John Lanigan (RCN) attended the book launch of YES: The Radical Case for Independence, written by James Foley and Pete Ramand of the International Socialist Group and the Radical Independence Campaign. The book was launched at the Centre for Contemporary Arts on Sunday March 30th. Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, James Foley and Pete Ramand spoke. Below is John’s report of this event.
Pete Ramand, Bernadette McAliskey, Cat Boyd and James Foley at Glasgow book launch
In the midst of the debate on the Scottish Referendum, nothing could be more important, and timely, in terms of literary contribution and academic thinking, than this work by James Foley and Pete Ramand.
The Centre for Contemporary Arts in Glasgow welcomed an audience of around 150 people who were treated to a wonderful speech from none other than Bernadette Devlin McAliskey who had been invited over from the North of Ireland to speak about the book.
Bernadette who is no stranger to Glasgow or Scottish politics outlined the purpose of the book and the political thinking behind it.
The launch was chaired by Cat Boyd of the International Socialist Group and Radical Independence Campaign.
In her now famous quote Bernadette told the audience that “Another Scotland is possible, but not only is another Scotland possible, another Scotland is probable” Bernadette went on to draw conclusions between the Republican case in Ireland and that of Scotland and warned of the pitfalls and the need to work hard, to make sure that the alternative vision for a radical, independent, Scottish Republic can become a reality.
It looked like everyone in the hall understood that message, that either way, whatever the vote, the work would continue for a radical alternative to the City of London politics and also that of the SNP. The message from Bernadette was firmly one of a socialist alternative that would make Scotland a country that others could look to for leadership.
James Foley of the International Socialist Group and an economist at Edinburgh University spoke on the politics of the book and the arguments raised within. He also spoke at length about the No camp’s efforts to smear pro-independence supporters by equating them with far right nationalists, while at the same time saying patriotism is all right. When it was suggested to them that they were British nationalists they got offended (as they didn’t want to be equated with the likes of the BNP) but who were happy to make the same kind of insinuation about independence supporters.
Pete Ramand the co-author of YES: The Radical Case for Scottish Independence and a founding member of the Radical Independence Campaign looked closely at the benefits to be had from a Scottish Socialist Republic that was able to shape it’s own future, with the people of Scotland at the forefront of the decision making. Pete was very persuasive in showing just how Scotland could afford independence and of the need to get rid of Trident.
YES: The Radical case for Scottish Independence has had many recommendations from writers and political figures alike, and will no doubt be referred to over the coming months as we approach the Scottish Referendum vote.
For those who are still to be convinced of the case for Scottish Independence this book is undoubtedly essential reading.
( Published by Pluto Press and available to buy online)
You have no doubt been waiting anxiously and on tenterhooks for the official SPGB position on the referendum
The Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on the 2nd August adopted the following as a statement on the Scottish Breakaway Referendum on 18 September:-
“Most of us don’t own a single square inch of Scotland.
It doesn’t belong to us: we just live here and work for the people who do own it. In or out of the Union, that won’t change.
In Scotland, society is run in the interests of those who own the wealth. They argue among each other over billions of barrels of oil, GDP rates, profits and exports, because where the borders lie matters to them. Every border is an opportunity to wring cash out of other property owners. Scotland will remain dependent upon their whims and interests whatever the outcome of the referendum.
They’ll try to sway us one way or another with crumbs (or the promises of crumbs) but we’ll only get what they feel they can spare to protect their privilege and wealth. We will remain dependent upon their investments making a profit for them before we can get our needs and interests seen to.
The only way to stop this dependency would be for us to take ownership and control of the wealth of the world into our own hands. We could, together, use the wealth of the world to meet our mutual needs and grant the true independence of being able to control our work and our lives in free and voluntary association of equals.
Though the outcome of this referendum is irrelevant, it is an opportunity for us to tell our fellow workers that this is what we want. We don’t have to suffer in silence, we can go to the ballot stations and write “NEITHER YES NOR NO BUT WORLD SOCIALISM” across the voting paper. Then, join The Socialist Party to fight for an independent world.”
However, I would also see Hamish Henderson’s ‘Freedom Come All Ye’ as an excellent anthem for socialists in Scotland, and indeed elsewhere, to sing.
And, in stating this, perhaps I am getting to the hub of a big difference I have with the SPGB. Every existing nation-state and national movement is class divided. Therefore, there are always (at least) two national traditions and histories – that of the ruling class or the exploiters and oppressors, and that of the popular classes. The popular classes change through history. At present the working class is the main popular class, both at a global level and within the UK and Scotland. This is why it is possible to have particular national popular traditions, producing their own histories and culture.
If it stopped at that level, however, there would indeed be constant pull back towards the state and nationalism of the ruling class. However, just as the various ruling classes pursue their own ‘internationalism-from above’ links – diplomatically or forcibly if necessarily, so the popular classes, and the working class in particular, has pursued its own ‘internationalism from below’ links, in defiance of the ruling classes and the states they live.
The SPGB only sees one pole of the capitalist relationship – exploitation. Thus, it quite correctly places its emphasis on the need to abolish wage slavery. This puts it ahead of many other socialist organisations. However, the SPGB does not understand the other pole of the capitalist relationship – oppression by the state.
Indeed, going to the Edinburgh an Glasgow SPGB branch blog, we can see the following statement. “We have all the constitutional laws available for our use to change our necessary social institutions to work for us, so we can live in a peaceful and prosperous society.”
I have to say this is almost breathtakingly naïve. There are many states in the world without even the formal trappings of bourgeois or parliamentary democracy. Furthermore, the constitutions of those that do have these trappings, have many mechanisms to exclude meaningful working class participation. At a US, EU and UK level representative institutions are being increasingly gutted of those limited powers they once had. Under the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the rights of global corporations will be hardwired into the constitutions of these states.
However, even without TTIP, the UK state itself does not provide us with “all the constitutional laws… to change our necessary social institutions”. The UK’s Crown Powers alone ensure that this can not be the case.
Furthermore, the SPGB seems to be completely unaware that that the UK extends beyond Great Britain to Northern Ireland (and once, to the whole of Ireland). The relationship between the UK state and Ireland/Northern Ireland has always been fraught. However, the Crown Powers have ensured that the curtailment of even the limited existing democratic rights and the resort to state promoted violence has been very much a feature of its rule.
And slightly adapting Marx’s maxim, “A nation that oppresses another can not itself be free”, we can see , what the UK state does over the Irish Sea, will have a knock-on effect over here. The Yorkshire miners found out this out in 1984-5. Today, the draconian policing powers once confined to the RUC/PSNI, have become more deeply embedded not only within London’s Met, but elsewhere in the UK – Scotland included (with the backing of the SNP government too).
In the case of the UK, even invoking the word ‘nation’ is ambiguous. What do we mean by ‘nation’ – ‘Ukania’, Great Britain, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland/Northern Ireland? Clearly the body doing the oppressing here is the UK state. The resort to ‘Britishness’ as a ‘nation’ acts merely to disguise the interests of the British ruling class and its various hyphenated subordinate components – Scottish-British, Welsh-British and ‘Ulster’-British.
The SPGB correctly criticises much of the rest of the Left, for not appreciating the real nature of exploitation under capitalism. However, when it come to oppression within the UK, the SPGB lies at the furthest pole of gullibility. It accepts that the ‘British state’ (blind to its Northern Irish component) provides us with “all the constitutional laws” we need – a very paragon of democracy! Here, the SPGB agrees not only with the Labour Party and other social democrats, but with liberals too!
And, how is the working class to make use of British constitutional laws? The SPGB’s programme of education and propaganda will eventually lead us to a situation where 50%+1 of the electorate will vote for its candidates to Westminster. SPGB MP’s will enact ‘Our Object and Declaration of Principles’ – whilst the British ruling class and the UK’s hard state just stands back and lets it happen!
The SPGB has been in existence since 1904. It is part of the World Socialist Movement (WSM). After all this time, the WSM only has national sections in Great Britain (not the UK, note), the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Therefore, the WSM is entirely confined to English speaking countries where illusions in the reality of democracy under their existing constitutions are greatest.
The SPGB’s ‘Our Object and Declaration of Principles and Aims’ correctly states that “the world is a ‘global village” and that “Socialism is not a cooperative island in the middle of capitalism, but a global system of society that will replace capitalism.” However, when it goes on to how to remedy this, nowhere in this statement is the need for international organisation, either in general, or in particular, i.e. the WSM, ever mentioned. From then on everything focusses on the SPGB itself.
The SPGB is proud to be at the most revolutionary wing of those who see their socialism as essentially a question of economics. But despite the SPGB’s more advanced declaration of opposition to wage slavery, it remains, like so many others on the British Left, deeply economistic. And when it comes to any appreciation of the oppressive role of the UK/British state, the SPGB is at the most reformist pole of the British Left, sharing a position with the mildest social democrats and liberals. The SPGB holds massive illusions in the existing UK state and its “constitutional laws available for our use”.
The Republican Communist Network (Scotland) supports neither the British nationalism of the British ruling class and UK state nor the Scottish nationalism of the wannabe Scottish ruling class and the SNP. We are Scottish internationalists advocating ‘internationalism from below’.
Your reply is appreciated, Allan. i think you have once again accepted the widespread misunderstandings of the SPGB positions, and no wonder we are often misrepresented and we ourselves plead guilty of over-emphasising only parts of our case to counter the opposition of the times and neglecting to highlight the various nuances of our views.
Firstly, it would indeed be utterly naive to believe that every country in the world has even our limited access to bourgeois democracy. Our advice on the constitution was for those places that do but those many places around the globe unable to use the vote will determine their own means of exercising democracy which as we always say may mean force if required to carry out the will or to defend the will of the people. We are not a pacifist or legalistic organisation.
The SPGB position is that we would change our tactics if the law on elections is changed to the workers detriment, but until that day, we will show our commitment to democracy and let the capitalist class prove themselves to be un-democratic. We won’t stand idly by if the constitution is changed. It wouldn’t stop socialism being eventually established, one way or another. the SPGB is that faced with an impending socialist election victory the capitalist ruling class would abolish political democracy and, even if they let things go so far as an actual socialist election victory, would not respect it and would carry on ruling regardless yet like those previously in the Eastern European overthrow of the CP dictatorships even if a pro-capitalist minority were to try to prevent a change of political control via the ballot box, the socialist majority will still be able to impose its will by other means, such as street demonstrations and strikes.
The 2002 coup against Chavez failed because people were prepared to take to the streets to back up their vote and because the bulk of the armed forces remained loyal to the constitution and the constitutionally-elected president. The theory that power obtained by the ballot box to effect radical changes can’t be retained was disproved by actual experience. It confirmed our view that a socialist majority can both win and retain power via the ballot box if that majority is sufficiently organised and determined and if there is no question as to their democratic legitimacy.
Your caveat about UK democracy and Northern Ireland is somewhat puzzling and i would like elaboration on it since with the participation of Sinn Fein in the assembly government, (and not simply just the assembly), having given up the armed struggle for solely the political process i would think it supports the SPGB case. Sinn Fein engaged in the electoral process quite successfully and were never banned, and even the Bobby Sands seat was held, with an increased vote, by Sinn Fein, who were never legally excluded from participation in elections. Successes convinced republicans that they should contest elections and led to the armalite and ballot box phase of their politics and that led to a resurrection of the old Sinn Fein boycott of the London parliament strategy for elected MPs and eventually lead to their integration fully with parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland.
RCN’s anti-parliamentarianism seems at odds with the move to support strengthening and reinforcement of the local state and support participation in a part of the bourgeois democratic process of the referendum adding to peoples illusions. Seems a bit more opportunistic than principled but that may be a bit to ungenerous to say but no doubt has its roots in the Bolshevik roots of many of your supporters.
Our position on majorities as expressed by yourself if it was held by ourselves would also be naive – but it isn’t our position. We actually demand that there is an *effective political majority* and that may well be a minority of the electorate. The Socialist Party is too much of historical materialists to be sooth-sayers.
The problem is that it is rather useless for us today to declare what tomorrow exactly is going to happen when socialism in imminent. Will the working class (even a socialist one that is highly politically educated) wait for the declaration of its elected representatives or delegates in Parliament and legislatures? What happens when say 55 per cent of the working class says “Let’s do it now!” What happens if the majority of workers in the UK and Europe start to elect Socialist majorities, but not in the U.S., Japan, etc.? And what if the State (the
state capitalist State and private capitalist State) do begin to exert their powers to stifle the movement (and they will)? Do we then sit and wait again for our chance? What constitutes a working class majority wanting Socialism. Is it 51%? 60%? 75%? I feel this is a futile exercise to make. We simply cannot foresee the events that take place even when say 30% of the working class becomes socialist. or example, that we reached the stage where 20% of the adult working population was indeed socialist. That would be an incredible achievement and there would be a sudden rise in working class militancy in immediate issues, there would be a new “socialist culture” being built, changes within the entire labour movement, in daily life and how people thought politically. At 40% we would still not be the “overwhelming majority” but this would be such a sizably significant and politically powerful base. And here quantitative changes would mean qualitative changes. The “movement” we have now would not be the same movement under those circumstances. It might move in directions we have never even considered. And it has profound implications. It is too difficult for us to simply say that when the overwhelming majority of people around the world want socialism they will create it because there will indeed rise these very revolutionary situations or critical revolutionary crisis or juncture that have not followed the formal logic of the propositions we put forward. The “movement” will take on a life of its own.
The World Socialist Movement cannot control whether or not workers become socialists. What we can provide, and what we have continuously provided, is a theory of revolution which, if had been taken up by workers, would have prevented incalculable misery to millions. Over the years, the Party’s theory has led to the formation of a body of knowledge which has been consistently capable of accurate political and economic predictions. For example, in 1917, the Bolsheviks were convinced that they were setting society in Russia on a course of change towards socialism. The Party argued that socialism was not being established in Russia. What followed was the horrendous misery of the Stalinist years. The Party put forward the same view of events in China in 1949. What is happening in Russia and China now? The rulers of these state capitalist regimes introduced free market capitalism. We warned against situations where groups or sections of workers try to stage the revolution or implement socialism when the rest of the working class is not prepared.
