.[6]

The US and NATO – the distinction is merely formal as recent estimates are that 140,000 of the 150,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan now serve under NATO command - have lost 633 troops in the war as of November 11. That compares to 521 for all of last year and 295 in 2008. 1,184 of the total 2,203 Western military deaths in the country have occurred in the past 22 months.

Citing US Air Force statistics, an ABC News report of November 10, "Number of Afghan Air Strikes Highest Ever”, disclosed that the amount of air strikes conducted in Afghanistan in October – approximately 1,000 – was the highest monthly total in the war that began in 2001, up from 700 the previous month, which itself marked a 172 per cent increase over September of 2009.

The article also detailed that the amount of American and NATO combat sorties so far this year, 26,948, exceeds the previous high of 26,474 from last year.[7]

Across the border in Pakistan, the US has launched at least 20 drone missile attacks that have killed 130 or more people since the beginning of last month.

A violation of Pakistani airspace by a NATO helicopter gunship in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas occurred on November 2 for at least the fifth time since September, with one killing three Pakistani soldiers on the last day of the latter month.

Earlier this month opposition parliamentarians in Pakistan "expressed serious concern over the violation of Pakistani airspace by North Atlantic Territory Organisation (NATO) forces" and "staged a walkout from [a] Senate session in protest and strongly condemned the airspace violations by NATO forces”.[8]

According to a feature in India's Frontline magazine, "President Obama has substantially increased defence spending and has expanded the war in Afghanistan," and "the Obama administration has wholeheartedly endorsed the Bush administration's policy of eliminating terror suspects using pilotless high-tech drone aircraft.

"Instead of using the laborious technique of capturing alleged terrorists from their hideouts in crowded cities and remote villages, the drones just bomb the house or village where the suspects are holed up. In the process, there has been huge collateral damage. Innocent civilians killed far outnumber those killed in the fight against the occupation.

"Ever since he took office two years ago, Obama has made the deadly drones a key instrument in his fight against the militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The drones are also being used liberally to target militants in Yemen and Somalia."[9]

The Afghan war in its tenth year has expanded into a far broader conflict, one which grows in both scope and lethality with each passing week and will escalate yet further before it begins to wind down, if it ever does.

President Obama's pledge last year to "draw down" US and NATO combat forces from South and Central Asia - they are also stationed in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - next year is now revealed to be the transparent political manipulation it was from the start.

A piece by Stephen M. Walt was published on the website of National Public Radio on November 11, entitled "Foreign Policy: Bait And Switch In Afghanistan”.

Walt is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, serves on the editorial boards of Foreign Policy, Security Studies, International Relations, and the Journal of Cold War Studies, and is the co-author of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy with John Mearsheimer.

He wondered at the chorus of surprise, genuine or feigned, that has greeted the McClatchy article, stating:

"I don't know anyone who thought the US could turn things around in 18 months, and that particular deadline was little more than a piece of political sleight-of-hand designed to make escalation look like a temporary step. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Obama's decision to escalate in Afghanistan was the right one (I think it wasn't), but Obama's straddle on this issue is one reason why some of his most enthusiastic supporters have become disenchanted."

Listing historical precedents, and at least hinting at the public's inveterate gullibility, Walt added, "there's a long tradition of presidents telling the American people that some new military mission won't take long and won't cost that much. Nixon told us he has a 'secret plan' to end the Vietnam War (he didn't) and Bill Clinton said US troops would only be in Bosnia for 12 months (it was more like nine years). President George W. Bush and his advisors said that the occupation of Iraq would be brief and pay for itself yet we are still there today. And now Obama has done essentially same thing: selling an increase committed by suggesting that it is only temporary, and then backing away from his own self-imposed deadline."[10]

Further vows to deescalate the conflict, not only the longest war in American history as was noted above but also in Afghanistan's, will predictably follow the US political cycle, especially the 2012 presidential election and Obama's presumed re-election bid, but will prove as false as last year's.

The Pentagon and what on November 19 and 20 will be officially unveiled as global NATO have reaped substantial benefits from the war in Afghanistan that both are reluctant to relinquish. They have insinuated their militaries into the centre of Eurasia for the long haul. And they have built an international network of installations and military partnerships to service the war, from the world's first multinational strategic airlift operation in Hungary to a transit base in Kyrgyzstan through which at least 50,000 troops pass each month in and out of Afghanistan and the subordination of the armed forces of scores of nations in Europe and Asia.

In recent days, for example, the Afghan war has provided the US and NATO with unprecedented opportunities to expand their worldwide military reach:

President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, which has the largest oil and natural gas reserves in the Caspian Sea Basin and borders Russia and China, visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels to meet with Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Rasmussen "thanked President Nazarbayev for his country's support for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan”,[11] and Nazarbayev announced that "Several Kazakhstani troops will serve at the headquarters of the international coalition in Afghanistan."[12]

Admiral Giampaolo di Paola, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, visited Georgia to meet with the country's defence and foreign ministers and the chief of the Joint Staff of the Georgian Armed Forces and to inspect the NATO-supported Krtsanisi National Training Centre, the newly established NATO Liaison Office in the nation's capital, and the "33rd Battalion of the III Infantry Brigade going to replace [the] contingent of the 32nd Battalion currently deployed in Afghanistan”.[13] Georgia fought a five-day war with Russia in August of 2008 and NATO is training its armed forces for more than just the war in Afghanistan.

US Special Operations Command recently concluded training exercises for troops from the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Poland in Germany. The Pentagon described their purpose as follows:

"Coordination and synchronisation between conventional and special operations forces (SOF) is crucial on the modern battlefield since both share integral roles within an area of responsibility – whether it involves intelligence gathering or conducting combat operations....[T]he training event was part of an annual brigade-level mission rehearsal exercise...to prepare conventional force units assigned to the US European Command area of operations for deployment to Afghanistan."[14]

Lithuania and Poland have borders with Russia and both host NATO forces, at an air base in the first and a training centre in the second nation. Earlier this month the Czech parliament approved the deployment of additional troops, including special forces, to Afghanistan next year, raising the nation's NATO contingent to 720 soldiers.

Also this month, Polish troops trained at an Illinois Army National Guard base an hour's drive from Chicago, and a Polish officer involved in the training stated: "We train together because we fight together. If we train together we fight and work better in Afghanistan. It is good idea to train together before we deploy. We are good soldiers and our brigade was deployed in Iraq two times and in Afghanistan so we work at a high level. We are ready."[15]

The connection between nations supplying troops for the war in Afghanistan and the US committing to intervene on their behalf in conflicts with neighbouring states was recently affirmed by Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

At a strategy meeting in Poland late last month he said: "I think there is broad support among allies for the balance between NATO's traditional missions of Article 5, which is collective defence, and also the need for the Alliance to deal with new security challenges around the world, and we are very comfortable with that balance."[16]

The Swedish parliament has extended the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, where Sweden is engaged in combat operations and has lost troops for the first time in two centuries, months after the government abolished the last vestige of conscription to meet NATO "professionalization" demands and announced a mandatory foreign deployment obligation for all troops.

Last week German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg visited Mongolia, which also borders China and Russia, and met "with soldiers of the first Mongolian mission contingent, which had been deployed to the German defence area in Afghanistan”.[17]

Against the backdrop of President Obama's visit to Mumbai and New Delhi, reports have surfaced that India could be enlisted to provide troops for NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Indian defence analyst Bharat Singh recently asserted that "The almost 9,000 Indian troops deployed on UN peacekeeping missions could easily be re-deployed in Afghanistan."[18]

In Bulgaria, where the Pentagon has acquired four new military bases – including two air bases – since 2006, Defence Minister Anyu Angelov recently stated that 7 percent of his nation's defence – if it can be called that – budget is allotted for the war in Afghanistan, where troop strength will rise from 536 to over 600. He also said that Bulgaria "will be setting no deadline for withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan”.[19]

Nevertheless, James Warlick, US ambassador to the country, spoke at a conference entitled Europe for Afghanistan: from Understanding to Support held at the Military Club in the Bulgarian capital, saying "Bulgaria could up its efforts in Afghanistan and do more."[20]

The consolidation of a far-reaching military nexus for and dependent on the Afghan war is not limited to Europe's east. Last month "A small corner of Cornwall [became] Afghanistan." At the Royal Air Force St Mawgan facility 1,000 troops from NATO's Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) participated in "a major NATO training exercise, the first of its kind in the UK"[21] in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan in January.

"The ARRC servicemen were in the county preparing for their final training before being deployed for operational service in Afghanistan next year.

"Exercise ARRCade Spear II aims to offer recruits training ahead of their work as part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force."[22]

Shortly afterward, "328 soldiers, including 45 teams from the full-time British Army, UK Territorial Army teams and entrants from foreign armies" took part in Exercise Cambrian Patrol in Wales, "as one of the most prestigious patrolling tests within NATO”.[23]

From Cornwall to Mongolia, Kazakhstan to Illinois, Sweden to Wales, Poland to Georgia, Lithuania to India and beyond, NATO and the Pentagon are strengthening military partnerships and networks around the Afghan war. Neither Washington nor Brussels is in a hurry to abandon a conflict that has allowed both to globalise their military roles.


1. Nancy A. Youssef, Obama officials moving away from 2011 Afghan date McClatchy Newspapers, November 6, 2010
2. US And NATO To Wage War 15-Year War In Afghanistan And Pakistan, Stop NATO, October 6, 2010
The Link, November 2, 2010
4. Xinhua News Agency, November 8, 2010
5. Associated Press, November 11, 2010
6. Daily Mirror, November 11, 2010
7. Luis Martinez, "Number of Afghan Air Strikes Highest Ever”, ABC News, November 10, 2010
Daily Times, November 4, 2010
9. John Cherian, "Hellfire from the sky”, Frontline, November 6-19, 2010
10. Stephen M. Walt, "Foreign Policy: Bait And Switch in Afghanistan”, National Public Radio, November 11, 2010
11. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, October 26, 2010 .... Kazakhstan: US, NATO Seek Military Outpost Between Russia And China Stop NATO, April 14, 2010
12. Central Asia Online, October 27, 2010
13. Ministry of Defence of Georgia, October 29, 2010
14. US European Command, October 26, 2010
Belleville News Democrat, November 1, 2010
16. Polish Radio, October 29, 2010
Ulaanbaatar Post, November 5, 2010 .... Mongolia: Pentagon Trojan Horse Wedged Between China And Russia, Stop NATO, March 31, 2010
Daily Times, November 7, 2010
19. Sofia News Agency, October 26, 2010
20. Sofia News Agency, October 26, 2010
21. Pirate FM, October 14, 2010
This Is Cornwall, October 14, 2010
The Star, November 1, 2010

Article Index

RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Daily Internet Edition Index Page