Celebrating the Christmas Truce of 1914

This week marks 100 years since the Christmas truce of 1914—which is usually dismissed as a minor episode of the First World War, sanitized as a celebration across all the ranks, or used as a commercial to sell chocolate. But the accounts of soldiers themselves show that it was widespread and in some places long-lasting, driven by rank-and-file soldiers and only stopped through repression from the higher command.

A century ago the imperial competition that had produced a scramble for colonies drove Western powers against each other. They each demonized the other side and claimed it would be a short war over by Christmas. But over the new few months the soldiers sent to die for the Empire experienced the brutal reality of trench warfare. Knee deep in mud, fighting frostbite and trench foot, soldiers shot and were shot at by people just like them, at close quarters. 

Prelude

Governments had ignored the Pope's call for a one-day truce, and when it came it was not a “Christmas miracle” that simply materialized on December 25. Instead the truce emerged from the trenches themselves in the weeks leading up to the holiday, as minor episodes of fraternization amongst ordinary soldiers began to multiply—including breakfast truces, shooting matches, exchanging items and sharing songs. As one soldier wrote, “On a quiet night we used to sing to each other…Then an officer of one side or the other would come and stop it by ordering a few rounds of fire. We used to be sporting and fire high with the first round.”

As early as December 2, General Smith-Dorien wrote about the “danger” of the emerging friendship: “Weird stories come in from the trenches about fraternizing with the Germans. They shout to each other and offer to exchange certain articles and give certain information…There is a danger of opposing troops becoming too friendly…I therefore intend to issue instructions to my Corps not to fraternize in any way whatever with the enemy.”

A few days later he wrote instructions trying to prevent an outbreak of peace, so the slaughterhouse of war could continue: “Troops in trenches in close proximity to the enemy slide very easily, if permitted to do so, into a ‘live and let live’ theory of life. Understandings—amounting almost to unofficial armistices—grow up between our troops and the enemy, with a view to making life easier, until the sole object of war becomes obscured, and officers and men sink into a military lethargy from which it is difficult to arouse them when the moment for great sacrifices again arises…Friendly intercourse with the enemy, unofficial armistice (eg ‘we won’t fire if you don’t, etc) and the exchange of tobacco and other comforts, however tempting and occasionally amusing they may be, are absolutely prohibited.”

Truce

But, contrary to military orders, that’s exactly what happened—though in an unorganized and uneven way that shaped its outcome. As Malcolm Brown and Shirley Seaton document in their detailed account, Christmas Truce, “It was possible for a battalion to be completely unaware as to whether its near-neighbours were or were not taking part in a truce, so that what happened on Christmas Day was not, so to speak, a contagion of goodwill spreading along the line, but a series of individual initiatives at a very considerable number of places and times…The Christmas truce held—to a greater or lesser extent—over more than two-thirds of the British-held sector; but elsewhere Christmas came and went leaving little trace.”

As early as December 20 in some places, soldiers used the holidays to put down their weapons and bury the bodies littered across No Man’s Land. By interacting with each other, working class soldiers discovered they shared much in common. As a British soldier wrote, “one of the two Germans jocularly remarking that he hoped the war would end soon, as he wanted to return to his former job as a taxi-driver in Birmingham.” Some remarked that “the papers had been responsible for the whole war,” and that “the Germans are just as tired of the war as we are, and said they should not fire again until we did.”

At its height 100,000 troops participated in the truce. German, French, Belgian and British soldiers (including troops from India) exchanged music, gifts, played games and took photographs, and held up Christmas trees—a German tradition that was in the process of spreading across Europe. “We achieved what the Pope himself could not do and in the middle of the war we had a merry Christmas,” one soldier wrote.

Restoring “order”

While some officers were ambivalent about the truce, others quickly tried to stop the “dangerous” peace. As one officer wrote, “Hearing of the fraternization I hastened to the scene to investigate, and found the whole of No Man’s Land crowded with our men and the Germans amicably intermixed…For a moment I gazed at the curious sight, and then realized how absolutely wrong and dangerous it was, and decided to stop it.”

But the truce did not end so easily. As a frustrated General Smith-Dorien claimed, the only path to peace was more war: “Any orders I issue on the subject are useless, as I have issued the strictest orders that on no account is intercourse to be allowed between the opposing troops. To finish this war quickly, we must keep up the fighting spirit and do all we can to discourage friendly intercourse. I am calling for particulars as to names of officers and units who took part in this Christmas gathering, with a view to disciplinary action.”

Far from being a “war for freedom and democracy,” WWI was not only launched to defend colonialism but it only continued by repressing the troops sent to fight. It was not human nature but military discipline that enforced the war. French officers replaced some of their soldiers who refused to shoot, while German officers threatened some of their soldiers with the death penalty. But even then, some soldiers did what they could to resist—in a tragic last effort to maintain peace. According to one account, “The difficulty began on the 26^th, when the order to fire was given, for the men struck…Finally, the officers turned on the men with ‘Fire, or we do—and not at the enemy!’ Not a shot had come from the other side, but at last they fired, and an answering fire came back, but not a man fell. ‘We spent that day and the next,’ said Herr Lange, ‘wasting ammunition in trying to shoot the stars down from the sky.’”

On December 29, the German army issued an order forbidding all fraternization, which would be considered high treason (which carries the death penalty). But still ordinary soldiers tried to maintain peace with their real comrades on the other side of the trenches. As a German message to the British trenches said, “Dear Camarades, I beg to inform you that is forbidden us to go out to you, but we will remain your comrades. If we shall be forced to fire we will fire too high.”

As Brown and Seaton document, “In certain sectors the mood inspired by the events of Christmas lingered on with incredible stubbornness… It can reasonably be claimed that the Christmas truce lasted in places almost to Easter, but there is also little doubt that by Easter it was over and done with, consigned to history, a thing of the past. The long truce was finally broken, after a little over a hundred days.”

From spontaneity to organization

The Christmas truce came only five months into a 52 month war that killed 10 million soldiers and 7 million civilians; if soldiers had succeeded in maintaining the peace they would have saved millions of lives. But they were unorganized and up against a military command that used threats of execution to restore order. As the German army commanded in the lead up to Christmas 1915: “Any attempt at fraternizing with the enemy (agreement not to fire, mutual visits, exchange of news, etc) such as occurred last year at Christmas and New Year at several points on the Western Front, is strictly forbidden; this crime will be considered as verging on high treason. General HQ have issued instructions, dated the 12^th December, that fire will be opened on every man who leaves the trench and moves in the direction of the enemy without orders, as well as on every French soldier who does not make it clear that he is a deserter.”

It took three more years of slaughter for the spontaneous instinct of the truce to become an organized opposition to war—including mutinies in the French army in April 1917, a revolution in Russia in October 1917 and a revolution in Germany in November 1918 (which gave us Remembrance Day). Similar organization—outside and inside the military—ended the Vietnam War, as a panicked US Colonel wrote in the Armed Forces Journal in 1971: “By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse… Widespread conditions among American forces in Vietnam that have only been exceeded in this century by the French Army’s Nivelle mutinies of 1917 and the collapse of the Tsarist armies in 1916 and 1917.”

The centenary of the Christmas truce reminds us of the real roots of war, the potential resistance from rank-and-file soldiers, and the importance of an organized anti-war movement. This holiday season support war resisters and the campaign for Peace & Prosperity not War & Austerity. And for a holiday movie watch Joyeux Noel: 

Harper's crocodile tears for fallen soldiers

Harper claims his “thoughts and prayers” are with the family and friends of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, the two Canadian soldiers tragically killed last week. Then why is he sending troops to kill or be killed in Iraq, while cutting pensions to veterans amidst rising suicides? If they "gave their lives so that we can live in a free, democratic and safe society," why is Harper using their deaths to  further restrict our civil liberties and make us less safe?

Highjacking tragedy

Americans saw the tragedy of 9/11 used to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq—which helped create ISIS, while fueling military spending, Islamophobia and attacks on civil liberties at home. As the 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows wrote on the 10^th anniversary of that tragedy, “On this day we ask those who feel compassion for our loss to expand their compassion to include others who continue to experience loss ten years later: innocent families in Afghanistan and Iraq experiencing the loss of their loved ones and displacement from their communities as the result of war and political strife; Muslim-Americans subjected to bias and violence at home; those denied the protections of our Constitution and law, whether in Guantanamo or in our own country; those suffering from job loss and economic dislocation related to the cost of war and rising military budgets; and those who have seen their civil liberties and freedoms exchanged for the false promise of security.”

Harper is similarly highjacking tragedy, and not for the first time. As an article in The Guardian explained, “Harper is no stranger to Manichean politics, or to repackaging unpopular security measures in the wake of tragic events. For example, Bill C-13, the so-called cyberbullying act, shamelessly exploited the death of teenager Rehtaeh Parsons and other victims of cyberbullying to reintroduce components of its unpopular online surveillance bill, C-30.”

While Harper hid in a cupboard, it was a nurse and former medic who tried to save Cirillo, shot by a homeless man with addiction and mental health issues. When Harper emerged it was not to stop Canada’s participation in the war that is fuelling ISIS, reverse the government’s deregulation of gun safety (though they did quietly delay a bill so they can pass it later), cancel his planned $36 billion cut to healthcare, or announce investments to end homelessness and support those with mental health and addiction issues. Instead Harper vowed to redouble wars abroad and “national security” at home—using the tragic deaths of Vincent and Cirillo to multiply tragedy around the world, while eroding civil liberties and continuing austerity at home.

Shell shock

Given the violence unleashed on Afghanistan, it’s no surprise that troops following orders would suffer as well. The war and occupation of Afghanistan was sold as peacekeeping, rebuilding and women’s liberation, but as Canadian General Rick Hillier clarified in 2005, “We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people.” This has a traumatizing impact on soldiers. Just last month it was revealed that more Canadian soldiers have killed themselves than were killed in Afghanistan, and military families are desperately trying to prevent this statistic from rising.

Corporal Thomas Dixon has tried to kill himself three times since coming back from Afghanistan. His mother is concerned he has undiagnosed PTSD and is not getting the help he needs. As she told the CBC, “Growing up [in the] cadets, he loved it. Then he went over to Afghanistan. That’s when things turned around for him. He came back, he was very moody, he had a temper—all the signs you would see of people who have PTSD…He tried to hang himself with a t-shirt. He’s crying out for help and nobody’s there. I do not want my son to become a statistic, but that’s what’s happening.”

Denying the trauma of war is built into the very terminology of PTSD, as George Carlin explained years ago: “There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to its absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either snapped or is about to snap. In the First World War, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago. Then a whole generation went by and the Second World War came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue. Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, we’re up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car. Then of course, came the war in Vietnam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time.”

The military continues to bury the pain. Lieutenant Shawna Rogers died of a drug overdose in 2012 and her parents tried to find out why. Her mother, a nurse, compiled documents relating to her daughter’s complaints against the military. The military threatened legal action against her parents if they didn’t turn over the documents and attend the military board of inquiry. As her father, a retired plumber, told the Ottawa Citizen, “The board of inquiry is a kangaroo court and we didn’t want any part of it. There’s no bigger hell than losing your daughter. We were grieving and they were kicking us while we were down.”

The fight to defend pensions

The military is not only kicking but also cutting. While Harper wants to spend $490 billion on the military over the next 20 years, it’s clearly not to support veterans. In 2006, veteran Sean Bruyea criticized the pension cuts contained in the New Veterans Charter as a “callous, bureaucratic move to save money on the backs of disabled veterans.” The military responded by leaking his medical information in an attempt to discredit him. But this hasn’t stopped veterans from fighting to defend their pensions.

According to Major Mark Campbell, who was wounded in Afghanistan, the New Veterans Charter cuts 40% of veterans’ income. As he explained in 2011, “This New Veteran's Charter is a grotesque travesty. It is an abject betrayal by the government of Canada to our new generation of disabled and wounded veterans. What kind of deal is that? The people of Canada should be outraged…Junk the New Veteran’s Charter. It’s crap.”

In 2012 some veterans removed their medals on Remembrance Day, and last year some turned their backs on Conservative MPs during Remembrance Day ceremonies, “just like the Conservatives are turning their backs on veterans,” veteran Claude Latulippe explained.

This is part of a pensions fight across the country, which can link jobs and services and build unity between civilian workers and workers in uniform—a prospect that worries the Tories. This January, veterans joined protests organized by the Public Service Alliance of Canada against the closing of eight Veteran Administration offices that provide services and benefits. Veteran Affairs Minister Julian Fantino claimed “the veterans were used by the union. They were duped.” Veterans were furious and demanded Fantino’s resignation, and WWII veteran Roy Lamore reacted to Fantino’s apology by calling it “ridiculous, stupid and the worst thing” he had ever heard. Another veteran, Daniel Drapeau, shredded his Conservative membership card, saying, “They keep hurting us and they won’t stop.”

Remember when soldiers said no

A few months ago veterans rallied on Parliament Hill to defend their pensions. As organizer David MacLeod said, “If you can’t afford the wounded, you can’t afford the war.” This is the real spirit of Remembrance Day, when soldiers tired of being used as cannon fodder refused to fight.

Even the first Christmas during WWI saw this spirit, when British and German soldiers declared an unofficial truce and exchanged gifts rather than bullets. The military command cracked down on fraternizing, but the spirit continued. In April 1917 after another bloody offensive, tens of thousands of French troops refused to fight, and the military resorted to mass arrests and death sentences to restore “order.”  In October 1917 millions of Russian soldiers joined the revolution for peace, land and bread—which ended the eastern front. In late October 1918, German sailors refused to fight and triggered a revolution. Soldiers and workers organized democratic councils that swept the country in the first week of November, on the 10^th the Kaiser fled the country and on the 11^th the armistice was signed. Canada and other imperial powers tried to keep the war alive by sending troops to invade Russia, but Québecois soldiers resisted deployment from Victoria to Vladivostok in December.

Now, as we approach the anniversary of the “war to end all wars”, Harper has joined yet another war in Iraq—a continuation of the 2003 war and occupation that killed a million Iraqis and paved the war for ISIS. The Iraq War also killed thousands of soldiers, which would have included Canadian troops if Harper had his way in 2003. But the peace movement saved Canadian troops from joining the death toll—by stopping Canada from joining the war—and continues to support US Iraq War resisters.

