Paul Anderson,Tribune, 16 June 1989
C L R James, who died a fortnight ago in London at the age of 88, was one of the most important Anglophone left intellectuals of this century. He was born and educated in Trinidad, emigrating to Britain in 1932 and becoming cricket correspondent for the Manchester Guardian.
It is for his writing on cricket that he is probably best known in Britain: Beyond a Boundary, published in 1963, is a brilliant exploration of the game's relationship to class and colonialism that has yet to be surpassed.
But his most lasting work is undoubtedly his historical writing, particularly The Black Jacobins (first published in 1938 and just reissued by Allison and Busby at £5.99), his pioneering Marxist study of the 1791-1803 slave revolt in San Domingo led by Toussaint L'Ouverture.
He was not, however, just a great historian and cricket writer. All his life he was a passionate active opponent of colonialism.
His polemical writings and speeches inspired many of the first generation of post-colonial politicians, especially in the Carribean, though he was less than inspired by them, particularly after returning to Trinidad in the fifties.
Before that, in the late thirties and forties, he had been one of the leading figures of the Trotskyist movement in Britain and then the United States; in the early fifties, working closely with Raya Dunayevskaya after both had broken with Trotskyism over the nature of the Soviet Union and the role of the vanguard party, he had played a major role in establishing a humanist Marxist (though still residually Leninist) intellectual current that prefigured much of the sixties New Left (not least, according to critics, by fabricating "first-person" accounts of life on the factory floor).
James lived his last years In Brixton, in a flat above the offices of Race Today magazine, which under the editorship of Darcus Howe adopted James's workerism and his insistence on autonomous black organisation outside the established labour movement.
Never an easy man to get on with, James had plenty of detractors as well as fervent disciples. Many of his political judgments were to say the least questionable. But for all his faults, nobody can deny his intellectual stature: the world has lost a great man.
Friday, 16 June 1989
Friday, 26 May 1989
KEEPING THE BOMB FOREVER?
Tribune, 26 May 1989
The new defence policy that emerged from Labour's policy review has been hailed by the centrist media as a step towards political realism. But it's not at all realistic if nuclear disarmament is genuinely Labour's goal, writes Paul Anderson
And so, after months of deliberation, the Labour leadership has decided to jettison the party's policy of British unilateral nuclear disarmament. Labour's National Executive Committee has backed a policy review group document that drops the party's promises to abandon the British Independent nuclear deterrent" and remove American nuclear bases from Britain.
According to the new leadership position, a Labour government would adopt a policy of "no first use" of British nuclear weapons; would build three Trident submarines rather than the four now planned; and would somehow get Britain's Trident and Polaris submarines into the second round of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks.
If this failed, a Labour government would go for a bilateral deal with the Soviet Union to get rid of Trident and Polaris in return for Soviet concessions.
A Labour government would oppose NATO's plans to modernise its short-range nuclear forces, and would encourage the inclusion of such weapons in the Conventional Forces in Europe talks. And it would attempt to get NATO to abandon its current "flexible response" doctrine by adopting "no first use".
In the meantime, it would shelter under, the American nuclear umbrella and refuse to promise not to "press the button".
What is most striking about the new policy is that it simply has not been thought through. The shift in policy is justified by its proponents solely by vague gestures towards the popular sense that "things have improved since Mikhail Gorbachev took over". Nothing has been looked at dispassionately or in detail.
Most obviously, the idea of putting Trident and Polaris into START 2 is a breathtakingly stupid policy if disarmament really is Labour's goal.
START 1, which must be concluded before START 2 begins, has only just begun. It is bogged down in disputes over sea-launched cruise missiles, Star Wars and mobile missiles. These will be resolved only if both super-powers are prepared to compromise. But while Gorbachev is flexible, George Bush shows every sign of adopting a hardline war position - like that taken by Ronald Reagan until the Iran-Contra scandal forced him to engineer the foreign policy triumph of the Intermediate Nuclear Pones treaty. As things stand, START 1 might deliver an agreement made a couple of years; but the smart money says it won't.
If that smart money is right, saying that Trident and Polaris wffl be negotiated away in START 2 is obviously ridiculous. But even if START 1 is a runaway success, there is no guarantee that there will be a START 2, let alone that the Soviet desire to have all the nuclear powers represented in the second stage of START will be accepted by the Americans. And if the Americans do accept non-super-power participation in START 2, it is difficult to see the French, Israelis, South Africans, Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese rapidly coming to an agreement to reduce their strategic nuclear armouries. "Ah, but...," say some of the Labour Centre-Left, "multilateral talks are not the whole policy. Robin Cook got the NEC to agree that if multilateral negotiations were delayed and showing no sign of pro-ducing an agreement to remove Trident, a Labour government would go for a bilateral disarmament agreement with the Soviet Union towards the end of its first term. Surely that deals with the problem?" Unfortunately, it doesn't. Mr Cook’s amendment is a small dose of sanity in an otherwise barmy scenario, raising the question of why time should be wasted pursuing a course of multilateral negotiations that everyone knows would get nowhere (if they ever started). At worst, it is a recipe for prevarication. How long would a Labour government wait before deciding that multilateral talks were unlikely to open? And if they opened, how long would it take before making a decision as to their success or failure?
A week might be a long time in politics, but four or five years is a very short time in international diplomacy, particularly where arms negotiations are concerned.
If, as the review group report states, Britain's nuclear arsenal doesn't really constitute a deterrent, and if the Trident programme is "wasteful, unnecessary and provocative", why bother with the tedious business of building three Trident submarines (not enough, incidentally, to constitute a deterrent as defined by establishment military wisdom), then trying against the odds to get a multilateral START 2 process going, then trying against even bigger odds to secure a consensus among the nuclear powers for disarmament?
