Why Australian unionists should build solidarity with Ukrainian workers and their Unions

Members of the Independent Miners' Union of Ukraine (NGPU) in Novovolynsk district with representatives of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign who were delivering donations to Ukrainian workers. Source: Ukraine Solidarity Campaign.

Lisbeth Latham

Sixteen months ago the Russian Federation launched a brutal invasion of Ukraine. Aimed at a quick lightning invasion, it was stifled, against all expectations, by the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian armed forces. This resistance not only blunted the attack but has been able to launch counter-offensives and liberate some Ukrainian territory - largely due to the much-delayed delivery of military equipment from Western imperialist governments. The ongoing conflict has sparked widespread debates globally about what attitude the left, particularly unions, should take to the conflict and how to achieve peace. I believe the only principled position for the left is to take solidarity with Ukrainian workers and their unions to defeat the Russian invasion. In doing so we not only have a position to build a better Ukraine post-Russia’s invasion but also our own ability to build a better world.

Picking sides
In the sections of the left and labour movement internationally and within Australia there has been determined resistance against supporting solidarity with Ukraine. Arguing variously:

• That the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine was provoked by the actions of the US and NATO; 
• That Ukraine is acting as a proxy for NATO and as such denied military aid; 
• That Ukraine receiving military aid is extending the war, and as such aid should end;

These arguments, apart from reflecting the position of the Russian Federation and its supporters in the global far-right, operate on the basis that global politics operate within a frame of a contest between two camps, US imperialism and its allies amongst Western imperialist states on the one hand, and an opposing camp of “anti-imperialist” countries in opposition to US interests and that it is necessary to pick sides in this conflict, with a view that the left must side with the opponents of US interests.

There are a number of problems with this. As has been argued by a number of writers it constitutes the “anti-imperialism of idiots” that simplifies politics to simply taking an opposing position to whatever one's own ruling class takes. It also, as Indian communist and feminist, Kavita Krishnan has argued results in the left uncritically supporting the actions of authoritarian regimes not only internationally but also against their own popular movements in the name of defending and supporting “multi-polarity”.

More importantly, it entirely ignores the agency of not just Ukraine as a sovereign country, but more importantly what the Ukrainian working class and their organisations believe is necessary. This has primarily been justified based on both the counter-posing of both US interests but also Russia’s right to a zone of influence - essentially accepting its right to a zone of influence where it can determine the domestic and foreign policy of its neighbours, similar to the US actions globally, particularly within Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine.

Central to the denial of Ukraine’s right to self-determination has been the maligning of Ukrainian society and culture as inherently fascist and far-right. This in part echoes some of Russian government’s justification of war in painting the idea of Ukrainian identity as inherently fascist but relies on the presence within Ukrainian society, and particularly the armed forces, which are “riddled with far-right forces that venerate anti-Semitic Nazi collaborators”. The Ukrainian left openly acknowledges that there has been, and continues to be, a significant influence in Ukrainian society by far-right forces. However, Ukraine is hardly alone in this problem, many societies have problems of far-right forces within society - indeed the Putin government is seen as a significant sponsor and inspiration for many of them. Also, many countries, including Australia, popularly venerate, at least within at least a section of society, thoroughly reactionary if not openly genocidal figures, it seems a strange threshold for a just war, particularly given that the most recent mass global anti-war movement against US imperialist action was in defence of Iraq, which at the time was lead by the Baarthist government with a long record of crimes against both its own population, particularly minorities, and its neighbours.

So what do Ukrainian workers and marginalised communities see as necessary in the face of the invasion? Ukrainian progressive organisations such as Sotsialnyi rukh (Social Movement), are very clear in their assessment that the defeat of the invasion is necessary for the broader liberation struggles in Ukraine to be successful. The Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine in a statement marking one year of the invasion said:

“This unprovoked war was started not only against Ukraine. It undermines everything that we, trade unions, represent – peaceful labor, democratic values, sustainable development, and justice. The unjustified invasion of the Russian army into Ukraine endangers not only our freedom and independence but also peace and stability in Europe and the world.

“We call on all people of goodwill to help Ukraine and its citizens protect the right to life! Stand with Ukraine! Help Ukraine to win this 9-year war, to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and to return peace to Ukraine!"

For these reasons thousands of workers, members of the LGBTIQA+, Tatar, Roma, Jewish, and feminist communities are participating disproportionately within the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces, and partisan units in Russian-occupied Ukraine. As such, they have made it clear that they support the provision of military aid to Ukraine to enable it to defeat and roll back the Russian invasion.

However, these forces also recognise that their struggle will not end with the defeat of the invasion. During the current invasion, the Valensky government has sought to carry roll back the rights of workers and their unions. It is also clear that both Ukrainian and global capital will seek to use any post-war rebuilding process in Ukraine to further liberalise the Ukrainian economy and increase the poverty and marginalisation of Ukrainian workers.

In the face of both the current invasion and the looming struggle in a liberated Ukraine, Social Movement and the Ukrainian unions are calling for material support from the global labour movement to maximise the capacity of Ukrainian workers to organise. The ability of organisations such as the Confederation of Free Ukrainian Unions, to support its members, both as they continue to keep Ukrainian society functioning and as they participate in the armed struggle, not only to speed the turning back of the invasion but build the authority of the union movement in seeking to build a more democratic and equal Ukrainian society in the future.