A recent Military Times Poll found 70% of active-duty soldiers opposed sending combat troops to Iraq, but the US went ahead—and already a 19-year old Marine is dead. Harper now wants to use the tragic deaths of last week to justify sending more troops to Iraq. He will turn Remembrance Day on its head—turning a day of peace and healing created by war resisters into a celebration of war, a justification for eroding civil liberties, and lip service to veterans while he cuts their pensions and ignores their suffering and the suffering of all victims of war. The real legacy of Remembrance Day is to support the wounded—including both veterans and refugees—not the war. This means peace not war, solidarity not racism, strengthening not eroding of civil liberties, and redirecting military spending into jobs and pensions, healthcare and education, and environmental justice.

Support the Riveras, stop the deportation of war resisters

The Harper government is trying to deport US Iraq War resister Kimberly Rivera and her family September 20, the start of a renewed campaign against war resisters that undermines international law and Canadian democracy. But there is a campaign to support the Riveras and stop the deportations.

With massive demonstrations against the looming Iraq War in 2003, the Canadian government refused to participate—and Prime Minister Harper  admitted the war was “absolutely an error.” Recently Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for Bush and Blair to be tried for war crimes for a war that "has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history."

Under international law soldiers have the right to refuse participation in illegal conflicts such as Iraq, and the Nuremburg principles call on soldiers to refuse participation in such wars. During the Vietnam War, Canada welcomed US war resisters—both volunteers and conscripts—and resisters from the Iraq War have been coming to Canada since 2004. US veteran Kimberly Rivera left the Iraq War after experiencing the terrifying impact of the war on children. She came to Canada in 2007—becoming the first female US Iraq War resister—and lives in Toronto with her husband Mario and four children (Christian, Rebecca, Katie and Gabriel).

US Iraq War resisters have the support of the majority of Canadians—including human rights groups, student and labour unions, community and faith groups, environmentalists, authors and artists. This mass support has been reflected in two Parliamentary motions calling on the government to stop the deportations and to let war resisters stay.

Minister of Censorship and Deportation

Despite international law, Canadian tradition and democracy, and Harper's own statements against the Iraq War, the Harper government has deported war resisters to US prison—including Robin Long (who was separated from his family) and Cliff Cornell, who both received harsh jail sentences for speaking out against the war. According to Cliff’s lawyer, “because he spoke out against the Iraq war, Cliff's sentence is harsher than the punishment given to 94 percent of deserters who are not penalized but administratively discharged.” Threatened with a similar fate of being separated from his family and jailed for following his conscience and international law, resister Rodney Watson has been living in sanctuary since 2009.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, an early supporter of the Iraq War, has gone out of his way to try to deport war resisters. When the Rivera family was threatened with deportation in 2009, Kenney called war resisters “bogus refugee claimants.” This was not about supporting other refugees, as Kenney's cruel cuts to refugee health have since made clear. As the Canadian Council for Refugees wrote in an open letter: “It is highly inappropriate for you to express your opinions on how you believe IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board) members should make refugee determinations. To do so gives the strong appearance of political interference. Public comments such as yours only make IRB members’ jobs more difficult and threaten claimants’ rights to an unbiased decision…The Canadian Council for Refugees supports all war resisters from any country who refuse to engage in armed conflict that is contrary to international humanitarian law.” 

Kenney dodged responsibility for his campaign against war resisters when questioned in public. Thankfully an emergency stay of removal was granted to the Riveras last time, and since 2008 there have been 10 federal court or federal court of appeal decisions in favour of war resisters.

Kenney has since amplified his intervention against war resisters by issuing Operational Bulletin 202, instructing immigration officials to flag US Iraq War resisters as “criminally inadmissible” (as opposed to criminal Conrad Black). In response, Amnesty International and Peter Showler (former Chair of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board) called on Kenney to rescind Operational Bulletin 202 because it “misstates the law and seeks to intrude on the independence of both IRB members and Immigration Officers.” 

Now there is a renewed offensive against war resisters beginning with the Riveras, who—before even receiving the decision on their application to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds—were given a deportation date of September 20. 

Support the Riveras, stop the deportation of war resisters

Last night's community meeting in Parkdale, where the Riveras and other war resisters live, spilled out into the streets as people marched to show their support for war resisters. We have two weeks to amplify the campaign to stop the September 20 deportation of Kimberly Rivera and her family, and to reaffirm that she was right--and so were we--to say no to the Iraq War.

*Ask Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to stop the deportation: call 613-954-1064, email minister@cic.gc.ca or send this online letter.

*Contribute to the urgent appeal for funds.

*Friday September 14, 4:30-6pm will be a Canada-wide day of petitioning and leafletting. People in Toronto can meet at three locations: Carrot Common on Danforth ave, Trinity St. Paul Centre (427 Bloor St West, near Spadina), and Queen St. West and Dunn (Parkdale). Information from other cities will soon be available.

* Wednesday September 19, 4:30-6pm, there will be a peaceful demonstration outside the Federal Court Building at 180 Queen St. West, Toronto, to call on Kenney to stop the deportation of the Riveras.