If disarmament is the goal, why not say either that Trident would be abandoned and the rest of Britain's nuclear arms (including the tactical weapons not mentioned in the policy review report) would be scrapped unilaterally or that the whole lot would go in return for Soviet arms reductions?
And if disarmament is not the goal, why bother with the rhetoric about the uselessness of the British deterrent?
By contrast with the "independent deterrent", American nuclear bases in Britain are not popular with the electorate - and at least some of them play an important strategic role, hosting F-lll nuclear bombers which are an essential component of the NATO flexible response doctrine. By the early nineties, there will be many more F-llls in Britain, armed (if all goes to plan) with new air-launched Cruise missiles (brought in to compensate for the ground-launched Cruise and Pershing missiles destroyed under the INF treaty) instead of free-fall bombs. Then the F-llls will be replaced by more modern aircraft, and their air-launched Cruise missiles upgraded.
By the late nineties, American nuclear forces based in Britain, augmented by American sea-launched Cruise nuclear missiles on submarines and surface ships in the North Sea and eastern Atlantic, will fulfil much the same military and political functions as Cruise and Pershing did pre-INF treaty, with the difference that they will be easier to fit into "deep-strike" strategies.
This is a rearmament programme, by far the strategically most important part of the grand NATO plan for nuclear modernisation to restore the capability lost under INF, which includes the already-controversial new deployments of short-range ground-launched missiles and artillery in West Germany. Accepting it means accepting that the "window of opportunity" opened by the INF treaty has been closed.
Labour is, of course, saying that it will not accept it; but it is not clear what its "opposition'' to modernisation means. On the least radical interpretation, the new Labour document could mean that a Labour government would simply register a protest vote in NATO about the new ground-launched systems in West Germany, attempt to change NATO strategy towards "no first use" and try to get short-range missiles negotiated away in multilateral negotiations - but otherwise do nothing.
That would be fine if there were a good chance of NATO dropping modernisation and changing its basic strategy. But the reality is that we're a long way from any such situation.
To be sure, the West German Government has been dragging its feet on the ground-launched systems planned for its territory, first getting NATO to agree to postpone a decision on deployment of the new weapons until after the forthcoming West German general election, and then breaking NATO ranks to demand early East-West negotiations on short-range nuclear forces in Europe. The West Germans now seem to have convinced the Americans that such negotiations should: take place after conventional arms cuts are successfully negotiated.
Bat it would be foolish to consider that this means that modernisation will not happen. There is no guarantee that all the relevant negotiations will be completed in time to stop deployment of new short-range ground-launched missiles in West Germany. Even if they are, that does not necessarily mean an end to modernisation. The West Germans are concerned only with one small part of the NATO programme: they don’t care about the possibility of new aircraft and air-launched weapons in Britain or sea-launched nuclear forces in the North Sea and the eastern Atlantic. In fact, most members of the current West German Government would rather like the new sea-launched and air-launched systems to be deployed: they are traditional Atlanticists, after all, and the new systems would be an excellent way of preserving the American nuclear guarantee to Europe and the basic NATO doctrine of flexible response without the embarrassment of over-visible ground-launched missiles right in the back yard.
A "third zero" on short-range ground-launched systems in Europe as a result of multilateral talks would, of course, be welcome; but it would hardly be the sort of deathblow to NATO's strategy that Margaret Thatcher’s rhetoric over the past few weeks has tended to suggest.
Most of the military functions performed by existing or planned short-range ground-launched nuclear systems could easily be per-formed by sea-launched and air-launched systems. And, given the extent of institutional support for flexible response in NATO, it is more than likely that they would be.
Not just the deployment and structure of Western armed forces but research, development, manufacture and procurement of arms flow from the strategy. The whole military-industrial complex has an interest in no change. Add to that the strategy's important political function of being the touchstone of loyalty to the Western Alliance, and changing NATO strategy begins to look like moving a mountain.
Rather than being faced with a situation where it can lie back and float with a disarming tide, there-fee, a British Labour government is (barring major political changes in continental Europe) more likely to be confronted with a scenario in which modernisation is racing ahead, flexible response is as secure as ever and the West Germans are quite happy with their lot.
In these circumstances, registering a protest vote in NATO meetings and negotiating to change NATO strategy would be hopeless gestures. The only interpretation of "opposition* to modernisation that would make a serious contribution to disarmament would involve refusal to allow port facilities for new sea-launched nuclear systems and refusal to let British forces in West Germany operate the new ground-launched systems.
But it is difficult to see how this could be put into effect without closing the American nuclear bases in Britain, or at very least subjecting American nuclear forces in Britain to a degree of scrutiny that the Americana would consider an unacceptable price to pay for remain-ing.
A Labour government would have to insist that not one extra F-lll or free-fall nuclear bomb arrived at an American airbase in Britain, not one air-launched Cruise missile was allowed into the country and not one ship or submarine armed with sea-launched Cruise missiles was allowed to dock.
That would mean precisely the intrusive monitoring of American armed forces that the Americans have always refused (for example in New Zealand).
And what if they were to refuse it in the case of Britain under a Labour government? If Labour were serious about its policy, would it have any alternative but to say: "Sorry, but you've got to go"? It might be objected that this is much too pessimistic a scenario. By the time Labour came to power hi Britain, a government dominated by the Social Democratic Party might be in place in West Germany. A centre-le3ft coalition might have replaced the current centre-right coalition in the Netherlands.
