Ainsworth's army

Bob Ainsworth reminds me of something, but I'm not sure what. Maybe it's the recruiting sergeant in Richard Attenborough's film of Joan Littlewood's Oh what a lovely war. Maybe it's one of the less interesting characters in Dad's Army. He certainly doesn't fit in with my image of a minister in a Labour government. But I have a feeling that's because I'm stuck with an image of Labour ministers which doesn't really make sense any more.

After all, Bob is the latest in a line of Secretaries of State for Defence who have repeated every MOD line, milked deaths for a jingoistic moment, and denounced those of us who oppose the wars they have dragged us into.

Now Bob's at it again. In this week's New Statesman he bemoans that 'some in the UK believe the fight is not worth it'. He's quite right _ a definite majority, it appears from all the polls. He calls this 'defeatism'. What on earth is this meant to convey? I fear that it is a cynical attempt to defend the war in Afghanistan by harking back to the terminology of the Second World War.

Government ministers want to give the impression that the enemy is at the gates, that anyone who doesn't side with the government is on the other side. Partly they have to do so, because they have to pretend that this is a defensive war. How better to do this than to reference an age when careless talk cost lives and when any 'defeatist' could be pilloried by right minded people. They also have to pretend that the enemy is at least distantly related to Adolf Hitler and therefore has to be opposed.

The British are old hands at this: they said it of the Arab nationalist Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, over Suez, of Argentina's General Galtieri in 1982, and of course Saddam Hussein since, well since he stopped being their best friend in the Middle East.

It appears that Ainsworth was moved to this thought by the comment of a British officer 'We are here to help the Afghan people and to protect national security'. As he says, 'I was struck by his words'. No offence to the officer concerned, but I can't see why, since they represent exactly the kind of platitudes peddled by the army and government all the time.

Many soldiers don't accept this view, but like Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, who is facing court martial, feel that they should not be in Afghanistan. So do the growing number of 'defeatists' here, who ask what is the point of more deaths when they struggle daily to figure out the government's war aims.

Labour ministers promoting this scoundrel patriotism should be ashamed of themselves. The problem is they're not.

The last respectable racism

Those who oppose immigration usually use the argument that the country is too overcrowded. It's nothing to do with racism, they say, we just can't cope with all these people. But scratch the surface and you find that it's people of particular colours and from particular parts of the world who tend to generate the greatest fear and loathing from the anti immigration crowd.

I was reminded of this after reading an article by Adrian Michaels in the Telegraph. There's a demographic time bomb transforming Europe, he says. Muslims are poised to take over...maybe. Even his facts don't really bear this out. Take the juxtaposition of these sentences: 'Only 3.2 percent of Spain's population was foreign born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 percent. Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015.'

Yet does this increase in Spain's foreign born population represent an increase in Muslims? No, the figure is for all foreign born, which will include large numbers of Spanish speakers from latin America (largely Catholics by religion). It will also include many other Europeans. One big increase in the years between 1998 and 2007 has been the internal migration of Europeans between different EU states. We know that around 1 million Britons live in Spain. It's a fair bet that nearly all of these are non Muslims. Many of them move to Spain for the sun, sea and cheap sangria. It's also fairly obvious that they don't integrate very well into Spanish society, given that many live in English speaking coastal enclaves and don't seem to understand basic planning regulations in the country they have made their home.

But scares about immigrants aren't about white Europeans, they are about people who don't 'fit in' to 'our way of life': men with beards, women with hijabs, people whose religion is not Christian, and whose language is not European. Michaels quotes a Pew Research report which says that the EU countries 'possess deep historical, cultural, religious and linguistic traditions. Injecting hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of people who look, speak and act differently into these settings often makes for a difficult social fit.'

Well Europe does possess deep traditions, but they're not all the same. It is divided by religion _a major source of tension including wars in the past. It has been riven by social, political and cultural divisions. European powers went to war twice in the 20th century with terrible consequences. Spain and Portugal continued their right wing or fascist dictatorships, with acquiescence from the other powers, for 30 years after the Second World War.

The current consensus of Europe as the seat of everything enlightened hardly bears much scrutiny. Religious toleration, scientific advance, human rights and freedom of expression all had to be fought for against bitter and often brutal opposition. And the last century did produce two world wars, dictatorship, fascism and the Holocaust, all in civilised Europe.

Of course language and culture have developed within Europe, although often with other roots and influences. But what's to stop non Europeans from learning English (as they do in their overwhelming majority when they come here) or appreciating Michelangelo? Anyway a person born in Europe is European. Get used to it.

But this isn't about culture, it's about race. Here's a clue: 'whites will be in a minority in Birmingham by 2026, says Christopher Caldwell, an American journalist, (read right wing neo con) and even sooner in Leicester'. So all the talk about culture, tradition, preserving 'our way of life' is a smokescreen _ it's about race and class. That's why, according to these people, it's acceptable for whites to live in Spain, or for relatively large numbers of French, Italian or Australian professionals to live in London, but not for workers who are Afro Caribbeans, Indians and Pakistanis to live in Birmingham.

Here the Muslims endure a double whammy. Long discriminated against on racial grounds, along with their black and Asian brothers and sisters of other religions or none, they also face racism in jobs, housing and education. But now their religion is used as code to attack blacks and Asians in the most reactionary way in Austria, the Netherlands, and increasingly here in Britain. Islamophobia has become the last 'respectable' racism in Europe, with those perpetrating it propagating the deceit that they are against religion not race.

Last week we had a pathetic demo against Islam in Birmingham called by among others the English Defence League who said in the Guardian: 'It is the people who threaten with bombs
and violence and threaten and bomb our troops -- they don't belong here.' That's exactly what the Iraqis and Afghans feel about the British and US troops in their countries. And I'm glad to see that black and white people in Birmingham engaged in that good old tradition of opposition to racism and fascism in their home city.
>

Women's liberation lite

Where would the newspapers be in August without Harriet Harman? She is not only standing in for the prime minister in the Labour government that they love to hate but she's a woman and a feminist. She has made a series of (allegedly) outrageous statements including that there should always be a woman at the highest level of government, that men can't be trusted to do things on their own, that Lehman Brothers would have been run differently if it were Lehman Sisters, and that we should have tougher rape laws.

Predictably she has been attacked by John Prescott, which I would take as something of a compliment, but it seems to me that the level of vitriol against her is out of all proportion to what she said, regardless of whether you agree with all of it. Can it be that even the gentlest critique of the male dominated politics of the City and Westminster grates on too many nerves?

After all, some of the worst sexual harassment cases which come to tribunals emanate from the banks and broking rooms, as in the case where one businesswoman recently said she was compelled to visit lap dancing clubs in order to keep clients company. Meanwhile it is estimated that it will take 40 elections _ yes, elections _ for women to be equally represented in parliament.

But at the same time, I do have reservations about some of Harman's comments. This is after all women's liberation lite, on a par with the ads where women all meet over a bottle of wine to slag off men. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but it's what's not said that is so revealing.

A real defence of women would include defending maternity leave, and campaigning against women who are pregnant being forced out of jobs. It would also include defending jobs under attack in the present recession, whether the job losses were instigated by men or women bosses. It would also mean rejecting war and occupation as a means of defending women's liberation.

This is where, it seems to me, Harman falls down. Her involvement in a government which defends factory closures, believes that rights at work have to be subjugated to the profit motive, and has enthusiastically waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan, means that she has a strong verbal commitment to equality which is not matched in practice.

The really shocking statistics about the growth of inequality in Britain or that social mobility is less likely for young people today than it was a generation ago reflect very badly on the government and impact particularly hard on women.

They don't happen because men can't be left to do things on their own or because men are necessarily more belligerent (remember Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands) but because the drive to profit and the drive to war are connected, and that both show a disregard for human life.

In this respect, women like Harriet Harman are backing policies which are detrimental to women. She's not alone. It seems that there are no end of feminist journalists, managers and businesswomen, and politicians telling women how to behave. After all, the whole ethos today is that nothing is beyond the reach of women as long as they are prepared to walk over everyone else, if necessary in their 5 inch heels.

Women's liberation was never meant to be about that. Nor could it ever be about liberating women by waging imperialist war. Women's liberation can only succeed if it's about challenging the rich and powerful in a society which puts profit before people. Don't hold your breath waiting for any government minister _ man or woman _to do that.

The value of protest

Could you really credit the new guidelines for citizenship? You get points for canvassing for a political party (no conflict of interest there!) but you can be penalised for demonstrating against British troops. Points are deducted for failure to integrate or 'an active disregard of UK values'.

This has widely been spun as penalising those like the tiny group of protesters in Luton who demonstrated against a parade of troops. That demonstration has become one of the most reported and publicised of any local demo, an almost too convenient example of 'extremists' against 'our way of life.'

While few would agree with some of the sentiments expressed on that demo, protesting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan does not represent 'active disregard for UK values'. You could argue the opposite: since public opinion, according to all polls, wants a rapid withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan, then anti war demos more represent 'UK values' than the vociferous pro war lobby of military and politicians.

There is something very disconcerting and even scary about this points system. Who decides which values are acceptable or not? And where do you draw the line? The government ministers say they don't want protests against British troops, but who decides which anti war demo is against troops, and which against the government? At what point do all anti war demos become guilty of 'disregard for UK values'?

What about other issues? For example, where cleaners have had to demonstrate against exploitative employers; or demonstrations against the deportation of immigrants?

The truth is that there is almost total subjectivity on this question. What those proposing these tightening of immigration rules are arguing for is cultural and political homogeneity. You can come here as long as you don't protest or question the government (or its loyal opposition) too much.

This assumes a chasm between indigenous British citizens and those who migrate here _ politically, culturally and socially. It takes for granted that those from abroad have to 'integrate' in other words change in order to become more like us. It also takes for granted that British people share the same values _they don't. They are comprised of monarchists and republicans, atheists and deeply religious people, racists and anti racists _ and none of the above.

Government ministers who have presided over complicity in torture, the expenses scandal and the lengthening of the period of imprisonment without trial are great supporters of the supposed British values of liberty, honesty and fair play. But these values are not applied to many of its citizens, and are even more nebulous for those who come to this country as immigrants or refugees.

British people have always had to fight for their rights: the Chartists and early trade unionists against vicious employers; demonstrators against the police and government restrictions on their right to protest; women and working class men to get the vote.

Those fights and many more still continue, involving both people who were born here and those who have come to Britain from other parts of the world. One of the fights we all have an interest in is opposing these citizenship laws, whose not so hidden aim is to divide people on the basis of race or nation. Upholding the long tradition of protest in Britain is the best way to do so.