*Follow the campaign for updates: www.resisters.ca

5 reasons to oppose "no-fly zones" in Libya

There's a growing chorus demanding "no-fly zones" in Libya under the pretext of stopping Libyan dictator from killing civilians. While some are motivated by humanitarian concern or desperation, the actual practice of enforcing a "no-fly zone" would create further disaster while undermining the Libyan people's own capacity to shape their future. Here are 5 reasons to oppose "no-fly zones".

1. "No-fly zones" would kill Libyans
     According to the head of US Central Command, General James Mattis, "You would have to remove the air defense capability in order to establish the no-fly zone so it -- no illusions here, it would be a military operation. It wouldn't simply be telling people not to fly airplanes." The intelligence film Stratfor goes into more details about what a "no fly zone" would actually entail:

“It has been pointed out that a no-fly zone is not an antiseptic act. In order to protect the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, one must begin by suppressing enemy air defenses…Therefore a no-fly zone would begin with airstrikes on known air defense sites. But it would likely continue with sustained patrols by SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) aircraft armed with anti-radiation missiles poised to rapidly confront any subsequent threat that pops up. Keeping those aircraft on station for an extended period of time would be necessary, along with an unknown number of strikes. It is uncertain where the radars and missiles are located, and those airstrikes would not be without error. When search radars and especially targeting radars are turned on, the response must be instantaneous, while the radar is radiating (and therefore vulnerable) and before it can engage. That means there will be no opportunity to determine whether the sites are located in residential areas or close to public facilities such as schools or hospitals…Indeed, attacks on air defenses could cause substantial casualties, turning a humanitarian action into one of considerable consequence in both humanitarian and political terms."

2. "No-fly zones" would strengthen Gaddafi
     The threat of foreign intervention is allowing Gaddafi to portray himself as an anti-colonial defender of Libya. While he continues to kill Libyans in practice, his rhetoric has shifted from attacking the resistance to attacking the West. As he stated recently,

"If they take such a decision [of imposing a "no-fly zone"] it will be useful for Libya, because the Libyan people will see the truth, that what they want is to take control of Libya and to steal their oil. They want to take your petrol. This is what America, this is what the French, those colonialists, want. The Libyan people will take up arms against them."

This is of course pure hypocrisy from a tyrant who until two weeks ago was the darling of the West and who has sold the immense wealth of Libya to Western corporations. But Gaddafi is outnumbered and guns alone are not enough to defeat the resistance. He is desperate for an ideological assault on the revolution, and Western intervention gives him the perfect wedge to drive into the resistance in order to break its unity.

3. "No-fly zones" would undermine the Libyan revolution
     Foreign intervention, ostensibly to prevent civil war, would in fact raise the threat of civil war by dividing Libyans on their attitudes to outside interference instead of uniting them in isolating and overthrowing Gaddafi's regime. The revolution has caused a split in the military, including pilots who deserted to Malta rather than bomb civilians. Generalizing this process--including international solidarity like the petition calling on the Maltese government to grant asylum to Libyan pilots--would create a true "no-fly zone".
     Instead of a Libyan "no-fly zone" from below, the West is threatening a "US-fly zone" from above, which would undermine the confidence of pilots to resist and make them more likely to stay loyal to Gaddafi's call to defend Libya. The so-called "no-fly zone" would therefore undermine Libyans' own capacity to take over Gaddafi's army, while giving control of the country to his former supporters. Gaddafi and the West both want to crush the Libyan revolution, for slightly different reasons, and "no-fly zones" provide them both with a tool to do so.

4. "No-fly zones" would provide a cover for Western imperialism.

     For decades the West has armed dictators across North Africa and the Middle East in order to secure control over the region's vast oil supply. But in two short months a revolutionary wave has already toppled Western-backed dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, while protests are building in Libya, Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The West is desperate to stop this revolutionary process that threatens its control of the region, to whitewash its history in the region by presenting itself as a humanitarian, and to regain control.
     There is also a new scramble for Africa, with the US trying to further militarize the continent with a command station in Africa, AFRICOM. "No-fly zones" would justify this imperial control of the region, and Libya is quite consciously being used as a first test case.
     But the West is already bogged down in quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic crisis has heightened inter-imperial competition, so there is a debate amongst elites on how to proceed. The right-wing of the US establishment was first out of the gate in calling for intervention, with none other than Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz leading the charge. The US hardly gets any oil from Libya so intervention would give it greater access to the oil of its competitors while intimidating resistance movements in the region. But others in the administration are more cautious, realizing the exhorbitant costs of current occupations and the impact another Western intervention could have on what little stability remains in the region. In Europe the same splits that emerged during the Iraq War are once again evident, with Britain eagerly pressing for war (and already sending its own special forces, who were captured by the resistance), while Germany is hesitant and Russia opposed. Italy is one of the top importers of Libyan oil--and Berlusconi a close friend of Gaddafi--and was initially opposed, but as oil production is getting shut down anyways it would go along. China is competing with the US over African oil so it is also opposed, so without UN Security Council approval any intervention will be NATO (especially Britain and US) driven.
     All this inter-imperialist rivalry goes to show that those leaders who are calling for, and would enfrorce, a "no-fly zone" are purely motivated by profit and their desire to access Libyan oil.

5. "No-fly zones" provide a cover for other Western wars
     The other context is is the increasing opposition to the occupations of Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Where were calls for "no-fly zones" when Israel bombed Lebanon in 2006 or Gaza in 2008-2009? Where are calls for "no-fly zones" when NATO bombs civilians in Afghanistan, US drones kill civilians in Pakistan, or US Apache helicopters kill Iraqis? The US and Britain had "no-fly zones" in Iraq, which did nothing against Saddam Hussein but was part of a sanctions regime that killed a million people, and a prelude to war that killed another million people. "No-fly zones" are an act of war, and distract from other wars.

     As growing numbers of people oppose these occupations--including American and British war resisters--the West is desperate to take advantage of crises to distract from its past and current crimes and look out for its future profit. When the Haitian earthquake hit in 2010, Canada militarized aid to the country to further its control, and used the humanitarian cover to hide its history of intervention (including its part in the 2004 coup against Haiti's democratically elected Prime Minster Aristide) and to build its humanitarian case for continuing the occupation of Afghanistan. Intervention in Libya would serve a similar role, masking the West's history in Libya, giving it further control over its resources, and providing a humanitarian cover for other disastrous interventions. At the same time "no-fly zones" undermine the capacity of Libyans to shape their own future. As the Canadian Peace Alliance states:

"The people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have done more to bring peace and democracy to their countries than years of US-led military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The west needs to learn the lessons from those failed invasions and not compound the crisis in Libya."

Responsibility to protect Libyans from our own governments

As Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi turns to state terrorism to suppress democracy movements, some are calling on outside military intervention to protect the people of Libya. But the revolutionary movement across the region is shining a light on the roots of violence and developing alternative methods of achieving peace. 

REVOLUTION/COUNTER-REVOLUTION

     The thrill of revolutionary movements sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East has been matched by the horror of counter-revolution, as dictators violently cling to power. The people of Tunisia and Egypt braved tear gas, rocks and riot police to oust Ben Ali and Mubarak, and their courageous example has inspired people in Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Oman, and Yemen to do the same. But the violent response is also escalating. Horrific images have emerged from Bahrain of protesters getting shot to death, while reports from Libya indicate Gaddafi is using snipers, 

helicopters and planes against demonstrators and entire cities, while jamming electric signals to create a media blackout.

     In desperation some are looking to the UN Security Council to intervene militarily. But Western states are cynically using a situation they created to push for further imperial control over the region, undermining the blossoming resistance movements that offer real hope for the region. In the US, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq War and current “scholar” at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, has called on “the U.S. and U.N. to mobilize to stop the slaughter” while the Wall Street Journal has been more explicit in its strategy of “liberating Libya” with threats to “bombs their airfields”. Meanwhile the British publication Foreign Policy carries an article declaring:

“It is time for the United States, NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League to act forcefully to try to prevent the already bloody situation from degenerating into something much worse.”

But calling for external intervention ignores the external source of violence, and undermines the internal movements for peace. 

   

WHERE DOES HE GET ALL THOSE DEADLY WEAPONS?

     Photos from the Egyptian Revolution provided a link between Mubarak and his Western backers, as protesters dodged tear-gas canisters with “made in USA” imprinted on them. Now Libyans are fighting against European weapons. According to Britain’s Campaign Against the Arms Trade:

“In the third quarter of 2010, equipment approved for export [from Britain to Libya] included wall and door breaching projectile launchers, crowd control ammunition, small arms ammunition, tear gas/irritant ammunition, training tear gas/irritant ammunition. Ammunition comprised £3.2m of the £4.7m million of military items licensed. Sniper rifles were among the other equipment licensed in 2010.”

 Meanwhile, another report notes:

"EU countries just two years ago granted over €160 million of export licences to Libya for small arms and electronic jamming equipment… Italy granted €107.7 million of licences for military aircraft, including assault craft, and associated equipment. France granted €17.5 million worth and Portugal €14.5 million. Portugal also granted €4.6 million of permits for drones. Other licences of note include: €4.4 million of Belgian permits for anti-personnel chemicals used to quell riots and €2.6 million of Italian licences for bomb fuses."

The US has its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and in recent years has taken an interest in selling weapons to Daddafi. As David Hamod, president and chief executive of the National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce justified in 2009, “Libya is going to seek defense articles from somebody. And I think it's in America's interest to be the provider ... It's an integral part of the growing relationship." This is part of a policy for the region that has continued under Obama. As the World Tribune reported in July 2010:

"The White House agreed to requests worth $500 million by Egypt, Oman and Tunisia for air defense upgrade, aircraft and naval ship support as well as helicopters...The biggest request was submitted by Tunisia. The North African state received administration approval to upgrade U.S.-origin helicopters in a deal estimated at $282 million."

Then in September 2010 the biggest arms deal in US history provided $60  billion of weapons to the Saudi dictatorship. Canada has also joined in the arms trade, with both Liberal and Conservative governments selling to repressive regimes across North Africa and the Middle East—for details visit this interactive guide by Canada's Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade.

     Political support for repressive regimes has accompanied military support, from Canada's Conservative government inviting Mubarak to last summer’s G8 meeting, to the World Economic Forum dubbing Gaddafi’s son a “Young Global Leader”. These geopolitical alliances can’t be divorced from the oil contracts that accompany them. From Afghanistan to Colombia to Libya to Saudi Arabia, militarism and oil reserves overlap. Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa—which is being exploited by Western corporations from Britain’s BP to Canada’s Suncor. While oil companies and their state sponsors were fine with Gaddafi’s stable dictatorship, they are anxious about its current instability. “Half of Libya’s oil production shut down”, exclaimed the Financial Times. According to Amrita Sen of Barclays Capital, “destabilisation in the Arab world, home to the world’s largest oil and gas reserves and production, is of extreme significance.”

UNJUST/UNFAIR

     Members of the UN Security Council not only cause indirect violence through weapons sales to repressive regimes, but have a clear track record of direct violence--against people living in both dictatorships and democracies. In 2001 the crimes of the Taliban (a former US ally) were used as justification for a NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that after a decade has done nothing to improve the lives of the people of Afghanistan. In 2003 the crimes of Saddam Hussein (a former US ally) were used as justification for a US and British invasion and occupation that has killed hundreds of thousands and stoked sectarian divisions. In 2004 the US, France and Canada launched a coup against Haiti's democratically elected President Aristide, and since then a Brazil-led UN occupation has interfered with democracy and development, magnifying the effects of last year’s earthquake and setting the stage for a cholera epidemic. The UN Security Council stood by as Israel (which it arms) attacked Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008. 

     In the wake of the Egyptian revolution, British Prime Minister David Cameron laid to rest any notion that Western leaders care about peace and democracy, as he went on a tour of the Middle East accompanied by arms dealers, greeting the military junta that currently rules Egypt in the wake of Mubarak’s departure. As the Daily Mail reported:

Cameron meets with Tantawi, "Mubarak's poodle"

"Critics expressed amazement that Mr Cameron was promoting a mission to sell arms to Arab dictators shortly after Colonel Gaddafi may have used British weapons to kill hundreds of his fellow countrymen in Libya. They accused Mr Cameron of using a high-profile visit to Cairo’s Tahrir Square – Ground Zero in the Egyptian popular uprising – as a fig leaf for peddling military equipment."

A clear way to reduce violence in the Middle East is for Western governments to stop killing people indirectly through weapons sales, or directly through occupations. If there is a "responsibility to protect" it is by building movements in the West to end our own government's arms sales and occupations.
 
WAR RESISTERS and WORKERS

      By doing so we strengthen resistance movements across the Arab world, as the 2003 protests against the Iraq War strengthened the Egyptian resistance against Mubarak. The emerging revolutionary wave is now developing alternative methods of regime change, including soldiers refusing to fight. Whereas the imperial toppling of Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands, stoked sectarian divisions and set up massive permanent military bases, the democratic toppling of Hosni Mubarak was infinitely more peaceful, created unity between Christians and Muslims, and opened up cracks in the military as ordinary soldiers refused to attack protesters and joined the demonstrations. A similar process is happening in Libya, where tribes that Gaddafi once pitted against each other are overcoming their divisions and uniting against him, and war resisters are emerging—including two fighter pilots who flew to Malta rather than follow orders to bomb Benghazi. Egyptian and Libyan war resisters join the ranks of Israeli refuseniks who won’t participate in brutalizing Palestinians, US and British war resisters who refuse to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a proud history of war resisters from WWI to Vietnam.

     Ordinary workers have contributed to the military’s collapse. In Tunisia war resisters refused to fire on demonstrators, and a general strike turned even the military high command against Ben Ali. In Egypt Mubarak tried to outlast protesters in Tahrir Square, but when their political protest ignited workers economic protest—including strikes in military production facilities—the military high command turned against Mubarak. 

     A similar process across the region—with mass political protest triggering mass strikes and splitting the military—would topple more tyrants, expose their Western supporters, and undermine imperial control of the region. Hence the right-wing cry of intervention, which would not only allow Gaddafi to cast himself as a defender of the country but would disrupt these emerging mass movements. But if people in the West can protect people in the region from our own governments, and revolutionary movements can continue to deepen and involve soldiers and workers, then there's a chance to liberate Libya and the entire region by seizing on the Achilles heel of militarism, expressed so clearly by Bertold Brecht:

General, your tank

is a powerful vehicle

it smashes down forests

& crushes a hundred men.

but it has one defect:

it needs a driver.

General, your bomber is powerful

it flies faster than a storm

& carries more than an elephant.

but it has one defect:

it needs a mechanic.

General, man is very useful.

He can fly & he can kill.

but he has one defect:

He can think.

Victory and contradictions of repealing "Don't ask, don't tell"

Many have greeted the repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in the US military as a historic victory for human rights, while others are dismissing it as a cynical move to enhance US imperialism. How do we interpret the repeal of DADT?

BINARIES

     While many celebrated the repeal of DADT—signed by Obama on December 15 and taking effect 60 days later, pending a review—as a historic victory, leading US anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan—mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq—has dismissed the repeal. In her article “Don’t go, don't kill”, she points out the repeal does nothing to stop US imperialism, nothing to stop the harassment of gays in the military, and nothing to stop PTSD, suicides or meager benefits of veterans in general. This is all true and was never the intention of the repeal, but she dismisses it as only serving the elites, while duping the rest of us:

“We live in a world governed by binaries, straight of gay, them or us, freedom or tyranny…we should embrace complication, appreciate difference and most of all not be duped into accepting ‘victories’ that clearly benefit an elite… the capacity for increased carnage should not be celebrated as a victory!”

     This interpretation itself is based on a binary that the DADT repeal must either be a complete victory over imperialism, or a defeat. While Sheehan’s arguments help to highlight the contradictions of the DADT repeal, they dismiss the importance of reforms, and dichotomize the gay rights and anti-war movements.

MILITARY HOMOPHOBIA

     The truth is that the repeal of DADT is both highly limited and a historic victory. For more than two centuries gays and lesbians have been banned from openly serving in the US military, initially under “sodomy laws”, then under labels of “psychiatric illness” and for the past 17 years under the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Since Bill Clinton instituted the policy in 1993, more than 13,000 servicemembers have been discharged, the equivalent of two people every day, while an estimated 65,000 gays and lesbians remain in active duty under official discrimination. Homophobia from the top of the military has fueled unknown counts of harassments and threats, like those against war resister Skyler James who now lives in Canada.

     US elites like Defense Secretary Robert Gates certainly have their own reasons for repealing DADT—like increasing the recruitments numbers for a military overstretched in two quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, while giving a progressive face to the US military and the bloody occupations it carries out—and of course repealing DADT does nothing to alter the effects of US militarism on occupied people. Nor does it end homophobia in the military, from harassment to discriminatory policies. As Chris Patti, navy serviceperson wrote in the Washington Post, repealing DADT 

“does not mean that gay and lesbian service members have equality. The Pentagon must be clear about treating all members of the U.S. military equally, which means that it must recognize gay marriage as legal and a right of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine. These rights also must extend to their spouses, just as they do to the spouses of straight servicemen and women, to include health care, retirement benefits, GI Bill eligibility and commissary privileges.”

THE IMPORTANCE OF REFORMS

National Equality March, October 11, 2009

     But the repeal of DADT is an important first step towards achieving equality in the armed forces, which would not have happened without gay rights organizing. There has been sustained activism against DADT, alongside other demands. Last year 200,000 people joined the National Equality March in Washington, demanding  equal marriage and an end to DADT, hate crimes, and discrimination in the workplace. 

     Dismissing all those who organized and participated as dupes of the war machine ignores how much a fight it was to win the repeal, and creates a false dichotomy between reforms and ultimate victories. Striking down official discrimination in an institution does not mean supporting the institution or stopping demands at limited reforms. Should we dismiss the historic election of Obama and the movement that elected him because racism did not disappear over night? Should we dismiss campaigns for pay equity until the world of exploitative labour is ended, and leave women under economic discrimination? We want a world of peace and equality, but until we get there are gays and lesbians in the military supposed to endure official discrimination? Surely striking down DADT is a step towards the ultimate goal, not away from it. 

demanding an integrated military

     That was the perspective the last time the military was challenged on civil rights. During and after WWII, blacks who had fought "for freedom and democracy" overseas demanded those rights at home, and one of the first gains in the Civil Rights Movement was the integration of the armed forces. Decades before the famous March of Washington and the Civil Rights Act that followed, African-American activists raised the idea of a march on Washington to pressure Roosevelt and then Truman to end the Jim Crow army. The main organizers included socialist labour organizer A Philip Randolph and future War Resisters League organizer Bayard Rustin, who saw the integration of the armed forces as a chance to strike down bigotry in one of the country's dominant institutions, which would have a ripple effect across society. There was no false dichotomy between fighting discrimination in reactionary institutions and demanding a world of peace and freedom. In 1948 these mobilizations forced Truman to integrate the armed forces, the momentum continued into a broader Civil Rights Movement, and this in turn helped build the biggest anti-war movement in US history against the Vietnam War. 

     We must keep our eye on the prize, of a world of peace and equality, but in this long journey the repeal of DADT is a small but important step.