It is essential that Australian unions join global efforts to build material and political solidarity with Ukrainian workers. The simplest way to build material support is to make donations to the solidarity convoys being organised by those sections of the European labour movement that are supporting Ukrainian workers. Equally important is the building of direct links with Ukrainian unions and awareness amongst Australian workers of the current struggles in Ukraine. This is not just in keeping with our movement’s long history of struggle and solidarity with international struggles against imperialist oppression, but to maximise our ability to place pressure on the Australian government and its imperialist allies against their efforts to transform Ukraine into a neoliberal “paradise”.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisbeth Latham is a long-term union activist and organiser. She is a trade union solidarity representative in Australia for the European Network in Solidarity with Ukraine. She tweets @grumpenprol and would like to hear from Australian unionists interested in building solidarity with Ukrainian workers.

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

Ukraine: A "just peace" is only possible if Ukrainian people can defend themselves

Ukrainian anarchists within Ukrainian Territorial Defence Force source: libcom.org

Lisbeth Latham

In their recent opinion piece in Green Left Weekly Peter Boyle and Alex Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists in Australia should be calling for negotiations in Ukraine and oppose any effort to expand the war. This is in response to Fred Fuentes’s call for support for the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. Boyle and Bainbridge make a number of arguments, similar to other sections of the Western left, which Ukrainian radical forces have rejected as being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, particularly the role of Putin’s Russia as the regional imperialist power.

Boyle and Bainbridge express concern at the costs of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on human life and the potential for this to escalate as winter approaches. Flowing from this Boyle and Bainbridge conclude that the West’s provision of military support, in the form of weapons, equipment, intelligence, and training, to Ukraine risks unnecessarily prolonging the war and thus human suffering. Instead of supporting, or even demanding military support, as Fuentes, and the Ukrainian left, do, Boyle and Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists should instead be calling for negotiations.

This logic is fundamentally flawed. First, it ignores that the primary cause of suffering and death in Ukraine is the Putin government’s decision to invade. The risk of further loss of life and injury could be immediately avoided if Russian forces were to withdraw from Ukrainian territory unconditionally. For anti-war activists to demand negotiations or a return to diplomacy accepts that Russia has a right to intervene in Ukraine. Such a position echoes the debates in the movement against the Vietnam War. As Doug Lorimer wrote in his history of ‘The movement against the Vietnam War’, in reference to the Communist Party of Australia’s call for the US to “Stop the bombing, negotiate”:

“Almost alone, Resistance continued to support the "Out Now!" demand. We argued that "Stop the bombing, negotiate!" failed to recognise the Vietnamese people's right to national self-determination, the central issue underlying the war”.

Moreover, should negotiations occur between Ukraine and Russia, these negotiations would be informed by the balance of forces between Russia and Ukraine that exist at the time of those negotiations. The arming of Ukraine has allowed the Ukrainian people to initially blunt Russia’s invasion and subsequently launch counterattacks on a number of fronts. It is precisely this shift, in both the balance of forces and the momentum of the conflict, which has prompted some of Putin’s allies internationally, such as Trump, to call for negotiations to occur. However, as Volodymyr Artiukh and Taras Fedirko have pointed out, the Putin government has acted in bad faith around negotiations, primarily using them as “a smokescreen” for its aggression in Ukraine.

An important question that anyone calling on Ukraine to negotiate regarding its national sovereignty should answer is, what would the basis of negotiations be, when Putin and his allies deny the right of Ukraine to exist as a state? Calling for negotiations while Russian forces are on the backfoot but still holding significant amounts of Ukrainian territory would also place Putin in a position to demand ceding of Ukrainian territory as a basis for peace. Such an outcome could hardly be called a “Just Peace”, but more accurately the rewarding of criminal action.

Central to Boyle and Bainbridge’s argument is the imperial ambitions of the US and its allies to seek to maintain the US’s global imperialist hegemony. It is undoubtedly true that the US is seeking to use the conflict in Ukraine to undermine Russia’s attempts to re-establish itself as the dominant power in the territories which formerly made up the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. In doing this they also hope to isolate China as it emerges as an alternative pole of economic and military power able to challenge US dominance.

Having said this, our assessment of US intentions should not be a primary determining factor in our attitude towards conflicts or popular movements. The orientation of revolutionary and progressive forces should be predicated on the needs and interests of popular movements, and not how imperialist powers might seek to maneuver in relation to those movements to protect their own interests. While many left forces have criticised the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for accepting military support from the US, the Socialist Alliance (SA), which both Boyle and Bainbridge are in the leadership of, has historically defended the right of the SDF to receive weapons necessary to defend themselves. Indeed, SA and Green Left Weekly have taken a position calling for the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Northern and Eastern Syria - which is to be enforced by the US and Russia.

This begs the question, how the sending of arms to the SDF can be not just permissible but something that would be demanded, but we should oppose the Ukrainian people receiving arms to defend themselves? While our positions on different situations do not need to be, and shouldn’t be, identical, we should be able to explain why they are different, and I personally struggle to see how there is such a fundamental difference.

I believe that progressive forces should defend the right of both Rojava and Ukraine to defend themselves and that this means being able to obtain military equipment from whoever will provide it. Indeed, as has been made clear by the Ukrainian left, particularly the militants of Sotsialnyi Rukh, the defeat of Russia’s military aggression is a prerequisite for the democratic and social development of Ukraine and we should support their efforts to achieve that outcome.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...