That is why call ourselves majoritarians – not because we support a numerical majority nor commit ourselves unconditionally to Parliament and elections.
On a minor point we do have an Indian companion party but your point is taken that our influence has been limited to these countries you listed. The World Socialist Movement is indeed an aspiration that we seek to achieve and sadly not a reality at the present time.
Of course, this internationalism failure exists for all the ex- members off the defunct 3rd International, and the members of the much splintered 4th International. Even the anarchists fail to achieve any worldwide unity in their international organisation.It is regrettable that progress to world socialism has not been accomplished…but the SPGB dares to say that the responsibility for that does not lie with our own political principles but with those who have claimed to be socialist yet adopted non-socialist strategies.
“The object of the Party, founded by the late John Maclean, is a Workers’ Republic for Scotland.
The Manifesto sets out the slave position of the working class, and urges that the workers must carry through the Social Revolution.
The chief fallacy of their position is their insistence upon a Scottish Workers’ Republic. This demand is both reactionary and Utopian. The struggle of the workers of the United Kingdom must be a united one. The workers are under the domination of a class who rule by the use of a political machine which is the chief governing instrument for England, Scotland, Wales, etc. To appeal to the workers of Scotland for a Scottish Workers’ Republic is to arouse and foster the narrow spirit of Nationalism, so well used by our masters. Economically the demand is Utopian, as the development of capitalism has made countries more and more dependent on each other, both through the specialisation of industry or agriculture, and also by the force controlled by the Great Powers to suppress or control the smaller nations.”
Just a quick correction of a typo to my contribution
. “…the SPGB is that faced with an impending socialist election victory” should read “One criticism against the SPGB…” which makes the meaning clearer.
Another swift point… i overlooked the ban on the Republican Clubs of the early 60s when the republican movement disavowed armed struggle and tried the constitutional route but this was partly what sparked off the civil rights movement…mea culpa.
Above is a video of Clare Daly raising the internment of Martin Corey, with the Irish government. It is difficult to accept that these highly paid parliamentarians, couldn't even be bothered to attend, bearing in mind all of the state cars and subsidies they are given.
What is even more shocking, is non attendance by the nominally republican party of provisional Sinn Fein and more particularly Gerry Adams. This is a disgrace and the type of lazy parliamentry oversight, that allowed the banks to rob the Irish people. It gives me no pleasure and makes me particularly sad, as a former chairperson of provsional Sinn Fein, to say these people have absolutely nothing progressive to offer Ireland, other than more of the same old Fianna Fail.version of Irish republican ideals.
Clare Daly on the other hand is a good example, of what a real parliamentarian of the people is like and Ireland desperately needs this type of politician, to take it out of the utter mess it is in.Provisional Sinn fein are the biggest political party on the island of Ireland and part of the British administration in British Occupied Ireland. It is simply not good enough for them at this stage, to pick and choose what part they play in the administration of policing and injustice after the lengthy peace processing.The process was sold to families who lost loved ones,volunteers, activists, the Republican Movement on the basis of power sharing. The internment without trial of innocent traditional Irish republicans is the antithesis of the most basic form of republicanism, there is grey area in this matter.
They cannot hoodwink the people of Ireland any longer on this issue. If they believe that the Irish people accept that their 'negotiators' gave up the armed struggle and all of the arms dumps in return for no say or input in policing and injustice they must think we all came down the Boyne in a bubble. They cannot hunt with the British hounds and run with the fox any longer. You are either with us or against us, we demand the immediate release, of the interned, political, prisoner of conscience, Martin Corey immediately or your withdrawal from Stormont, like the SDLP previously did 40 years ago, as a matter of democratic principle.
Martin Corey is a 63 year-old-man imprisoned in the north of Ireland.
Martin Corey.
On April 16, 2010, Martin’s house in Lurgan was visited by members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and Martin was arrested.
When he queried what the charges were, Martin was told that the police officers “did not know”. And that all they were told was to arrest Martin.
Martin Corey is a Republican who, in his youth fought against the foreign occupation of his native land. It was during this struggle for freedom that Martin Corey was charged with the murder of two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), the forerunner of the PSNI. Martin was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 1973.
Martin served just short of the next 19 years behind bars; he was released in June 1992.
Martin Corey did not sign any documents imposing conditions on his release.
Martin returned to Lurgan, where he set up a successful business as the local grave digger, formed a long-term relationship and settled down to a peaceful life. That was until his arrest in 2010. Martin Corey is still in prison and he still does not know what the charges against him are. Martin’s legal team also do not know what the charges are and neither does any judge hearing the case against Martin, because according to the Northern Ireland Office (NIO), he is being held on “Undisclosed or Secret Charges”. A special advocate, appointed by the NIO, can view the evidence and tell the judge what they can do. This makes a mockery of the judicial system when a politician, unelected in the North of Ireland, can make the rules regarding a person’s freedom. Martin Corey is selectively interned by an unjust British system.
Martin Corey is entitled as a life sentence prisoner to a parole hearing every 12 months; this is continually adjourned or not even scheduled. And the conditions that Martin is being kept under are a disgrace. Mail being kept from him for weeks at a time, prison craft that he has made, smashed by vindictive prison officers, as well as being denied proper medical or dental treatment in a reasonable time.
In May 2012, Martin appealed his imprisonment based on the fact he had not been charged with any crime nor had he been brought before a judge. Justice Treacey heard the appeal and in his verdict stated that Martin’s human rights had been breached and ordered Martin Corey be released immediately and placed no conditions on the release.
Martin returned to Maghaberry Prison to pack his belongings, his family travelled from Lurgan to pick him up and to take him home. It was whilst Martin was waiting in the prison reception that prison officers informed him that the Secretary of State had ordered him returned to the cells. The NIO had appealed Justice Treacey’s decision, but only after the Justice had boarded a plane and was about to leave the country, otherwise Justice Treacey would have had to hear any appeals. With Treacey out of the way a patsy of the British NIO upheld their appeal and hence Martin was returned to the cells.
When Martin’s legal team found out they immediately launched legal action against the appeal by the NIO, but to no avail. Martin finally got to appeal the decision in the High Court on July 11, more than six weeks after the decision by Justice Treacey, and that appeal the NIO overturned in hours.
The Lord Chief Justice upheld the ruling and stated that Martin’s case should be reheard on November 26, 2012. At the rehearing a panel of three appeals judges upheld the decision of the NIO to keep Martin incarcerated.
Martin’s legal team then applied to the High Court for permission to take their case before the Supreme Court in London. Martin’s legal team were very confident of winning in the Supreme Court, but in early May 2013, their euphoria was short lived as the appeal was denied without any valid reason being given. If you look beyond this denial, you will see British intransigence at its best.
By denying Martin the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, they have effectively blocked his application to the European Court of Human Rights, as he has not exhausted all domestic avenues. British politicians are very quick to point the finger in regards to human rights abuses around the world, but even quicker to put the blinkers on when it is occurring in their own backyard and perpetrated by their own people.
The Good Friday Agreement promised Equality, Justice and Human Rights for all. This obviously does not include Republicans who do not agree with the way the peace is being portrayed or do not agree with the ruling parties. Martin Corey is but one of these people who are suffering from a great injustice at the hands of a vindictive British government.
Martin Corey is an innocent man; he is innocent of any wrong doing. If the authorities believe that Martin is guilty of a crime, then the law of the land must prevail, charge him and bring him before a court of law, where he has the right to defend himself, not having to fight an invisible foe in the guise of undisclosed charges.
June 10, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "The Guardian" -- The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIAand current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world's most secretive organisations – the NSA.
In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."
Despite his determination to be publicly unveiled, he repeatedly insisted that he wants to avoid the media spotlight. "I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing."
He does not fear the consequences of going public, he said, only that doing so will distract attention from the issues raised by his disclosures. "I know the media likes to personalise political debates, and I know the government will demonise me."
Despite these fears, he remained hopeful his outing will not divert attention from the substance of his disclosures. "I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in." He added: "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."
He has had "a very comfortable life" that included a salary of roughly $200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves. "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
'I am not afraid, because this is the choice I've made'
Three weeks ago, Snowden made final preparations that resulted in last week's series of blockbuster news stories. At the NSA office in Hawaii where he was working, he copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose.
He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year.
As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. "That is not an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world."
On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since. He chose the city because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent", and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.
In the three weeks since he arrived, he has been ensconced in a hotel room. "I've left the room maybe a total of three times during my entire stay," he said. It is a plush hotel and, what with eating meals in his room too, he has run up big bills.
He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them.
Though that may sound like paranoia to some, Snowden has good reason for such fears. He worked in the US intelligence world for almost a decade. He knows that the biggest and most secretive surveillance organisation in America, the NSA, along with the most powerful government on the planet, is looking for him.
Since the disclosures began to emerge, he has watched television and monitored the internet, hearing all the threats and vows of prosecution emanating from Washington.
And he knows only too well the sophisticated technology available to them and how easy it will be for them to find him. The NSA police and other law enforcement officers have twice visited his home in Hawaii and already contacted his girlfriend, though he believes that may have been prompted by his absence from work, and not because of suspicions of any connection to the leaks.
"All my options are bad," he said. The US could begin extradition proceedings against him, a potentially problematic, lengthy and unpredictable course for Washington. Or the Chinese government might whisk him away for questioning, viewing him as a useful source of information. Or he might end up being grabbed and bundled into a plane bound for US territory.
"Yes, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents or assets," he said.
"We have got a CIA station just up the road – the consulate here in Hong Kong – and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week. And that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."
Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. "I am not afraid," he said calmly, "because this is the choice I've made."
He predicts the government will launch an investigation and "say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become".
The only time he became emotional during the many hours of interviews was when he pondered the impact his choices would have on his family, many of whom work for the US government. "The only thing I fear is the harmful effects on my family, who I won't be able to help any more. That's what keeps me up at night," he said, his eyes welling up with tears.
'You can't wait around for someone else to act'
Snowden did not always believe the US government posed a threat to his political values. He was brought up originally in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. His family moved later to Maryland, near the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade.
By his own admission, he was not a stellar student. In order to get the credits necessary to obtain a high school diploma, he attended a community college in Maryland, studying computing, but never completed the coursework. (He later obtained his GED.)
In 2003, he enlisted in the US army and began a training program to join the Special Forces. Invoking the same principles that he now cites to justify his leaks, he said: "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression".
He recounted how his beliefs about the war's purpose were quickly dispelled. "Most of the people training us seemed pumped up about killing Arabs, not helping anyone," he said. After he broke both his legs in a training accident, he was discharged.
After that, he got his first job in an NSA facility, working as a security guard for one of the agency's covert facilities at the University of Maryland. From there, he went to the CIA, where he worked on IT security. His understanding of the internet and his talent for computer programming enabled him to rise fairly quickly for someone who lacked even a high school diploma.
By 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland. His responsibility for maintaining computer network security meant he had clearance to access a wide array of classified documents.
That access, along with the almost three years he spent around CIA officers, led him to begin seriously questioning the rightness of what he saw.
He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led to successful recruitment.
"Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world," he says. "I realised that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good."
He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.
First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone". Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.
He left the CIA in 2009 in order to take his first job working for a private contractor that assigned him to a functioning NSA facility, stationed on a military base in Japan. It was then, he said, that he "watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in", and as a result, "I got hardened."
The primary lesson from this experience was that "you can't wait around for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realised that leadership is about being the first to act."
Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA's surveillance activities were, claiming "they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them".
He described how he once viewed the internet as "the most important invention in all of human history". As an adolescent, he spent days at a time "speaking to people with all sorts of views that I would never have encountered on my own".
But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. "I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."
Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA's surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. "What they're doing" poses "an existential threat to democracy", he said.
A matter of principle
As strong as those beliefs are, there still remains the question: why did he do it? Giving up his freedom and a privileged lifestyle? "There are more important things than money. If I were motivated by money, I could have sold these documents to any number of countries and gotten very rich."
For him, it is a matter of principle. "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he said.
His allegiance to internet freedom is reflected in the stickers on his laptop: "I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation," reads one. Another hails the online organisation offering anonymity, the Tor Project.
Asked by reporters to establish his authenticity to ensure he is not some fantasist, he laid bare, without hesitation, his personal details, from his social security number to his CIA ID and his expired diplomatic passport. There is no shiftiness. Ask him about anything in his personal life and he will answer.
He is quiet, smart, easy-going and self-effacing. A master on computers, he seemed happiest when talking about the technical side of surveillance, at a level of detail comprehensible probably only to fellow communication specialists. But he showed intense passion when talking about the value of privacy and how he felt it was being steadily eroded by the behaviour of the intelligence services.
His manner was calm and relaxed but he has been understandably twitchy since he went into hiding, waiting for the knock on the hotel door. A fire alarm goes off. "That has not happened before," he said, betraying anxiety wondering if was real, a test or a CIA ploy to get him out onto the street.
Strewn about the side of his bed are his suitcase, a plate with the remains of room-service breakfast, and a copy of Angler, the biography of former vice-president Dick Cheney.
Ever since last week's news stories began to appear in the Guardian, Snowden has vigilantly watched TV and read the internet to see the effects of his choices. He seemed satisfied that the debate he longed to provoke was finally taking place.
He lay, propped up against pillows, watching CNN's Wolf Blitzer ask a discussion panel about government intrusion if they had any idea who the leaker was. From 8,000 miles away, the leaker looked on impassively, not even indulging in a wry smile.
Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden's leaks began to make news.
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.
As for his future, he is vague. He hoped the publicity the leaks have generated will offer him some protection, making it "harder for them to get dirty".
He views his best hope as the possibility of asylum, with Iceland – with its reputation of a champion of internet freedom – at the top of his list. He knows that may prove a wish unfulfilled.
But after the intense political controversy he has already created with just the first week's haul of stories, "I feel satisfied that this was all worth it. I have no regrets."
Bernadette (Devlin) McAliskey addressed this year's Bloody Sunday March For Justice. Despite a very wet day up to 5,000 people attended the march in solidarity with the victims of Bloody Sunday.
TRANSCRIPT:
Thanks very much. I wasn't really quite sure where to start here today. It's good to see so many people here. I thought actually that Kate was going to read out some of the thanks to people before I started but she's going to do that afterwards.
So I'd just like to take a minute to thank Kate Nash, to thank The Nash Sisters, to thank the families who have asserted their right to keep this issue to the fore until the truth is followed by accountability for the action.
It has been a lonely enough path at times for families. There are times when people who are in the thick of what is actually happening – the people who have actually have suffered the brunt of the pain and the loss - who have to travel very lonely paths sometimes - although we try our best to stand with everybody.
The ebb comes and goes. And it takes very brave people to keep standing their ground when there are plenty of people with them and when there are no people simply because they know that justice remains to be done needs nd not simply be seen to be have done.
So here on the forty-first anniversary of Bloody Sunday I'm actually surprised myself that on this cold day that somewhere in the back of my head is a slightly-too-close for me at the minute a very uncomfortable memory of standing here forty-one years ago.
Sometimes you forget as well why we came on that day. It's very important to remember first of all that we continue to fight - to challenge the cover-up, to challenge the pattern, to challenge the belief that the state can do whatever the states likes.
And even though some people from time to time get tired or begin to collaborate with the state in believing that it's all best swept away somewhere and new starts made on corrupt beginnings.
We still have to keep in front of people's minds that it didn't just happen to us. Bloody Sunday is not exclusive to the people of Doire - not exclusive to the people of Northern Ireland. Had many of you had the opportunity, which you didn't, to be at some of the events yesterday, and hear Jenny Hicks speak of the loss of her two daughters at the cover-up in Hillsborough, to hear Dave Douglas speak about the cover-up of the attack on the miners, to hear Susan McKay speak on the cover-up of sexual abuse of innocent children who were supposed to be safe in the care of institutions and were violated there.
And I think what stood in common to all of us yesterday as we were speaking was that the deed was bad enough. The shooting of people in the street in Doire was bad enough. The failure to protect people in a football stadium was bad enough. But the worst thing that happened to people was that having done it was the lie!
To immediately, in the aftermath of doing it, to lie about it. And to consistently maintain that lie to protect the state, to protect the interest, to protect the guilty. And in order to keep that lie alive, to demonise, to vilify the innocent.
And let us remember that even today when the vast majority of the innocent have been declared innocent - which we always knew - that innocence is still denied to young Gerald Donaghey. Innocence is still denied to that young person on whose corpse soldiers planted nail bombs in his pockets so that they could say they saw them there or whatever it was they did. There has still not been a declaration of innocence for young Gerald Donaghy.
Let us also remember, and we talked about that yesterday as well, that that pattern, that pattern of the state action doing what they want, lying about the fact they did it, being able to draw in the great and the good - the media, the police, the Church, the social speakers, the powerful - to maintain the lie.
That demonising of the victims, that long, long process of barricading the truth away from the people. People talk about how long The Saville Inquiry took - how expensive The Saville Inquiry was. It took a long time and it cost alot of money because for every single inch of that journey, for every single day of that journey, the British government, who set the Inquiry up, prevented the truth from being brought before it.
That's why it cost alot of money. That's why it took alot of time.
And as one of the people and I still say - I never asked for that Inquiry...I never wanted it...that's my personal stand...I never wanted to go to it because the man who was sitting there, decent human being though he was, was an employee of the government I saw murder people in front of my eyes!
How was he going to find his employer guilty? So he laid the blame at a half a dozen soldiers. And they still have not been held to account.
But the true culprits will never be held to account unless we keep on this path until they are.
But let us not forget what took us onto the streets that day.
We did not stand here forty-one years ago for the purpose of being shot. That's not why we came here. We didn't stand here all that time ago to create a situation that we would have to remember year after year.
We came on the streets that day to end the policy of internment without trial. That's what took us here.
And here today forty-one years later we have a new administration. We have a new dispensation. We have a new power structure. We have new civic collaborators in the administration of government.
But we still have internment without trial!
We still have people in prison on the whim and the dictate of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State - the Overlord of this place.
And whatever minions of small people who think they have power here... the fact that they cannot have Martin Corey released means they have no power! Power still lies in the fist of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State. But they have paper power.
Marian Price remains in prison on the whim of the Secretary of State.
Dolours Price cannot be harmed by this state anymore because they have finally destroyed that good woman and she is now gone.
But the Minister of so-called Justice, David so-called “Liberal” Ford, under Article 7 of the 2000 Act, at the stroke of a pen could release her sister whom they are also trying to break in body and soul and spirit and mind. And for what?
It took all day yesterday in the High Court for a very brave lawyer to keep battling against David Ford and we're not supposed to say this because David Ford asked the judge to insure there was no reporting.
Well...I don't work for the media...so I'm not reporting... I'm just telling you!
But in the High Court, on a judicial review, the judge said that David Ford's behaviour and his judgment on not allowing Marian Price out - and not even considering it – for a few hours to sit by the coffin of her sister was unlawful, unreasonable and irrational. That's what the judge said about the Minister of Justice of this small, misbegotten, corrupt, little, pretending state.
He said the Minister of Lilliput is irrational. He said the Minister of Lilliput doesn't understand the law.
And he said that that young woman should be released for at least four hours to sit by the coffin of a sister with whom she had shared a cell for many years. With whom she had suffered the human torture, degrading and inhuman treatment of having a tube put down her throat, into her stomach, held down until a jug of liquid was poured into that funnel, into that tube and into that stomach every single day for over [two] hundred days.
When we talk about people on hunger strike many young people here forget that when Marian Price and Dolours Price were on hunger strike it wasn't that they were fasting - they were force fed in that manner for every day for [two] hundred days - and it destroyed those young women. It destroyed their physical health and still the state not satisfied.
Bullies one of them all of her life and imprisons the other one.
We came here forty-one years ago to demand (the end of) internment without trial. We came here forty-one years ago to make it perfectly clear that if Her Majesty's government – Her Majesty owns the government – if her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could not insure that this part of her jurisdiction was governed openly, transparently, democratically and within the dictates of fundamental human rights and freedoms - which should be extended to people in prison - which should be extended to people who should not have their liberty removed from them except by due, open process of law - then this place should not be governed by Her Majesty's United Kingdom government.
And I would like to say from this platform that I for one have not changed that position. And I don't care who is currently standing between us, between us and Her Majesty's government and attempting to administer democracy on their behalf.
Make the damn state work!
Make it work openly, democratically in support of the civil rights we have demanded since 1968!
We stand today looking at a new dispensation, people still in prison, the people in these houses – people who live here - no housing executive after a few years! No welfare state! No health! No benefit! No civil rights! No nothing!
We have got to get our act together. We have got to do a bit more than just march. We have got to organise. We've got to educate ourselves. We have got to get moving or there will soon be nothing here for anybody.
Let's look at the bravery of the people who stood here.
Let's look at the endurance of the families who have held this fight. Let's look at the endurance of Marian Price and Martin Corey and the others and let's say to ourselves: we have got to get a political programme together here and get the struggle for civil rights, political rights, social rights and economic rights together or we are in, comrades and colleagues, for one hell of a hiding. Thank you very much.
.jpg)
June 7th, 2014 9:05 pm
August 4th, 2014 9:13 am
Sing the Internationale Not Flower of Scotland !
August 12th, 2014 12:02 pm
August 13th, 2014 12:23 am
The 2002 coup against Chavez failed because people were prepared to take to the streets to back up their vote and because the bulk of the armed forces remained loyal to the constitution and the constitutionally-elected president. The theory that power obtained by the ballot box to effect radical changes can’t be retained was disproved by actual experience. It confirmed our view that a socialist majority can both win and retain power via the ballot box if that majority is sufficiently organised and determined and if there is no question as to their democratic legitimacy.
The problem is that it is rather useless for us today to declare what tomorrow exactly is going to happen when socialism in imminent. Will the working class (even a socialist one that is highly politically educated) wait for the declaration of its elected representatives or delegates in Parliament and legislatures? What happens when say 55 per cent of the working class says “Let’s do it now!” What happens if the majority of workers in the UK and Europe start to elect Socialist majorities, but not in the U.S., Japan, etc.? And what if the State (the
state capitalist State and private capitalist State) do begin to exert their powers to stifle the movement (and they will)? Do we then sit and wait again for our chance? What constitutes a working class majority wanting Socialism. Is it 51%? 60%? 75%? I feel this is a futile exercise to make. We simply cannot foresee the events that take place even when say 30% of the working class becomes socialist. or example, that we reached the stage where 20% of the adult working population was indeed socialist. That would be an incredible achievement and there would be a sudden rise in working class militancy in immediate issues, there would be a new “socialist culture” being built, changes within the entire labour movement, in daily life and how people thought politically. At 40% we would still not be the “overwhelming majority” but this would be such a sizably significant and politically powerful base. And here quantitative changes would mean qualitative changes. The “movement” we have now would not be the same movement under those circumstances. It might move in directions we have never even considered. And it has profound implications. It is too difficult for us to simply say that when the overwhelming majority of people around the world want socialism they will create it because there will indeed rise these very revolutionary situations or critical revolutionary crisis or juncture that have not followed the formal logic of the propositions we put forward. The “movement” will take on a life of its own.
August 13th, 2014 8:55 am
August 13th, 2014 10:51 am