WW3.0
LEFT COMMUNIST RESPONSE TO #AUKUS
Anti-China Military Alliance between the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom?
A significant step in the dynamics of generalized war
(press release of September 18, 2021)
The 'sudden announcement of the creation of a military alliance between the United States, Australia and Great Britain, the Aukud, a kind of Asian and uniquely Anglo-Saxon NATO represents a step, if not a leap, of extreme importance in the march towards generalized imperialist war. The event seemed to us of such importance that we considered it essential to modify the contents of our review REVOLUTION or WAR Journal of the International Group of the Communist Left (IGCL) 19 at the last moment and to delay its release for a few days.
Its editorial, written the day before the alliance's public declaration, underlines once again, as we have already done in previous issues, "that the push for generalized imperialist war is exerting increased pressure on each national bourgeoisie, to begin with by the most powerful, to the point that the outlines of a polarization, which is also in the process of becoming, military and ideological, seem to be emerging around the United States, bringing together the so-called democratic imperialist powers and China, behind which the so-called powers would be aligned.
The new military alliance is an expression and an accelerating factor. If in any doubt of the gravity of the decision, just look at the Chinese reaction: "If Australia ventures to provoke China even more openly over this (...), China will punish it mercilessly. . (…) Since Australia has become an anti-Chinese spearhead, the country must prepare for the worst. (Global Times, Chinese newspaper, 9/16/21, emphasis added)
With the new alliance and the nuclear armament of the Australian navy (among other military decisions), the USoffensive containment, that one even that the United States had waged in the 1930s against Japan, tightens its grip on China even more. The first imperialist power cannot let it take its place at the risk of precipitating its own downfall. But sooner or later, the infernal dialectic of imperialism and like Japan at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Chinese imperialism will be forced to try to loosen the tourniquet by which American imperialism seeks to suffocate it. The gear is relaunched with the Aukud and the endowment of nuclear submarines to Australia can only cause a redoubling of the arms race both in the so-called Indo-Pacific zone and on all continents.
The real scale and significance of the "catastrophic" - catastrophic for the Afghan population - withdrawal of the American army from Kabul is becoming clearer: the American anti-Chinese offensive is the top priority and everyone must choose their side, for or versus. "Europeans want to delay the moment of truth, not to make a choice between the two, " said Thomas Gomart, director of the French Institute of International Relations, or IFRI. The Biden administration, like the Trump administration, is forcing the moment to choose. " (Quoted by the New York Times, 9/17/21) French imperialism, the most pro" European defense ", has just suffered a masterful snub - to the point of recalling its ambassadors in Washington and Canberra - who say so. long both on its own limits and its weight on the world stage and on its inability to convince its “European partners”, Germany, to assert a substantial European imperialist pole.
Today, in the speed race between the two dynamics and the choice of the historical alternative revolution or war, the march towards war tends to take the advantage. Time is playing against the revolutionary proletariat. To conclude, we reproduce below the position taken by the revolutionary group Emancipation (Nuevo Curso). It defends an internationalist position and shares with us the historical significance of the creation of the Aukud and the danger of the march towards generalized imperialist war. So, since it is possible, speaking with one voice not only to raise high the banner of proletarian internationalism but also to dismantle and shed light on the infernal mechanics of imperialism constitutes for the communist groups and the proletariat a first class response.
The IGCL, September 18, 2021
website : www.igcl.org
Aukus, the new military alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States: a step towards 3rd world war
(Emancipation)
he official European media headlines “US, Australia and UK make pact against China” bluntly warns of the danger of the Aukus deal and how it marks the end. entry into a new phase of nuclear proliferation. It is true that this is one
more step towards war, but if it marks a limit, it is only because the European powers have been excluded by the United States from the secondary arms market. they were counting on until Wednesday.
However, the organization of Aukus as an “English-speaking bloc” is neither new nor limited to armaments. It is the core of a trading and war bloc.
Australia: “an alliance for the next generations”
The most significant aspect of this agreement is that it expresses Australia's final choice of a long-term alliance with the United States against China. The Australian press, following Prime Minister Scott Morrison, speaks of a "deal for life" which is "destined to last for generations." Over the past three years Australia has tried to maintain an autonomous imperialist course - with increasing difficulty. On the one hand, its most basic industrial supply routes were becoming more openly threatened by China, its main customer. On the other hand, attempts to find a regional alternative in terms of routes and markets as part of the American attempts to create their own Indo-Pacific alliance have been thwarted by India's reluctance.
