Some Thoughts on the British Peace Movement
Emmanuel Goldstein

To those of us who believe in liberty the last three years of New Labour has been a gloomy period of losses piled upon defeat. The fact that the Conservative Party is marginally better than it was before and seems to be led by a man who understands our language, if no longer fluent, is scant consolation as they are just about unelectable. On Europe we have been signed and sealed to an irreversible union with a corporatist behemoth. Although we are told that monetary union is not with us, our high taxes and misplaced spending belie this fact. In the economy we see the government take ever more management functions from the hands of the nominal owners of businesses, while at the same time leaving a tax burden of onerous scope and eye popping complexity. The claims of social liberalism for New Labour are exposed as thread bare as liberties are given only to the favoured groups, such as the homosexual identity lobby while market traders are threatened with prison for selling in ounces. Aspects of the very British constitution of liberty, with roots over a millennium deep, are discarded by faceless junior ministers for a wretched sound bite. We know all this, even the dulled senses of the Conservative Party have picked up some aspect of the monumental change afoot, but there is one area that has been left untouched - the rise of a global empire.

Peace and Liberty

The British right has a problem with Peace. Generally they are not for it. However the warfare state is as much of an enemy to liberty and tradition as the welfare state. For one thing, war is a great excuse to intervene in every part of our everyday lives. A government that seems to be itching to do away with outmoded ideas such as habeas corpus would not fail to see the precedent set by the detention without trial of Oswald Mosley. The idea of conscription was fostered by war, and reluctantly given up in peace, as were rationing, identity cards and press censorship.

Not just personal liberty is endangered by war, but economic liberty takes a battering as well, and recovers far less readily. It is not just taxation and spending that goes through the roof, which it does (and never recovers to quite the same level as before) but the very ideas of sound economic policy. Take nationalisation, the idea that it was some Fabian dream that set the workers hearts on fire is a convenient untruth. The Fabians and their unworkable schemes would have been disdained as middle class dreamers by the skilled trained unionists if it were not for the First World War. It was then that the coal mines and the railways were taken under government direction, and the government was found to be a far softer touch than the dividend (and customer) conscious owners. Hence the demand for nationalisation that found fruition in the government of 1945.

It is not just in the area of government ownership and control of industry that war has a detrimental impact on the economy. The First World War made the Gold Standard unworkable, and the period of permanent inflation that has dampened growth since 1914 is still upon us. Trade is disrupted by every war, and we have to accept the third class offerings of a siege economy. The civil service expands, and looks for new empires when the war is finally done.

Those on the right also have to look to the present mockery that is made of "national interest" by the war party on the left. When Tony Blair says that Kossovo was "the first (sic) Progressive war", it should make our flesh creep. The idea that the armed forces of this country should be used for anything other than the defence of our narrowly defined national interests is pretty close to treason. It is even closer to stupidity. Do we really want to be picking quarrels with Russians, Islamic fundamentalists and the Chinese? And should we do so all at once?

We should also be alarmed at another part of this great push for empire, the great melting pot of cultures. The monoculture in agriculture is an area planted with only one crop, as the west of Ireland was with the potato in the 1840s. When the blight strikes there is no refuge, no alternative, and there is a general breakdown of society as the children desperately try to eat the grass on the verge.

The same goes for Western civilisation. Now don't get me wrong - parliamentary democracy, equal rights for women, the Judæo-Christian tradition (as far as we allow it) and private ownership are fine things. Very fine things. Indeed, I want more people to enjoy them. However, these things should be accepted in their own time and place. Imposing them just will not work. If everyone, everyone, adheres to the same cultural norms, what happens when a serious sickness develops in that culture? Social breakdown can be dire. Look at the African problem with AIDS. Do we want a breakdown without limits, a general inferno that devours the whole world, with no borders and no respite? That is what a monoculture offers us.

More important than running all these ideas on an imported template, is the very idea of diversity. Now it may seem barbaric to keep women at home and not let them work, but it cannot be said to affect us in the remotest if it is happening in Iran or Afghanistan, or for that matter in Ireland. It is simply none of our business. Similarly, it is no-one else's business if we happen to keep our monarchy, don't write down our constitution or elect parliamentarians by a plurality in each constituency. Diversity is not an abstract ideal, only fit for the left wing students who mean no such thing, but a real part of human life, making it richer and stronger and therefore fit for conservatives and libertarians to defend.

The Allergy of the Right

The right in Britain is allergic to this analysis for historical reasons. For a start the demonisation of the British Empire by the left has produced an equal and opposite reaction on the right. Firstly there is the belief that the Empire was an unalloyed blessing on the otherwise benighted natives. I am not someone who believes that the Empire was the highest form of evil, and that in many cases life was better than befor. However, I doubt if putting proto-Fabians in charge of traditional tribal and princely societies was Britain's greatest hour.

The other point of imperialism is that it actually drained resources from Britain. Many of the best and brightest of the British went abroad, a brain drain never equalled. It was also an expensive operation, and apart from in a few places such as the Caribbean, never turned a profit. The Empire also stretched our military resources, to the extent that at the beginning of the Second World War it threatened Britain's very survival. We need feel no guilt for the Empire, and any fondness we feel for it should be tempered by the realisation that in the cold light of day it was an economic liability.

A further source of Conservative interventionism has been the legacy of the Cold War. The Cold War was to most Conservatives and centrists (and I include myself here) a war for survival. The Soviet Union was just as much a threat to Britain as was Nazi Germany, but like the fight against Nazi Germany it mutated into something more. It was assumed, reasonably, that the Soviet Union was both too powerful and too unstable to ever be a decent neighbour. Therefore, if survival was necessary then the Soviet Empire either needed to be cut back or to be ended altogether. Further to this aim dissident elements in various satellites were encouraged by the West. At some time in the eighties this tactical encouragement of dissidence merged into disgust for the genuine excesses of the system and so the liberation of much of the Soviet bloc mutated from being a tactical aim, to being the aim itself. This was a mistake as the size of the Russian state has no relevance when Russia is not a credible threat, and the state of Balkan democracy, let alone the ethnic composition of these states, is not any of our business. Weaning the right off this delusion may take another generation, and by then it may be too late.

The PC Peace Movement

The allergy of the right to the peace movement is not only due to historical memory, but also to a dislike of the people who run the present peace movement. The left in its various guises run the peace movement, and although they heartily hate Tony Blair and all he stands for, they would still vote for him if he declared himself Emperor of Europe. The fact that CND not only had Soviet spies near the top of their organisation at the height of the Cold War, but did not see what was wrong with it, to many on the right is close to treachery.

The right does have a point. There are three separate groups who make up the bulk of the peace movement - none of them for any reason that the average Tory would recognise. Firstly there are the Trotskyites. Although they have the organisation on the ground so they can make up the backbone of most local peace movements in Britain, they are still a blessed nuisance because of their sectarian nature.

There are then the emigrants from the countries being attacked. While they have a good knowledge of what is happening on the ground, I rarely get the impression that they would be at the same demonstrations if NATO was bombing the Albanians.

Then there are the peaceniks, those that genuinely believe in peace, and hate war. These are probably the most effective, for they have a folk memory of the issues and the methods, as well as sympathetic contacts in the media and the Labour Party. Their Achilles' heal is a hatred of America. When people say that they have to take the opposite side to America, then I worry. I believe that following America at all times is suicidal, but I don't wish to oppose America either. That's interventionism under another name, and it still smells as sickly-sweet.

This yankophobia does have a blind spot of its own, Northern Ireland. The most blatant piece of American interference in our domestic affairs is the American insistence on the IRA being present in the peace process. Even here the majority of the peace movement is not consistent. The Serbs should not have to be forced to deal with terrorists or compromise on their internal security, but the Peace Movement are perfectly willing to welcome the "peace-making" of President Clinton. Although for domestic political reasons you may dislike the Unionists, it is possible at the same time to deplore the American bullying. The left do not have the same ability to think through a position as the Serbian opposition, and we are all poorer for it.

The American Dream

There is a right-wing non interventionist movement in America. This is partly because the American constitution is quite clear about limited powers, and so those nostalgic for the Old Republic, the so-called palæo-cons (palæolithic Conservatives), have anti-interventionism as a main weapon in their arsenal, along with States Rights and locally based education. The reactionary tendency in this country is more noted for its attachment to the old Empire, which is obviously not going to discourage imperialism. Similarly the Libertarian movement takes a far larger part of the American mind. Although not extinct in Britain, the Libertarian tendency is not popular either, with self-proclaimed Libertarians being rather incomplete.

Similarly the conservative movement in America, or at least the part that actually defines itself by defending tradition, is wary of foreign adventure. The Cold War was accepted by the vast majority of conservatives as a necessary thing, but the end of it has meant that the right can go back to its isolationist roots. When history looks back at the new isolationism it will no doubt see it as a snap back into the old tribal patterns with barely a beat missed from the party at the end of the Evil Empire to the old suspicion of foreign entanglements. Of course history will be wrong. The vast majority of American conservatives supported the Gulf War, and a diminishing yet still dominant band would support the bailout of Mexico and the funding of the Russian mafia through the IMF. However the truth is that a growing number of American conservatives are sceptical of the constant interventions in foreign countries and this is finally bearing fruit in the Republican party as its leaders try to learn the non-interventionist lines that will stop any brush fire revolt.

The non-interventionist cause in America is also helped by Pat Buchanan. Many regard Mr Buchanan as a liability because of his trenchant social views and his protectionist economic policy, but the important fact is that he is there. Having a prominent politician articulating a view of sensible isolation is worth all the shortcomings, perceived or real. To have someone who gets on the news is of immeasurable importance to a minority viewpoint. Legitimising your views is vital, and it is something which the peace party, both right and left, is short of in this country. I would also like to give an honourable mention to the web site that I write for, antiwar.com. Although it doesn't seem to have stopped any wars yet, it functions as a nerve centre for the American resistance to imperialism. Perhaps we need one of these, a general anti-interventionist site that tilts to the right? It is far more likely than finding a public champion.

What Can We Do?

Those who believe that the fight against imperialism is vital, but are uneasy with the limited scope of the present peace movement in Britain have to face some uncomfortable truths. Not only are we losing, but we don't seem to have even put in a decent effort at resistance. There are some things we need to do, but can we actually carry them out?

On an intellectual level we have to resurrect the foreign policy school of thought known as realism. Realism was the doctrine that a nation should act, if needs be ruthlessly, in order to protect the national interest. If it was not absolutely necessary to act, it was absolutely necessary not to act; as easily making enemies was hardly conducive to the national interest. There are good authors expounding this view, mostly American. George Kennan the Cold Warrior who turned his back on the nineties empire building, Jeanne Kirkpatrick the secretary of state in the Reagan administration. In Britain we have some excellent historians who put forward this view, such as John Charmley and Corelli Barnett.

On a more mundane level we must stop this deference to government whenever our troops are in danger. It is obscene that British troops are in danger for the unethical foreign policy of our elites. No oil, diamonds or diplomatic humiliation is worth the lives of our boys; and we must say so. If we really care about our troops in Kossovo, Sierra Leone and Bosnia we must speak up for them, rather than worrying if any doubt will affect their morale. Look at the recruitment figures, troop morale is at rock bottom. They know better than we do what a sorry excuse for foreign policy we are practising, but they cannot speak up. We need to do so for them, when they are being shot at for the vanity of our ruling elites.

We must also stop writing off the Conservative Party as an agent of change. When the dust settles it is the only plausible alternative to a Labour government, and it is desperate for a popular message. Both the foreign affairs spokesman Francis Maude and the Defence Secretary Iain Duncan Smith have flirted with non-intervention, making sceptical noises about Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and East Timor. William Hague reportedly told Mr Blair that he could not support a ground invasion of Kossovo (although he later acted as a British envoy in Eastern Europe to prepare its path). However do not underestimate the counter pull. In Zimbabwe when there was a counter pull of British families being murdered the Conservatives could no longer make sceptical noises and resorted to the other standby of opposition, accusing the government of being soft. The fact is that one must remember of the Conservative Party that, just like the Labour Party, it is driven by fear and greed; and ideas hardly enter into the picture. We can only get the Conservative Party on our side if we can get their voters on our side.

So I turn to the hardest task, organisation. We must get out of the idea that we can win an argument through intellectual superiority and high politics. We have to tap into the deep channel of scepticism that is present in the British public. This means some grassroots organisation so that when the next fire fight comes up we have a skeleton staff to conduct the protest. The British people are not willing to die for their elite's passing fancy. It is the elites who are prepared to sacrifice their people. The British people do not like paying their taxes and having the state nannying them more than she does even now. I don't know how we organise, but I do know that we won't save our country's sanity by just being right.