G8, Ed. Gill Hubbard and David Miller, Pluto Press (£11.99), reviewed by Karen O'Toole Seattle 1999 and since have produced a new wave.of anticapitalist publications written by the people who made the demonstrations. The G8 in Scotland is no exception.
This book, written by activsts within the movement begins to chart not only the activities, but also some of the ideas and debates within the movement
The connecting theme here is neoliberalism, although the book is subdivided into different sections such as War and
Globalisation, Debt,
Democracy, the EU, and the
War on Terror.
Neoliberalism because
most of the contributors acknowledge that the economics of the NeoConservatives are the driving force behind all attacks on SOCICLY.
Salma Yaqoob gets straight down to business when she utilises von Clausewitz's notion that war is the continuation of politics by other means', and is the logical outcome of neo-liberalism.
A number of contributors touch on the fact that neoliberal economics are a departure from the older model formerly accepted by world leaders until the 1970s, that of a degree of state control of the national economy.
This ended in the early 1970s with the collapse of the Bretton's Woods system of regulation and we are now, according to the editors, in
the third phase, that of the
neo-liberal New World Order
with unregulated international financial markets and
the demands by international
capital for the loosening of restrictions on trade.
Some go further and point to the reasons why this change took place when it did.
Noam Chomsky, whilst acknowledging the new economic landscape, argues that historically wars have had everything to do with a not so new phenomenon, the existence of the nation state and the drive towards accumulation of the world's wealth.
He goes on to say that the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was accompanied by Ronald Reagan's doctrine 20 years ago that 'the war on terror' in Central America and the Middle East would be the focus for US foreign policy in the future.
Picking up on this theme of the nation state, Colin Leys points out that although the movement has rightly targeted unaccountable international institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and supposedly at the heart of the 'drive to democratise' the
The conclusion is that of the world in neoliberal coBob Crow from the RMT
netted £100 million in profits gerous operation. Think global, act local.
page 14 of the scan
Patrick Scott About 80 years ago, the then US President Franklin Roosevelt said of Anastasio Somoza, the then Nicaraguan dictator and US ally "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch".
In 2002 the US State Department published report that might not have described Uzbeki President Islam Karimov as a son of a bitch, but said so in as many words.
The report described Karimov's regime as "an authoritarian state with limited civil rights" and where the "government does not permit the existence of oppoSHOU parties". The report also admitted that Karimov's regime carried out "torture as a routine investigation technique".
But only weeks after the report was published, George W Bush received Karimow as an honoured guest at the White House. Like Anastasio Somoza and so many others after him, Islam Karimov is another dictator who the US government consider to be their "son of a bitch".
Having a friendly regime in Uzbekistan of central importance to the US for both military and geopolitical reasons. A former republic of the USSR, Uzbekistan is within striking distance
Afghanistan to the South and Russia to the North, it is also rich in gas, oil and gold.
In 2002 the US gave $500
million in aid to Uzbekistan,
including $120 million in military and $80 million in security aid. In return the US
established a military base in
Khanbad, in southern
Uzbekistan, used as part of
operations in the invasion of
Afghanistan. Today there are
about 1,000 US troops at the
base.
The co-operation between
the US and Uzbekistan has continued. The CIA regularly flies "Muslim terrorists" into Uzbekistan where they are handed over to the SNB, Karimov's •secret police. Experts in torture, the SNB were responsible for boiling Musafar Avazov, a political oppositionist, to death, after severely beating him and ripping out his fingernails.
It is inconceivable that the Karimov's troops could or would have committed the mass murder of 300 or more demonstrators (allegedly including children) Andijan on May 13 unless the regime was confident that it would have the tacit support of both US and British imperialism.
The British position had already been made clear with the sacking last year of the then British ambassador Craig Murray for publicising human rights abuses and also that the ClA and MI6 had used "information" obtained under torture in Uzbekistan in their "war on terror".
The events Andijan forced Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to make some mealy mouthed comments about human rights abuses and letting independent observers
into Andijan. When asked
Karimov's repression has created a new tide of refugees to neighbouring Kyrgystan (below) whether Britain would support a democratic opposition movement in Uzbekistan, Straw replied in a classic case of Orwellian doublespeak that "It's for the people to decide on a change of regime, not outsiders".
The Bush administration was not even prepared to go so far. Whilst accepting "some concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan" White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan also went on to say "but we are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist group freed from prison".
Then employing the same type of doublespeak as Jack Straw, McClellan concluded that "The Uzbekistan want to see more representative and democratic government, but that should come through peaceful means, not through violence".
The massacre of May 13 followed the storming of the local prison by demonstrators.
The members of the socalled terrorist group freed from Andijan prison by the demonstrators were 23 local businessman on trial for the crime of Islamic terrorism.
They were members of Akramia, a small Islamic movement that places emphasis on economic activity and economic success rather than religious ideology.
Though an Islamic country where 88% of the population is Muslim, all religious activity is subject to state control. The wearing of Islamic dress such as the hijab is illegal and Mosques can only operate with state approval.
Any Islamic organisation is therefore automatically denounced as subversive and terrorist.
The 23 were arrested after setting up a local construction company as well as a local mutual fund to help workers in the locality get jobs.
In most places in the world today they would have been hailed as entrepreneurs and philanthropists but Uzbekistan even that is considered highly subversive.
They may also have incurred the wrath of the regime because as well as controlling political life, most major capitalist enterprises in Uzbekistan are owned by Islam Karimov or members of his family.
To set up any form of business is therefore to become a Though 88% of the population is Muslim, all religious activity is subject te state control. The wearing of Islamic dress is illegal and Mosques can only operate with state approval. Any Islamic organisation is therefore automatically denounced as subversive and terrorist. potential opponent of the regime.
In Uzbekistan today the only terrorism is the state terrorism of the Karimov regime which has the full support of the US and British governmells Our task is to build links and develop political solidarity with the democratic opposition to Karimor as the
overthrow of his regime will
be a major defeat for imperialism and imperialist interests
in central Asia.