The British Labour Party’s Harriet Harman and her web links page

The new British government is filling its remaining cabinet posts. Meanwhile, MIM went looking at the Labour Party’s web pages some more.

Harriet Harman was second to Gordon Brown in the Labour Party that just left government. MIM found her web links page to be revealing, so we saved it for you to look at here.

What MIM would like readers to notice is something very true about the West in general, but here we have it stated in the open in a leader of state’s web page. There is a general wimmin’s rights angle to the web page, but there are no general Africa, Iraq or Muslim liberation links.

There is a general Muslim charity link now. It’s stated objective is “to encourage the Muslim community to engage in the mainstream British Institutions.” True, the existence of that link undercuts MIM’s argument somewhat, but only somewhat as the intention of the link if one goes to look at the charity is to deny and circumvent the existence of imperialist oppression of the Muslim world.

So the links start out drawing attention to child abuse in Africa. Later in the list come Muslim wimmin’s links.

The links page is itself an indication of the problem with Western warmongering politics. Harman voted for the Iraq War, not just implementation of the Afghan war. Britain is also at war with Islam in Africa. Hence, we should read her links as using the womyn question to divide the Third World for occupation.

Liberal “inclusiveness” could explain coming up with a long list of links. The Liberals emphasize “diversity.” Yet Harman’s page makes it clear that something else is going on. This is not a randomly assembled list of links.

MIM has drawn some attention to the British government, because it has something of a stuck-in-the-middle character on a couple questions, even as it oppresses and exploits the Third World generally. One question is the fact that British public opinion long ago turned against the Iraq War. The second question is that no British party has a self-interest in the particular Amerikan reasons that the Democrats and Republicans went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Britain’s interests via the truth on 9/11 are everso slightly different than that of the Democrats and Republicans in the United $tates.

MIM finds Harman’s links especially inappropriate when the UK has been involved in wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Clinton’s Secretary of State Madelaine Albright admitted on “60 Minutes” that Western sanctions on Iraq killed 500,000 children. Hence, we find the concern of the Labour Party for children spurious.

The whole argument about wimmin and Islam while the British are occupying Muslim countries came up 90 years ago. Sadly, imperialism still exists and the oppressors’ thoughts have not changed much. Russian Revolution leader V.I. Lenin squashed the whole veil question while Turkey was under British occupation.

“In the colonial countries with an oppressed native peasant population the national liberation movement is composed either of the entire population, as for example in Turkey, in which case the struggle of the oppressed peasantry against the landlords inevitably begins after the victory of the liberation struggle; or the feudal landlords are allied with the imperialist robbers, and in these countries, for example India, the social struggle of the oppressed peasants takes place at the same time as the struggle for national liberation.”

From the above Comintern quote, we learn that in Turkey even feudal lords were going to fight the British exploiter-occupiers according to the followers of Lenin.

The same Foreign Minister Lord Balfour of Britain who fouled up the Palestine question also asked the League of Nations to occupy Istanbul on April 8, 1919. Lenin then said all the kinds of things MIM unfortunately has to say again, but in 2010.

Speaking about wimmin and children means one thing coming from MIM. “Wimmin’s rights” and “children” are codewords dividing the Third World in order to occupy it more easily when it comes to Harriet Harman and the Labour Party.

We acknowledge that Gordon Brown’s government showed some helpful concern for what is happening over here. Had 9/11 happened in England, we wonder if the Liberal Democrats would have come to power, if we assume the Conservatives played the role of the Republicans and Labour the role of Democrats.

In the end we must still wonder why Labour did not manage to undermine the occupations of Islamic countries. We must get beyond CNN where they have the nerve to say “we are not Islamophobic” even as Islamic countries stand occupied and Predator drones fly above Pakistan. The West is still generally Third World-phobic.

All told, nonetheless, we prefer Harriet Harman to Obama and Avakian. Obama and Avakian claim not to be Islamophobic and Avakian’s newspaper delivers lip service opposition to the war in Afghanistan while taking the same gender line as Harman’s at this time. So we say Avakian is the theory and Bush and Blair are the practice. That’s much harder to figure out than what is going on with the Labour Party’s idea of inclusiveness.

Jane Degras, ed., The Communist International: 1919-1943 Documents
London: Frank Cass & Co., Ltd, 1971, Vol. 1, p. 396.



%d bloggers like this: