Interventions. Negative vs. Positive Campaigns.
cbcox at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
Mon Aug 7 16:41:29 MDT 1995
Chris Burford writes:
> I feel Carrol and some others pose the question as if to assume
> that the only possible supranational interventions were of US armed
It is only over U.S. forces that I and others here might exert any power,
positive or negative. I will also work to keep U.S. forces from aiding any
other imperialist power from intervention elsewhere. I also work to make the
U.S. stop aiding Indonesia in its policy in Timor; I do *not* work to make the
U.S. intervene to "help" the Timorese.
> Possibly I find these approaches puzzling because I am so
> used in the anti-apartheid movement to be trying to pressurise
> the British and other governments to shift their policy on apartheid
> South Africa.
Anti-Apartheid work consisted in forcing the U.S. to stop interfering in
South Africa through cutting off all relations with S.A. I would not have
dreamt of urging the U.S. to intervening against Apartheid: that would have
been urging the fox to intervene to help the chickens. The ANC and allies could
do a better job without such help.
> Remember how the peace movements in the 1980 created a public
> agenda which Reagan and Gorbachev had ultimately to addresss?
We campaigned against nuclear weapons; against U.S. activity of any kind
abroad. So this, like the South African case, is an argument *against*, not
*for*, intervention in Yugoslavia.
> Carrol Cox
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism