I have been seeking to cross swords with Henry on the question of Kosovo, because I think there are some fundamental contradictory implications on a world scale which have to be clarified.
The world is indeed complex, and there is a complex dialectical dynamic unfolding before our eyes. Can we still apply the concept of the broadest united front? and it so how should it be defined?
I have argued strongly for international action against Serb social fascism, and in support of Kosovan right to self-determination. I believe that is consistent with the line of the 7th Congress of the Communist International for a united front against fascism.
It is similar to the progressive nature in principle of supporting the reactionary anti-semitic Polish state against Nazi German threat, in the first half of 1939, before the Soviet Union became convinced that the western governments were not genuine.
The International war against fascism from 1941 to 1945 was another world united front, of great breadth.
Subsequently attempts were made to build the broadest international united front of peaceloving peoples, including the socialist bloc and the nations and countries wanting independence from imperialism. A division opened up between the Soviet Union and China, the former emphasising a degree of peaceful cohabitation with the USA, the latter emphasising the revolutionary role of third world armed struggles and the fact that the imperialism and reactionaries were headed by the USA.
There was a time when China, represented by Deng Xiaoping, presented a three worlds theory.
The Soviet bloc largely collapsed as a coherent economic and political bloc but left behind many countries with socialist or semi-socialist systems, but much internal chaos, confusion, and scope for communal warfarr. China has made many compromises with the market but still has the largest communist party in the world.
Last year global financial instability dealt a severe blow to the dominance of free market neo-liberal thinking, and significant areas of the world, including China, a number of east Asian countries and the Soviet Union, tried to resist the full impact of the neo-liberal policies favoured by US imperialism.
Ultimately the global economic battle ground and the global political battleground are interlinked. For whatever genuine or feined moral reasons, there is undoubtedly an economic agenda in Yugoslavia. It is about whether the new European super-imperialism can spread its sphere of control eastwards not just in the north and centre of Europe, but in the south as well.
The turn of Primakov's plane back from Washington at the time of the NATO attacks, the visit of Michel Camdessus to Moscow ahead of Primakov's trip to Belgrade, show how the battles for financial and political power are being fought out together.
I accept there is a contradiction in my position. I think that is a reflection of the contradiction that exists in the external world.
Economically I am strongly opposed to the domination of free market finance capitalism, under US hegemony. Politically I think the accompanying agenda of human rights cannot be resisted in its imposition on countries and nations and has important progressive features. Where the line is drawn I do not know. It seemed a crime to me that the Russian Federation led a war against the self-determination of Chechnya. But in the case of China I accept the validity to some extent of the Chinese claim that the human rights include the rights of the Chinese people as a whole to survive. I would oppose a task force to offer self-determination for Tibet.
On economic policy I can see the broadest united front potentially emerging against US hegemonism. That will need to include Europe and Japan.
On politics I think that we are moving towards global government. We cannot resist this. We can try to outflank it. We can try to divert it in a progressive direction.
There are contradictory features to western imperialist governments. A policy of blanket total opposition was not right in 1939 and it is not right 60 years later. If certain ministers call for regulation and transarency of international finance, we should support that. If the US opposes an international human rights court in Rome, we should oppose their opposition. In they defend the Kosovan's right to self-determination, we should support that. If they fail to support the Kurd's right to self-determination, we should work with European governments that will support it.
Therefore although I am consciously hostile to US hegemony, I do not think the broadest international united front can be defined with the enemy identified as one country, the US, although often that will be the case.
There need to be broad opportunities opened up in the USA for progressive people to join the global international united front, to make it the broadest possible.
At this stage I think the best definition is "for socialist human rights on a global scale". [That is the concept, not the catchy title. "Human social rights"? - still clumsy but might be possible with hard work].
I would appreciate a comment about what problems that would present progressive people in China.
Chris Burford
London.