“The 2018 fuel supply crisis - perhaps a quiet Chinese signal - made it clear to the Australian bourgeoisie that something was wrong. Australia is supplied by Asian refineries (especially China, Singapore and South Korea). Even if it changed suppliers and developed its own refineries, it would need a "safe corridor" from Japan to the Persian Gulf. The problem is that the economic-military dimension of this corridor, QUAD, the Australia-Japan-India-United States partnership, was attractive to Australian capital primarily as a means of rebalancing Chinese exports with others to the United States. India ... But when Trump has raised regional tensions, Modi [Indian Prime Minister, ndt] - fearing to rally against Beijing - quickly made to distance India. Clearly, the opening of free trade negotiations with the European Union (EU) shortly thereafter was in turn intended to compensate for the loss of perspective from the Indian markets. But neither the possible volumes, nor the negotiation times, nor even the transport costs, allow them to be compared. » (Émancipation, Australia y la guerra comercial, 2019)
It is in this context that the rapprochement - inevitably unsatisfactory - with the EU in 2019 took place. Australia - which then suffered a blockage of its coal exports and of wine to China - is looking to Europe for an agreement to expand its submarine fleet, as it does not want to go into open conflict just yet. Its first candidate supplier was not France. Germany had hoped to build the 12 submarines for the Australian Navy, but it was ultimately Paris that won the contract.
France, the European Union and the “deal of the century” broken by Aukus The American announcement of the birth of Aukus came this week, just as the EU presented its “Indo-Pacific strategy”. The new strategy is to extend and make permanent the presence of a European navy in maritime conflict zones. A dangerous game of challenge and pressure on Beijing in which France and Germany played a leading role. This “coincidence” did not go unnoticed by Europeans
.
Yesterday the French government called the Aukus and the resulting cancellation of the submarine deal a "stab in the back" and Mr Borrell, on behalf of the EU, " regretted "that the United States left the Europeans out of the Aukus, implying that relations with Washington would never be the same again.
But what hurt Paris and Brussels the most was the breach of the contract to extend the Australian submarine fleet. Australia had planned to obtain French technology to set up its own domestic production of submarines. The starting model was the Shortfin Barracuda, the diesel version of the French nuclear submarine of the same name. Australia gained strategic autonomy by purchasing production capacity and not the end product, and reserved the subsequent conversion to nuclear.
“The amount of the bill initially estimated at 34 billion euros, suffered several budget overruns and months of delay, which aroused the wrath of the local Australian press and the Labor opposition. Meanwhile, outside of radars, the United States has interfered in the negotiations, and torpedoed 'the contract of the century', offering to provide the Australian Navy with eight atomic-powered submarines capable of patrolling at very long distance. " (The French review Marianne, Submarine contract broken: "The United States has opened Pandora's box", 9/16/2021))
From the Franco-European point of view taken up by the media, it seems that the United States has excluded the 'EU of Aukus only to "steal" the contract from the submarines. This is not the case. The choice of armaments generates operational links, allows the exchange and joint training of crews and facilitates the coordination and complementarity of operations. Choosing armaments means choosing allies on the battlefield, selling them, promoting future joint operations.
From an Australian perspective, it is understandable why a turnkey American submarine has become more valuable than a European technology shipyard on national soil. War in Asia seems closer and closer, a matter of years, not decades. And the United States is a vector, with a capacity of projection of troops and ships much greater than that of a distant and less well-equipped Europe.
The evolution of American alignments against China in the Pacific and the origin of Aukus The "surprise" of Borrell and the European Commission is not very convincing either. For the United States, Aukus means giving up - reluctantly - having the main Asian states as the main military and commercial vehicle in their confrontation with China. They take a step back and decide to relaunch their "hard core" of alliances with other English-speaking countries where their influence has always been predominant, in order to advance in their encirclement of China.
The specific objectives of the Aukus, namely "to deepen cooperation in areas such as cybernetics, artificial intelligence (AI) or quantum technology" by promoting a "new security framework" in the Indo-Pacific region, are a development of the “Five Eyes” alliance: the United States, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. This alliance, whose origins date back to the Pacific War, is a military intelligence club that has been operating continuously since the Korean War.
For a year and a half, the "five eyes" have been proposed as the basis of an anti-Chinese bloc in the Indo-Pacific region and China has seen there the nucleus of an Anglo-Saxon bloc which was already coordinating in the trade war. But the United States, for reasons of economic strategy and political positioning in Asia, did not want the new “Asian NATO” to emerge from an alliance of only Anglo-Saxon countries, as is ultimately the Aukus. This is why its primary objective, both under Trump and under Biden, was to consolidate the QUAD (United States, India, Australia and Japan) as a military alliance and economic trade bloc, and to rely on this core. by incorporating South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia.
But South Korea, engaged in its own rivalry with Japan and having more than notable investments in China, did not want to be in the game and categorically refused to be part of an enlarged Quad. India also refused under Trump's presidency. And if the United States was hoping for a change with Biden, it was wrong. The Modi government only agreed to participate in the joint military exercises when it was clear that they would take place under French leadership, which now takes on its full significance. And in April of this year, India reaffirmed its alliance with Russia.
The United States then considered including Japan in the "five eyes" group. But when the friction between Japan and South Korea nearly blasted the G7, it seems to have become clear to Biden's advisers that there is no relevant subset of Asian countries in which alignment with the United States was stronger than the imperialist quarrels between them. Japan allowed Vietnam to be added - something Washington needed Suga [the Japanese prime minister] for - but subtracted Korea and the Philippines.
The strategy of creating an imperialist bloc in Asia and the Indo-Pacific region was redefined at the White House: it was better to return to the safe ground of the "five eyes" - from which the Aukus originated - and regroup the rest of the countries. which confront China on the basis of bilateral military agreements such as the one recently concluded with Indonesia.
It is so important to ensure the “governance” of the alliance that the United States has left Canada outside the Aukus - with which trade disputes have not abated since Biden's arrival - as well as New Zealand and its Prime Minister who was too little hawkish in Washington's eyes.
Aukus: a coup by the USA to force the constitution of an imperialist bloc in the southern hemisphere
Yet it is not as if Great Britain, the third leg of the Aukus, is unconditionally in the alliance no more. The Afghan experience, in which the United States left the British military in a difficult situation by withdrawing without coordination or consultation, is all too recent. And in yesterday's parliamentary debate, Theresa May, in no way suspicious of pacifism, asked Johnson if membership in Aukus would not drag Britain into a war for Taiwan in the short term.
The question is far from being exaggerated. For months, Washington has concentrated pressure and weaponry on the Taiwan Strait. Beijing, especially since the last edition of the "two sessions" in question its belonging to China. The two camps have been continuously mobilized for months and dream without shame or prudence of the consequences of a defeat of the other.
Over the past four years, we have seen the trend of bloc formation strengthen with each stroke of the crisis. Aukus represents, at the very least, a further step. There was no change to be expected from the Biden presidency in this regard. And indeed, what is now becoming clear is that persevering on the path of war is the main strategic commonality of the various factions of the American ruling class.
Within the American ruling class, pre-war emergencies serve to mend the tear that the Trump administration has represented. The internal logic of this situation is fueling the acceleration of militarism and imperialist tensions with China.
“The Biden administration justifies US policy in terms of infrastructure, economy and even public services by the need to strengthen the country to better compete with China. American foreign policy is increasingly organized as an attempt to counter the rising great power. President Joe Biden keeps repeating that he had to withdraw from Afghanistan because China liked the United States to get bogged down in it. Take some of the most important issues rocking Washington, the Covid-19 pandemic and the fight against climate change, and China is at the center of those. (…) The idea that [China] poses a threat is the only point on which Republicans and Democrats, supporters of Trump and Biden can agree. Biden has placed the promotion of democracy at the center of his presidency, there is no need to guess why ... ” (CNN1).
This process has its immediate translation in the whole of the American imperialist policy and in particular in the relations with its “historical allies”, not only in Europe but also in the rest of the world. When the French foreign minister called the formation of Aukus and the breach of the naval contract "unilateral, brutal and unpredictable" (France Info), the implicit reference to Kabul sent a message to the other European states which Paris will present to again the idea of a European army in 2022: “the EU cannot count on the United States to defend its interests if it does not have a position allowing it to defend itself.
"Butwhen he found that the behavior of the US towards Europe was"very similar to Mr.Trump, "hestressed that Washington does not simply continue the" me or China ”, but leaves less and less room for an imperialist policy independent of the European states. In the words of CNN: “The leaders of the European Union have been more cautious [of China than the United States], apparently seeking a middle path between two great powers. The past few days show that making such a decision has consequences.
"TheFrench capital has faced the obvious: the policy of" with me or against me "applies already in Asia. Aukus is actually a hit on the table on the most sensitive stage for Washington in its rivalry to China. Its aim is to precipitate by force the formation of an imperialist bloc in the Pacific and to force all the states which want to play in the region to come out for or against the USA.
And this is only the first step. In the rest of the world, even for countries on the fringes of the Indo-Pacific conflict, Aukus is likely to become the nucleus of an “alternative” to China in an option that will increasingly be “all or nothing”. The tension in the Falklands and the Sickle Sea has been a dress rehearsal - so far inconclusive - of what the Aukus might entail in the southern cone of South America and in Antarctica. But sooner or later we'll see the alliance move across the southern hemisphere.
IGCL
OUR POSITIONS
• Since World War 1, capitalism has been a decadent social system which has nothing to offer the working class and humanity as a whole except cycles of crises, wars and reconstructions. Its irreversible historical decay poses the single alternative for humanity : socialism or barbarism.
• The Paris Commune of 1871 was the first attempt by the proletariat to carry out this revolution, in a period when the conditions for it were not yet ripe. Once these conditions had been provided by the onset of capitalist decadence, the October revolution of 1917 in Russia was the first step towards an authentic world communist revolution in an international revolutionary wave which put an end to the imperialist war and went on for several years after that. The failure of this revolutionary wave, particularly in Germany in 1919-23, condemned the revolution in Russia to isolation and to a rapid degeneration. Stalinism was not the product of the Russian revolution, but its gravedigger.
• The statified regimes which arose in the USSR, eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc., and were called 'socialist' or 'communist' were just a particularly brutal form of the universal tendency towards state capitalism, itself a major characteristic of the period of decadence.
• Since the beginning of the 20th century, all wars are imperialist wars, part of the deadly struggle between states large and small to conquer or retain a place in the international arena. These wars bring nothing to humanity but death and destruction on an ever-increasing scale. The working class can only respond to them through its international solidarity and by struggling against the bourgeoisie in all countries.
• All the nationalist ideologies -'national independence', 'the right of nations to self-determination', etc.- whatever their pretext, ethnic, historical or religious, are a real poison for the workers. By calling on them to take the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, they divide workers and lead them to massacre each other in the interests and wars of their exploiters.
• In decadent capitalism, parliament and elections are nothing but a masquerade. Any call to participate in the parliamentary circus can only reinforce the lie that presents these elections as a real choice for the exploited. 'Democracy', a particularly hypocritical form of the domination of the bourgeoisie, does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship, such as Stalinism and fascism.
• All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called 'workers', 'Socialist', and 'Communist' parties (now ex-'Communists'), the leftist organizations (Trotskyists, Maoists, anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism's political apparatus. All the tactics of 'popular fronts', 'anti-fascist fronts' and 'united fronts', which mix the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.
• With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organization, whether 'official' or 'rank and file', serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles.
• In order to advance its combat, the working class has to unify its struggles, taking charge of their extension and organization through sovereign general assemblies and committees of delegates elected and revocable at any time by these assemblies.
• Terrorism is in no way a method of struggle for the working class. The expression of social strata with no historic future and of the decomposition of the petty bourgeoisie, when it's not the direct expression of the permanent war between capitalist states, terrorism has always been a fertile soil for manipulation by the bourgeoisie. Advocating secret action by small minorities, it is in complete opposition to class violence, which derives from conscious and organized mass action by the proletariat.
• The working class is the only class which can carry out the communist revolution. Its revolutionary struggle will inevitably lead the working class towards a confrontation with the capitalist state. In order to destroy capitalism, the working class will have to overthrow all existing states and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world scale: the international power of the workers' councils, regrouping the entire proletariat.
• The communist transformation of society by the workers' councils does not mean 'self-management' or the nationalization of the economy. Communism requires the conscious abolition by the working class of capitalist social relations: wage labour, commodity production, national frontiers. It means the creation of a world community in which all activity is oriented towards the full satisfaction of human needs.
• The revolutionary political organization constitutes the vanguard of the working class and is an active factor in the generalization of class consciousness within the proletariat. Its role is neither to 'organize the working class' nor to 'take power' in its name, but to participate actively in the movement towards the unification of struggles, towards workers taking control of them for themselves, and at the same time to draw out the revolutionary political goals of the proletariat's combat.
OUR ACTIVITY
• Political and theoretical clarification of the goals and methods of the proletarian struggle, of its historic and its immediate conditions.
• Organized intervention, united and centralized on an international scale, in order to contribute to the process which leads to the revolutionary action of the proletariat.
• The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party, which is indispensable to the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a communist society.
OUR ORIGINS
• The positions and activity of revolutionary organizations are the product of the past experiences of the working class and of the lessons that its political organizations have drawn throughout its history. The IGCL thus traces its origins to the successive contributions of the Communist League of Marx and Engels (1847-52), the three Internationals (the International Workingmen's Association, 1864-72, the Socialist International, 1884-1914, the Communist International, 1919-28), the left fractions which detached themselves from the degenerating Third International in the years 1920-30, in particular the German, Dutch and Italian Lefts, and the groups of the Communist Left which had specially developed in the 1970s and 1980s and which were stemming from these fractions.
