Published on Portside (https://portside.org/)
Published on Portside (https://portside.org/)
Whose Side Are We
On? The War in Ukraine and the Crisis of the Left
Van
Gosse and Bill Fletcher, Jr.
April
19, 2022
Portside
Blinded by
American Exceptionalism, however, many of the U.S. Left are not able to answer
the question, and their silence speaks.
We must always
oppose empire, under any heading. No nation has the right to dominate another,
let alone invade and occupy it. That was the principle we as leftists
affirmed in 2003, when George W. Bush led the United States into a war of
aggression against Iraq.
We should state it
plainly, in terms of international law. Aggressive war is the first crime
of war, from which all the others flow. As the International Military Tribunal
at Nuremberg stated, “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only
an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only
from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of
the whole.” Vladimir Putin has now committed this crime of war, and that is the
premise from which we should analyze the crisis in Ukraine: Whose side are we
on? That of the war criminals who started the war, or those who are defending
their sovereignty?
For
ourselves, we are on the side of the Ukrainian people against an unprovoked war
of aggression by an imperialist Great Power demonstrating in unmistakable terms
what V.I. Lenin denounced as “Great Russian chauvinism.”
Here are some
questions to consider.
Does Russia have
“legitimate security interests” in Ukraine and other nations bordering it?
That premise has
been affirmed repeatedly by various antiwar organizations, so we need to
underline: states large and small have one legitimate security interest,
which is to have their sovereignty respected—not to be invaded, bombed,
blockaded, or subverted.
That is the limit
of Russia’s security interest regarding Ukraine. It has no “legitimate
interest” in dominating, controlling, or dictating policy to the states
bordering it, any more than the U.S. does. Many of us have spent decades
denouncing the politics of the Monroe Doctrine, what Theodore Roosevelt defined
in 1904 as the U.S.’s right to “the exercise of an international police power”
in the Americas, which led to military occupations all over the Caribbean and
Central America between 1898 and 1934, the CIA-organized coup in Guatemala in
1954, and the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989. That is what it
looks like when a Great Power claims “a sphere of influence.” No one claiming
to be anti-imperialist should concede any legitimacy to a Russian “sphere of
influence.”
But hasn’t NATO
expansion threatened Russia?
As
anti-imperialists we oppose militarism in any form, including permanent
military pacts, and the aggressive militarism promoted by the U.S.-led NATO
alliance. The best way to protect the rights of small nations is to seek
demilitarization in Europe and everywhere else. But it is utterly wrong for us
to dictate to nations in Eastern Europe whether or not they join an alliance because
of the concrete threat that Russia poses to their sovereignty. This is
the message the Left in those countries has sent us, and we must respect it as
a basic principle of internationalist solidarity. We have no more right to tell
them what to do than the U.S. does to pressure or subvert the government of
Canada if it chose to leave NATO and conclude a treaty of friendship with
China.
Doesn’t the United
States share responsibility for this war?
Like all major
historical events, the war in Ukraine has many causes, and many actors were
involved. Focusing on what the U.S. did or didn’t do takes the focus off
who started it, and absolves Russia from its sole responsibility for initiating
a war of aggression. Beyond that, it betrays an Americo-centric view of
the world that is at odds with reality. The United States is no longer a world
hegemon, it does not determine the course of history, and presuming its
centrality makes the U.S. into an exception, standing outside and above the
normal relations between states.
Shouldn’t we focus
on peacekeeping by opposing all weapons transfers to Ukraine?
The Ukrainians
have a right to defend their country, and that includes the right to seek aid
from anywhere they see fit. It is everyone’s interest to keep this war from
spreading, so we should oppose any measures, such as a no-fly zone, that would
widen the zone of war across international borders and draw in more nations.
We are not
pacifists. The Left should avoid confusing pacifism, as in opposition to war in
any form, with anti-imperialism. We cannot stand aside and simply condemn
the violence. It is in Putin’s hands to stop the war now; until then, we
take the side of the Ukrainians.
Van Gosse is a
Professor of History at Franklin & Marshall College, and Co-Chair of
Historians for Peace and Democracy.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a past
president of TransAfrica Forum and a longtime trade unionist and writer.
A woman looks on at the Boston Common, March 6, in Boston. The protesters,
estimated to be about 3,000 people, marched from Copley Square to the Boston
Common as they protest Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Photo By Jim
Michaud/ Boston Herald)
Source URL: https://portside.org/2022-04-21/whose-side-are-we-war-ukraine-and-crisis-left
Donations can be sent
to Max Obuszewski, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 431 Notre Dame Lane, Apt. 206,
Baltimore, MD 21212. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at]
comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
Van
Gosse and Bill Fletcher, Jr.
April
19, 2022
Portside
Blinded by
American Exceptionalism, however, many of the U.S. Left are not able to answer
the question, and their silence speaks.
We must always
oppose empire, under any heading. No nation has the right to dominate another,
let alone invade and occupy it. That was the principle we as leftists
affirmed in 2003, when George W. Bush led the United States into a war of
aggression against Iraq.
We should state it
plainly, in terms of international law. Aggressive war is the first crime
of war, from which all the others flow. As the International Military Tribunal
at Nuremberg stated, “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only
an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only
from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of
the whole.” Vladimir Putin has now committed this crime of war, and that is the
premise from which we should analyze the crisis in Ukraine: Whose side are we
on? That of the war criminals who started the war, or those who are defending
their sovereignty?
For
ourselves, we are on the side of the Ukrainian people against an unprovoked war
of aggression by an imperialist Great Power demonstrating in unmistakable terms
what V.I. Lenin denounced as “Great Russian chauvinism.”
Here are some
questions to consider.
Does Russia have
“legitimate security interests” in Ukraine and other nations bordering it?
That premise has
been affirmed repeatedly by various antiwar organizations, so we need to
underline: states large and small have one legitimate security interest,
which is to have their sovereignty respected—not to be invaded, bombed,
blockaded, or subverted.
That is the limit
of Russia’s security interest regarding Ukraine. It has no “legitimate
interest” in dominating, controlling, or dictating policy to the states
bordering it, any more than the U.S. does. Many of us have spent decades
denouncing the politics of the Monroe Doctrine, what Theodore Roosevelt defined
in 1904 as the U.S.’s right to “the exercise of an international police power”
in the Americas, which led to military occupations all over the Caribbean and
Central America between 1898 and 1934, the CIA-organized coup in Guatemala in
1954, and the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989. That is what it
looks like when a Great Power claims “a sphere of influence.” No one claiming
to be anti-imperialist should concede any legitimacy to a Russian “sphere of
influence.”
But hasn’t NATO
expansion threatened Russia?
As
anti-imperialists we oppose militarism in any form, including permanent
military pacts, and the aggressive militarism promoted by the U.S.-led NATO
alliance. The best way to protect the rights of small nations is to seek
demilitarization in Europe and everywhere else. But it is utterly wrong for us
to dictate to nations in Eastern Europe whether or not they join an alliance because
of the concrete threat that Russia poses to their sovereignty. This is
the message the Left in those countries has sent us, and we must respect it as
a basic principle of internationalist solidarity. We have no more right to tell
them what to do than the U.S. does to pressure or subvert the government of
Canada if it chose to leave NATO and conclude a treaty of friendship with
China.
Doesn’t the United
States share responsibility for this war?
Like all major
historical events, the war in Ukraine has many causes, and many actors were
involved. Focusing on what the U.S. did or didn’t do takes the focus off
who started it, and absolves Russia from its sole responsibility for initiating
a war of aggression. Beyond that, it betrays an Americo-centric view of
the world that is at odds with reality. The United States is no longer a world
hegemon, it does not determine the course of history, and presuming its
centrality makes the U.S. into an exception, standing outside and above the
normal relations between states.
Shouldn’t we focus
on peacekeeping by opposing all weapons transfers to Ukraine?
The Ukrainians
have a right to defend their country, and that includes the right to seek aid
from anywhere they see fit. It is everyone’s interest to keep this war from
spreading, so we should oppose any measures, such as a no-fly zone, that would
widen the zone of war across international borders and draw in more nations.
We are not
pacifists. The Left should avoid confusing pacifism, as in opposition to war in
any form, with anti-imperialism. We cannot stand aside and simply condemn
the violence. It is in Putin’s hands to stop the war now; until then, we
take the side of the Ukrainians.
Van Gosse is a
Professor of History at Franklin & Marshall College, and Co-Chair of
Historians for Peace and Democracy.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a past
president of TransAfrica Forum and a longtime trade unionist and writer.
A woman looks on at the Boston Common, March 6, in Boston. The protesters,
estimated to be about 3,000 people, marched from Copley Square to the Boston
Common as they protest Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Photo By Jim
Michaud/ Boston Herald)
Source URL: https://portside.org/2022-04-21/whose-side-are-we-war-ukraine-and-crisis-left
Donations can be sent
to Max Obuszewski, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 431 Notre Dame Lane, Apt. 206,
Baltimore, MD 21212. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at]
comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment