>It is pretty obvious that while it does *nothing* to control fascists (since
>most fascists are friends of the states that "enforce" this illusory law),
it has
>(among other disastrous results) seriously cramped the right of progressive
>leaders of the world to attend international conferences. I prevented
Castro's
>appearance at the WTO conference in Seattle. The arrest of Pinochet in
England
>and the invasion of Panama to kidnap Norieaga are two of the more sinister
>developments of the last 10 years. Their political implications are similar
>to those of the Gulf War, the blockade of Nicaragua, and the aggression
>against Yugoslavia. They provide a cover-up of legality for the depredations
>of the U.S. and its allies.
>
>Fascists need not worry. Progressive heads of states and other annoyances
>to U.S. imperialism do need to worry.
These fast moving developments will sometimes cut both ways. But what is the loss of Fidel Castro travelling to Seattle, when tens of thousands of demonstrators put capitalism in the dock?
It is true that the international court at the Hague may seek to put people like Milosevic and Arkan on trial as well as investigate whether there is a case against the imperialist bombing of Yugoslavia.
That is why the US opposes the setting up of a court in Rome for Crimes against Humanity.
But as the legal adviser on Americas issues at Amnesty International in London, Federico Andreu Guzman said, "Even if he goes back to Chile, or stays here, this is still the most important juridical and ethical precedent since Nuremburg.
And as Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch in New York, said, "The legal point has been made: there is no immunity for crimes against humanity and torture committed by a former head of state, who was a sitting head of state at the time."
a) what is so sacrosanct from a marxist or radical point of view, about the sovereignty of states, if this is starting to break down?
b) can Carrol not see the difference between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois fascism?
I fear on the latter he is indeed weak, and I recall him arguing that with the possible marginal (!) exception of the second world war, all fights against fascism and for bourgeois democratic rights have been misguided and should have been replaced with fights for socialism. (I cannot quote directly and he may wish to clarify this.)
Certainly in the argument from Carrol above there is no distinction between a bourgeois democratic government like that in the US and in the UK which may foster terroristic methods secretly or in other countries, and an open terroristic bourgeois fascist government. Nor is there a recognition of the difference between the policy of a Mrs Thatcher who has been praising Pinochet as a good friend of Britain, and Jack Straw, who is prepared to appear neutral in legal terms.
What this political stance means is that within countries like the US and the UK there is no point in fighting against fascist tendencies and to uphold bourgeois democracy and to deepen it into part of the wider struggle for socialism, in these countries and in the wider world.
It is instead a simplistic model that sees the bourgeois state as by definition a terroristic organ, without any non-terroristic features like the possibility of a "maverick" Spanish judge like Garzon, or a British Law Lord who is a white South African exile and whose wife worked in Amnesty International.
Such a dogmatic and simplistic view of the state and a failure to see the importance of fighting against fascism wherever it emerges, is incapable of giving a lead in such situations.
Chris Burford
London