Add to that anti-nuclear governments in Norway, Spain, Greece, Denmark and Belgium, and assume that Italy and France would acquiesce, and surely there would be a good chance of a new pro-disarmament consensus among NATO's European members that not even the military establishment and the Americans could scupper? A dramatic swing to the Left across Western Europe is certainly a prospect to relish, and not just for defence policy reasons; but it is not a certainty. The West German SPD and the Dutch Labour Party are by no means guaranteed to come to office in their respective forthcoming elections. Even if they do, it is likely that their hands will be tied by the exigencies of coalition with centre or even right parties. Moreover, like any other national political party, the German and Dutch socialists are primarily con-cerned with their own national political agendas: although they might be in favour of changing NATO strategy and encouraging detente, they would not necessarily make such aims their priorities. In any case, Labour should not base its policies on hoping for the best. The question of what Labour would do in the event of the failure of its initial attempts multilaterally to negotiate away NATO short-range nuclear weapons and change NATO strategy needs to be addressed if the party is to have a credible disarmament policy.
The policy review report adopted by the NEC leaves this question open and recent pronouncements from Neil Kinnock, Gerald Kaufman and Martin O'Neill suggest that the reason is simply that the leadership wants nothing to do with anything except multilateralism.
Should it fail, Labour will accept, albeit reluctantly, the status quo. The strategy is almost certain to back-fire because voters don't trust politicians who abandon their convictions in desperate attempts to boost their electoral popularity - particularly when the new clothes they put on don't fit anyway.
The new defence policy that emerged from Labour's policy review has been hailed by the centrist media as a step towards political realism. But it's not at all realistic if nuclear disarmament is genuinely Labour's goal, writes Paul Anderson
And so, after months of deliberation, the Labour leadership has decided to jettison the party's policy of British unilateral nuclear disarmament. Labour's National Executive Committee has backed a policy review group document that drops the party's promises to abandon the British Independent nuclear deterrent" and remove American nuclear bases from Britain.
According to the new leadership position, a Labour government would adopt a policy of "no first use" of British nuclear weapons; would build three Trident submarines rather than the four now planned; and would somehow get Britain's Trident and Polaris submarines into the second round of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks.
If this failed, a Labour government would go for a bilateral deal with the Soviet Union to get rid of Trident and Polaris in return for Soviet concessions.
A Labour government would oppose NATO's plans to modernise its short-range nuclear forces, and would encourage the inclusion of such weapons in the Conventional Forces in Europe talks. And it would attempt to get NATO to abandon its current "flexible response" doctrine by adopting "no first use".
In the meantime, it would shelter under, the American nuclear umbrella and refuse to promise not to "press the button".
What is most striking about the new policy is that it simply has not been thought through. The shift in policy is justified by its proponents solely by vague gestures towards the popular sense that "things have improved since Mikhail Gorbachev took over". Nothing has been looked at dispassionately or in detail.
Most obviously, the idea of putting Trident and Polaris into START 2 is a breathtakingly stupid policy if disarmament really is Labour's goal.
START 1, which must be concluded before START 2 begins, has only just begun. It is bogged down in disputes over sea-launched cruise missiles, Star Wars and mobile missiles. These will be resolved only if both super-powers are prepared to compromise. But while Gorbachev is flexible, George Bush shows every sign of adopting a hardline war position - like that taken by Ronald Reagan until the Iran-Contra scandal forced him to engineer the foreign policy triumph of the Intermediate Nuclear Pones treaty. As things stand, START 1 might deliver an agreement made a couple of years; but the smart money says it won't.
If that smart money is right, saying that Trident and Polaris wffl be negotiated away in START 2 is obviously ridiculous. But even if START 1 is a runaway success, there is no guarantee that there will be a START 2, let alone that the Soviet desire to have all the nuclear powers represented in the second stage of START will be accepted by the Americans. And if the Americans do accept non-super-power participation in START 2, it is difficult to see the French, Israelis, South Africans, Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese rapidly coming to an agreement to reduce their strategic nuclear armouries. "Ah, but...," say some of the Labour Centre-Left, "multilateral talks are not the whole policy. Robin Cook got the NEC to agree that if multilateral negotiations were delayed and showing no sign of pro-ducing an agreement to remove Trident, a Labour government would go for a bilateral disarmament agreement with the Soviet Union towards the end of its first term. Surely that deals with the problem?" Unfortunately, it doesn't. Mr Cook’s amendment is a small dose of sanity in an otherwise barmy scenario, raising the question of why time should be wasted pursuing a course of multilateral negotiations that everyone knows would get nowhere (if they ever started). At worst, it is a recipe for prevarication. How long would a Labour government wait before deciding that multilateral talks were unlikely to open? And if they opened, how long would it take before making a decision as to their success or failure?
A week might be a long time in politics, but four or five years is a very short time in international diplomacy, particularly where arms negotiations are concerned.
If, as the review group report states, Britain's nuclear arsenal doesn't really constitute a deterrent, and if the Trident programme is "wasteful, unnecessary and provocative", why bother with the tedious business of building three Trident submarines (not enough, incidentally, to constitute a deterrent as defined by establishment military wisdom), then trying against the odds to get a multilateral START 2 process going, then trying against even bigger odds to secure a consensus among the nuclear powers for disarmament?
If disarmament is the goal, why not say either that Trident would be abandoned and the rest of Britain's nuclear arms (including the tactical weapons not mentioned in the policy review report) would be scrapped unilaterally or that the whole lot would go in return for Soviet arms reductions?
And if disarmament is not the goal, why bother with the rhetoric about the uselessness of the British deterrent?
By contrast with the "independent deterrent", American nuclear bases in Britain are not popular with the electorate - and at least some of them play an important strategic role, hosting F-lll nuclear bombers which are an essential component of the NATO flexible response doctrine. By the early nineties, there will be many more F-llls in Britain, armed (if all goes to plan) with new air-launched Cruise missiles (brought in to compensate for the ground-launched Cruise and Pershing missiles destroyed under the INF treaty) instead of free-fall bombs. Then the F-llls will be replaced by more modern aircraft, and their air-launched Cruise missiles upgraded.
By the late nineties, American nuclear forces based in Britain, augmented by American sea-launched Cruise nuclear missiles on submarines and surface ships in the North Sea and eastern Atlantic, will fulfil much the same military and political functions as Cruise and Pershing did pre-INF treaty, with the difference that they will be easier to fit into "deep-strike" strategies.
This is a rearmament programme, by far the strategically most important part of the grand NATO plan for nuclear modernisation to restore the capability lost under INF, which includes the already-controversial new deployments of short-range ground-launched missiles and artillery in West Germany. Accepting it means accepting that the "window of opportunity" opened by the INF treaty has been closed.
Labour is, of course, saying that it will not accept it; but it is not clear what its "opposition'' to modernisation means. On the least radical interpretation, the new Labour document could mean that a Labour government would simply register a protest vote in NATO about the new ground-launched systems in West Germany, attempt to change NATO strategy towards "no first use" and try to get short-range missiles negotiated away in multilateral negotiations - but otherwise do nothing.
That would be fine if there were a good chance of NATO dropping modernisation and changing its basic strategy. But the reality is that we're a long way from any such situation.
To be sure, the West German Government has been dragging its feet on the ground-launched systems planned for its territory, first getting NATO to agree to postpone a decision on deployment of the new weapons until after the forthcoming West German general election, and then breaking NATO ranks to demand early East-West negotiations on short-range nuclear forces in Europe. The West Germans now seem to have convinced the Americans that such negotiations should: take place after conventional arms cuts are successfully negotiated.
Bat it would be foolish to consider that this means that modernisation will not happen. There is no guarantee that all the relevant negotiations will be completed in time to stop deployment of new short-range ground-launched missiles in West Germany. Even if they are, that does not necessarily mean an end to modernisation. The West Germans are concerned only with one small part of the NATO programme: they don’t care about the possibility of new aircraft and air-launched weapons in Britain or sea-launched nuclear forces in the North Sea and the eastern Atlantic. In fact, most members of the current West German Government would rather like the new sea-launched and air-launched systems to be deployed: they are traditional Atlanticists, after all, and the new systems would be an excellent way of preserving the American nuclear guarantee to Europe and the basic NATO doctrine of flexible response without the embarrassment of over-visible ground-launched missiles right in the back yard.
A "third zero" on short-range ground-launched systems in Europe as a result of multilateral talks would, of course, be welcome; but it would hardly be the sort of deathblow to NATO's strategy that Margaret Thatcher’s rhetoric over the past few weeks has tended to suggest.
Most of the military functions performed by existing or planned short-range ground-launched nuclear systems could easily be per-formed by sea-launched and air-launched systems. And, given the extent of institutional support for flexible response in NATO, it is more than likely that they would be.
Not just the deployment and structure of Western armed forces but research, development, manufacture and procurement of arms flow from the strategy. The whole military-industrial complex has an interest in no change. Add to that the strategy's important political function of being the touchstone of loyalty to the Western Alliance, and changing NATO strategy begins to look like moving a mountain.
Rather than being faced with a situation where it can lie back and float with a disarming tide, there-fee, a British Labour government is (barring major political changes in continental Europe) more likely to be confronted with a scenario in which modernisation is racing ahead, flexible response is as secure as ever and the West Germans are quite happy with their lot.
In these circumstances, registering a protest vote in NATO meetings and negotiating to change NATO strategy would be hopeless gestures. The only interpretation of "opposition* to modernisation that would make a serious contribution to disarmament would involve refusal to allow port facilities for new sea-launched nuclear systems and refusal to let British forces in West Germany operate the new ground-launched systems.
But it is difficult to see how this could be put into effect without closing the American nuclear bases in Britain, or at very least subjecting American nuclear forces in Britain to a degree of scrutiny that the Americana would consider an unacceptable price to pay for remain-ing.
A Labour government would have to insist that not one extra F-lll or free-fall nuclear bomb arrived at an American airbase in Britain, not one air-launched Cruise missile was allowed into the country and not one ship or submarine armed with sea-launched Cruise missiles was allowed to dock.
That would mean precisely the intrusive monitoring of American armed forces that the Americans have always refused (for example in New Zealand).
And what if they were to refuse it in the case of Britain under a Labour government? If Labour were serious about its policy, would it have any alternative but to say: "Sorry, but you've got to go"? It might be objected that this is much too pessimistic a scenario. By the time Labour came to power hi Britain, a government dominated by the Social Democratic Party might be in place in West Germany. A centre-le3ft coalition might have replaced the current centre-right coalition in the Netherlands.
Add to that anti-nuclear governments in Norway, Spain, Greece, Denmark and Belgium, and assume that Italy and France would acquiesce, and surely there would be a good chance of a new pro-disarmament consensus among NATO's European members that not even the military establishment and the Americans could scupper? A dramatic swing to the Left across Western Europe is certainly a prospect to relish, and not just for defence policy reasons; but it is not a certainty. The West German SPD and the Dutch Labour Party are by no means guaranteed to come to office in their respective forthcoming elections. Even if they do, it is likely that their hands will be tied by the exigencies of coalition with centre or even right parties. Moreover, like any other national political party, the German and Dutch socialists are primarily con-cerned with their own national political agendas: although they might be in favour of changing NATO strategy and encouraging detente, they would not necessarily make such aims their priorities. In any case, Labour should not base its policies on hoping for the best. The question of what Labour would do in the event of the failure of its initial attempts multilaterally to negotiate away NATO short-range nuclear weapons and change NATO strategy needs to be addressed if the party is to have a credible disarmament policy.
The policy review report adopted by the NEC leaves this question open and recent pronouncements from Neil Kinnock, Gerald Kaufman and Martin O'Neill suggest that the reason is simply that the leadership wants nothing to do with anything except multilateralism.
Should it fail, Labour will accept, albeit reluctantly, the status quo. The strategy is almost certain to back-fire because voters don't trust politicians who abandon their convictions in desperate attempts to boost their electoral popularity - particularly when the new clothes they put on don't fit anyway.
Friday, 12 May 1989
IMPOSSIBLE PREDICAMENT
Paul Anderson, review of Ghetto by Joshua Sobel (National, Olivier), Tribune, 12 May 1989
Joshua Sobol's Ghetto succeeds where Jim Allen's Perdition failed, using the theatre for a subtle and disturbing investigation of the impossible predicament of east European Jews confronted by the slowly tightening noose of Nazi genocide. Set in the Lithuanian city of Vilnius, which had 40,000 Jewish inhabitants in 1940 and only 600 in 1945, the play tells the story of the last months of the ghetto, focusing on the experience of the actors and musicians of the ghetto's Yiddish theatre.
Ghetto revolves around the corrupt relationships among four Jewish characters and one German. The most important of the Jews, Gens, the chief of the Jewish police (John Woodvine), is a Zionist. He justifies his collaboration with the Nazis on utilitarian grounds: his goal is the survival of the maximum number of Jews for emigration to Palestine, and it is even worth sending some to their deaths, he believes, if others are thereby saved. By contrast, Kruk, the ghetto librarian (Paul Jesson), is a secularist Bund socialist with links to the partisans. He detests Gens's nationalism and his collaboration with the Nazis; yet he has no obvious alternative to offer, and even he is sucked into unwilling co-operation with a Nazi "academic" who is cataloguing Jewish cultural artefacts before the race finally disappears.
Then there is the Jewish entrepreneur Weiskopf (Anthony O'Donnell), who seizes his opportunity to make money by getting his fellow Jews to work for the Germans mending uniforms. Gens tolerates him because his greed has the side-effect of keeping Jews in "useful" work (and thus temporarily out of Nazi clutches); but in the end, Weiskopf's profit motive and Gens's aim of securing survival of the greatest number are incompatible. Finally, there is Hannah (Maria Friedman), the star singer of the theatre, in her twenties. Her growing hatred of the Germans leads eventually to a heroic decision to flee the ghetto to join the partisans — yet it is her absence that finally gives the Nazis the excuse to liquidate the ghetto.
Against the Jews, Sobol pits Kittel (Alex Jennings), a vicious sadist who happens to love music and theatre. He delights in the slow elimination of his prey, enjoying every moral dilemma faced by the Jews in the certain knowledge that he will inevitably prevail. He rules by dividing, playing off Gens against Kruk, dispensing favours to the theatre company becuase he lusts after Hannah.
All the actors in this first English language production (translated from the Hebrew literally by Miriam Schlesinger and polished up by David Lan) are superb, with Jennings's public-school-bully rendition of Kittel particularly outstanding. Nicholas Hytner's direction is near-faultless.
Altogether, an extraordinary politico-moral drama. Catch it if you can.
Joshua Sobol's Ghetto succeeds where Jim Allen's Perdition failed, using the theatre for a subtle and disturbing investigation of the impossible predicament of east European Jews confronted by the slowly tightening noose of Nazi genocide. Set in the Lithuanian city of Vilnius, which had 40,000 Jewish inhabitants in 1940 and only 600 in 1945, the play tells the story of the last months of the ghetto, focusing on the experience of the actors and musicians of the ghetto's Yiddish theatre.
Ghetto revolves around the corrupt relationships among four Jewish characters and one German. The most important of the Jews, Gens, the chief of the Jewish police (John Woodvine), is a Zionist. He justifies his collaboration with the Nazis on utilitarian grounds: his goal is the survival of the maximum number of Jews for emigration to Palestine, and it is even worth sending some to their deaths, he believes, if others are thereby saved. By contrast, Kruk, the ghetto librarian (Paul Jesson), is a secularist Bund socialist with links to the partisans. He detests Gens's nationalism and his collaboration with the Nazis; yet he has no obvious alternative to offer, and even he is sucked into unwilling co-operation with a Nazi "academic" who is cataloguing Jewish cultural artefacts before the race finally disappears.
Then there is the Jewish entrepreneur Weiskopf (Anthony O'Donnell), who seizes his opportunity to make money by getting his fellow Jews to work for the Germans mending uniforms. Gens tolerates him because his greed has the side-effect of keeping Jews in "useful" work (and thus temporarily out of Nazi clutches); but in the end, Weiskopf's profit motive and Gens's aim of securing survival of the greatest number are incompatible. Finally, there is Hannah (Maria Friedman), the star singer of the theatre, in her twenties. Her growing hatred of the Germans leads eventually to a heroic decision to flee the ghetto to join the partisans — yet it is her absence that finally gives the Nazis the excuse to liquidate the ghetto.
Against the Jews, Sobol pits Kittel (Alex Jennings), a vicious sadist who happens to love music and theatre. He delights in the slow elimination of his prey, enjoying every moral dilemma faced by the Jews in the certain knowledge that he will inevitably prevail. He rules by dividing, playing off Gens against Kruk, dispensing favours to the theatre company becuase he lusts after Hannah.
All the actors in this first English language production (translated from the Hebrew literally by Miriam Schlesinger and polished up by David Lan) are superb, with Jennings's public-school-bully rendition of Kittel particularly outstanding. Nicholas Hytner's direction is near-faultless.
Altogether, an extraordinary politico-moral drama. Catch it if you can.
Friday, 5 May 1989
STUNT POLITICS
Paul Anderson, review of The Blake Escape: How We Freed George Blake and Why by Michael Randle and Pat Pottle (Harrap, £12.95), Tribune, 5 May 1989
This book tells one of the most improbable stories I've ever read. Three ex lags — a charismatic Irish piss-artist petty criminal and two earnest anarcho-pacifists who've been inside for peace movement direct action "offences"— spring one of their mates from the Scrubs.
Strange enough in itself, you might think. But the mate just happens to be doing a 42-year stretch for being (according to establishment wisdom) one of the most dangerous Soviet agents ever. What's more, our doughty amateur threesome get the master-spy safely to East Germany in the back of a caravanette. The press, egged on by "sources close to the security services", speculates that the KGB was responsible.
Yet all this happened, in 1966. The spy is George Blake, imprisoned . in 1961 after a secret , trial for betraying the identities of British agents in Eastern Europe to the KGB. The two anarcho-pacifists are the authors, who were activists in the Committee of 100 in the early sixties; and the piss-artist is Sean Bourke.
The story would not be known to the world today but for Bourke, whose incompetence and eccentricity (or was it simply his eye for a saleable yarn?) led first to his involvement being discovered by the police, thence to flight to the Soviet Union, and finally to his return to Ireland, where he successfully fought off British attempts to have him extradited In 1970, his somewhat romanticised version of the story was published in a book, The Springing of George Blake, that more-or-less fingered his accomplices.
After that, nothing happened until 1987, when Randle and Pottle were named in an article written by a one-time-radical Sunday Times hack, Barrie Penrose, who was following up a book on Blake by H Montgomery Hyde that had all but identified them.
Faced with calls from Tory MPs for their prosecution and press attempts to use the story to link CND with the KGB, Randle and Pottle decided to set the record straight. Hence this book.
They have done very well. Their story, as Sean Bourke knew, makes compulsive reading. Simply to tell how Blake was sprung and taken to East Germany is to deliver a two-fingered salute to the British establishment. That three green amateurs could pull off such a spectacular stunt assisted only by a handful of peacenik friends makes complete nonsense of the security state. The prison authorities, the police, the security services and the tame hacks that swallow the state's droppings so unquestioningly are revealed as time-serving incompetents and fools. It is impossible to keep a straight face while reading this book.
But there is a serious side to it as well. For, as Randle and Pottle make clear, their reasons for getting involved in this escapade were not solely to do with cocking a. snout at those in authority. They believed, and still believe, that it is right to break the law if by doing so a greater crime is prevented. Blake was given, an inhumanely long sentence after an unfair trial, they argue.
Although they at no point condone Blake's activities, agreeing that he probably has "blood on his hands", they make a convincing case against rumours that the harshness of Blake's sentence was related to the number of British agents he betrayed to imprisonment or death. Anyway, they go on, Blake's espionage activities were certainly no worse than anything Western intelligence agencies get up to as a matter of routine — and they were a lot less reprehensible than the bloody coups and assassinations that western intelligence agencies have engineered in the Third World. Blake was simply a small part of a whole system that needs dismantling.
This is a sound moral argument, which Randle and Pottle plan to make the basis of their defence should they be brought to trial. I hope it doesn't come to this — but we shall see. In the meantime, read their book.
This book tells one of the most improbable stories I've ever read. Three ex lags — a charismatic Irish piss-artist petty criminal and two earnest anarcho-pacifists who've been inside for peace movement direct action "offences"— spring one of their mates from the Scrubs.
Strange enough in itself, you might think. But the mate just happens to be doing a 42-year stretch for being (according to establishment wisdom) one of the most dangerous Soviet agents ever. What's more, our doughty amateur threesome get the master-spy safely to East Germany in the back of a caravanette. The press, egged on by "sources close to the security services", speculates that the KGB was responsible.
Yet all this happened, in 1966. The spy is George Blake, imprisoned . in 1961 after a secret , trial for betraying the identities of British agents in Eastern Europe to the KGB. The two anarcho-pacifists are the authors, who were activists in the Committee of 100 in the early sixties; and the piss-artist is Sean Bourke.
The story would not be known to the world today but for Bourke, whose incompetence and eccentricity (or was it simply his eye for a saleable yarn?) led first to his involvement being discovered by the police, thence to flight to the Soviet Union, and finally to his return to Ireland, where he successfully fought off British attempts to have him extradited In 1970, his somewhat romanticised version of the story was published in a book, The Springing of George Blake, that more-or-less fingered his accomplices.
After that, nothing happened until 1987, when Randle and Pottle were named in an article written by a one-time-radical Sunday Times hack, Barrie Penrose, who was following up a book on Blake by H Montgomery Hyde that had all but identified them.
Faced with calls from Tory MPs for their prosecution and press attempts to use the story to link CND with the KGB, Randle and Pottle decided to set the record straight. Hence this book.
They have done very well. Their story, as Sean Bourke knew, makes compulsive reading. Simply to tell how Blake was sprung and taken to East Germany is to deliver a two-fingered salute to the British establishment. That three green amateurs could pull off such a spectacular stunt assisted only by a handful of peacenik friends makes complete nonsense of the security state. The prison authorities, the police, the security services and the tame hacks that swallow the state's droppings so unquestioningly are revealed as time-serving incompetents and fools. It is impossible to keep a straight face while reading this book.
But there is a serious side to it as well. For, as Randle and Pottle make clear, their reasons for getting involved in this escapade were not solely to do with cocking a. snout at those in authority. They believed, and still believe, that it is right to break the law if by doing so a greater crime is prevented. Blake was given, an inhumanely long sentence after an unfair trial, they argue.
Although they at no point condone Blake's activities, agreeing that he probably has "blood on his hands", they make a convincing case against rumours that the harshness of Blake's sentence was related to the number of British agents he betrayed to imprisonment or death. Anyway, they go on, Blake's espionage activities were certainly no worse than anything Western intelligence agencies get up to as a matter of routine — and they were a lot less reprehensible than the bloody coups and assassinations that western intelligence agencies have engineered in the Third World. Blake was simply a small part of a whole system that needs dismantling.
This is a sound moral argument, which Randle and Pottle plan to make the basis of their defence should they be brought to trial. I hope it doesn't come to this — but we shall see. In the meantime, read their book.
Friday, 21 April 1989
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
Paul Anderson, review of Icecream by Caryl Churchill (Royal Court), Tribune, 21 April 1989
Icecream, Caryl Churchill's new play at the Royal Court, is an acerbic black comedy of transatlantic misunderstanding and moral cretinism. Lance and Vera, a middle-class, middle-aged, middle-American couple, are England on vacation. They just love all the history here.
Through Lance's research on his family here, they meet his third cousins, Phil and Jaq, a pair of uncouth squatter types in their twenties. For Phil and Jaq, Americans stink, though they're hooked on American cultural cliches.
Still, they're quite happy to sponge off their new-found relatives, who in turn mistake the Brits' venality for real affection. But then disaster strikes. Phil kills the landlord, and he and Jaq persuade Lance and Vera to help dispose of the body. The Yanks' vacation is ruined, and they return home racked with guilt (which in Vera's case is hilariously mishandled by her shrink). Worse, however, is to follow: the next year, Phil and Jaq turn up to see them in America.
And after Phil is killed jay-walking, Jaq steals Lance's car and goes off on an eventually murderous joy-ride.
All the characters are outrageous caricatures. Lance (a superb deadpan performance by Philip Jackson) and Vera (a neurotic but essentially inane Carole Hayman) are too earnest by half, while Phil (David Thewlis playing a shifty, drunken yob) and Jaq (Sasida Reeves's well observed vacuous tearaway) are as nasty a pair of Ignorant louts as you'll find anywhere.
Churchill's dialogue is sharp and wonderfully funny, and Max Stafford-Clark's production races the action along at breakneck speed. Icecream is a sick, slick and enormously enjoyable expression of hatred for America and Britain that deserves the success of Serious Money, Churchill's 1987 hit.
Icecream, Caryl Churchill's new play at the Royal Court, is an acerbic black comedy of transatlantic misunderstanding and moral cretinism. Lance and Vera, a middle-class, middle-aged, middle-American couple, are England on vacation. They just love all the history here.
Through Lance's research on his family here, they meet his third cousins, Phil and Jaq, a pair of uncouth squatter types in their twenties. For Phil and Jaq, Americans stink, though they're hooked on American cultural cliches.
Still, they're quite happy to sponge off their new-found relatives, who in turn mistake the Brits' venality for real affection. But then disaster strikes. Phil kills the landlord, and he and Jaq persuade Lance and Vera to help dispose of the body. The Yanks' vacation is ruined, and they return home racked with guilt (which in Vera's case is hilariously mishandled by her shrink). Worse, however, is to follow: the next year, Phil and Jaq turn up to see them in America.
And after Phil is killed jay-walking, Jaq steals Lance's car and goes off on an eventually murderous joy-ride.
All the characters are outrageous caricatures. Lance (a superb deadpan performance by Philip Jackson) and Vera (a neurotic but essentially inane Carole Hayman) are too earnest by half, while Phil (David Thewlis playing a shifty, drunken yob) and Jaq (Sasida Reeves's well observed vacuous tearaway) are as nasty a pair of Ignorant louts as you'll find anywhere.
Churchill's dialogue is sharp and wonderfully funny, and Max Stafford-Clark's production races the action along at breakneck speed. Icecream is a sick, slick and enormously enjoyable expression of hatred for America and Britain that deserves the success of Serious Money, Churchill's 1987 hit.
Friday, 17 March 1989
RETURN TO THE KITCHEN SINK
Paul Anderson, review of My Girl by Barrie Keefe (Theatre Royal, Stratford East), Tribune, 17 March 1989
Barrie Keefe's new play is a gritty naturalist two-hander set in a run-down rented flat in Leytonstone High Road. Anyone who has been forced into the London private rented sector knows the sort of place: £70 a week for three damp, cold, tastelessly furnished and poorly decorated rooms, with shared bathroom and toilet and a dangerous gas water-heater in the kitchen.
The people who live here are Sam (Karl Howman), a social worker coming up to his 30th birthday, his pregnant wife, Anita (Meera Syal), and their baby daughter. Sam and Anita are broke. The baby keeps them up at night. Anita is worried that worse poverty is to come. Sam is frustrated by his work and suffers from boils. They bicker. And as the date on which the second baby is due approaches, he becomes increasingly distant from her, spending more and more time away from home with a young woman whom he claims is just another social work case but is actually a putative affair.
My Girl ends with reconciliation, after Sam: helps deliver.the baby and decides to quit his job so that the family can live outside London. But its not a simple happy ending: the reason Tor Sam and Anita's poverty is that Sam considers his job as a social worker as a political activity, helping the really poor to win small battles against the system. Getting out is an admission of defeat And what about all the poor without professional qualifications, who can't simply get out? If all this sounds grim, it's only part of the story.
Even as disaster follows disaster in the first two-thirds of the play, there is no shortage of laughs. Keeffe has an unerring ear for the language of everyday life, and Syal and Howman do his dialogue proud. Sam and Anita are not mere victims.
There are times when My Girl is a touch too sentimental, but on the whole it is a well-constructed, provocative and entertaining play about poverty. It's also refreshing to see a return to the kitchan sink in polemical political drama. The past couple of years have seen radical playwrights tending to concentrate on exploring the apparent successes of Thatcher's Britain (David Hare's The Secret Rapture and Caryl Churchill's Serious Money, to take just two examples): it's no bad thing to be reminded that the poor are still with us.
Barrie Keefe's new play is a gritty naturalist two-hander set in a run-down rented flat in Leytonstone High Road. Anyone who has been forced into the London private rented sector knows the sort of place: £70 a week for three damp, cold, tastelessly furnished and poorly decorated rooms, with shared bathroom and toilet and a dangerous gas water-heater in the kitchen.
The people who live here are Sam (Karl Howman), a social worker coming up to his 30th birthday, his pregnant wife, Anita (Meera Syal), and their baby daughter. Sam and Anita are broke. The baby keeps them up at night. Anita is worried that worse poverty is to come. Sam is frustrated by his work and suffers from boils. They bicker. And as the date on which the second baby is due approaches, he becomes increasingly distant from her, spending more and more time away from home with a young woman whom he claims is just another social work case but is actually a putative affair.
My Girl ends with reconciliation, after Sam: helps deliver.the baby and decides to quit his job so that the family can live outside London. But its not a simple happy ending: the reason Tor Sam and Anita's poverty is that Sam considers his job as a social worker as a political activity, helping the really poor to win small battles against the system. Getting out is an admission of defeat And what about all the poor without professional qualifications, who can't simply get out? If all this sounds grim, it's only part of the story.
Even as disaster follows disaster in the first two-thirds of the play, there is no shortage of laughs. Keeffe has an unerring ear for the language of everyday life, and Syal and Howman do his dialogue proud. Sam and Anita are not mere victims.
There are times when My Girl is a touch too sentimental, but on the whole it is a well-constructed, provocative and entertaining play about poverty. It's also refreshing to see a return to the kitchan sink in polemical political drama. The past couple of years have seen radical playwrights tending to concentrate on exploring the apparent successes of Thatcher's Britain (David Hare's The Secret Rapture and Caryl Churchill's Serious Money, to take just two examples): it's no bad thing to be reminded that the poor are still with us.
Friday, 20 January 1989
NOT QUITE CONVINCING
Paul Anderson, review of Working For Common Security by Nick Butler, Len Scott, David Ward and Jonathan Worthington (Fabian Society, £1.50), Tribune 20 January 1989
The authors of Working For Common Security have put together the most cogent case so far constructed for a move, away from Labour's current defence policy of abandoning Britain's nuclear arsenal and ridding Britain of American nuclear weapons. For this reason alone, their pamphlet is worthy of careful scrutiny by anyone interested in the issue — even if in the end, their arguments fail to convince.
Working For Common Security's central theme is that Labour's unilateralism has been rendered obsolete by international developments. Labour policy was formulated at the height of the Euromissile crisis, when super-power arms control negotiations were in deadlock.
Today, so the argument goes, the situation has been transformed. Mikhail Gorbachev's accession to power in the Kremlin has meant Soviet abandonment of obsessive competition in the arms race.
The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty has removed the most destablising nuclear weapons from Europe. Super-power arms control talks (on strategic nuclear forces, chemical weapons and conventional armaments) are on the move again. Detente is here again, in short, and the key question is how a Labour government could best contribute to a deepening of detente and a quickening of the pace of disarmament.
Butler, Scott, Ward and Worthington argue that the most important element of Labour policy that needs to he reassessed in this light is not the position on British nuclear forces (although they raise the possibility of putting Polaris and Trident into the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) but the party's commitment to rid Britain of American nuclear weapons, in particular the nuclear arms of the dual-capable F-111 bombers stationed in Britain.
They believe there is a danger that, if a Labour government simply told Washington that the F-111s' arms could not be kept in Britain, the F-111s would be redeployed elsewhere in Western Europe — which in turn would lead to big arguments wherever they were to be.redeployed and disruption to the whole arms control process that otherwise might secure the departure of the F-111s from Europe for good.
Therefore, instead of calling for removal of American nuclear weapons from Britain. Labour should be pressing for a change in NATO strategy away from "flexible response" and for a (multilaterally negotiated) elimination of battlefield nuclear weapons from Europe.
This position does have its strong points. The authors of the Fabian pamphlet are quite right to point out that American nuclear forces in Britain and NATO war-fighting strategy are more important questions than the British "independent deterrent".
There would indeed be little point in pursuing a policy of ridding Britain of American nuclear weapons if its only effects were to sabotage the chances of changing NATO strategy and securing international agreement to eliminate battlefield nuclear weapons from Europe.
The authors of Working For Common Security have put together the most cogent case so far constructed for a move, away from Labour's current defence policy of abandoning Britain's nuclear arsenal and ridding Britain of American nuclear weapons. For this reason alone, their pamphlet is worthy of careful scrutiny by anyone interested in the issue — even if in the end, their arguments fail to convince.
Working For Common Security's central theme is that Labour's unilateralism has been rendered obsolete by international developments. Labour policy was formulated at the height of the Euromissile crisis, when super-power arms control negotiations were in deadlock.
Today, so the argument goes, the situation has been transformed. Mikhail Gorbachev's accession to power in the Kremlin has meant Soviet abandonment of obsessive competition in the arms race.
The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty has removed the most destablising nuclear weapons from Europe. Super-power arms control talks (on strategic nuclear forces, chemical weapons and conventional armaments) are on the move again. Detente is here again, in short, and the key question is how a Labour government could best contribute to a deepening of detente and a quickening of the pace of disarmament.
Butler, Scott, Ward and Worthington argue that the most important element of Labour policy that needs to he reassessed in this light is not the position on British nuclear forces (although they raise the possibility of putting Polaris and Trident into the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) but the party's commitment to rid Britain of American nuclear weapons, in particular the nuclear arms of the dual-capable F-111 bombers stationed in Britain.
They believe there is a danger that, if a Labour government simply told Washington that the F-111s' arms could not be kept in Britain, the F-111s would be redeployed elsewhere in Western Europe — which in turn would lead to big arguments wherever they were to be.redeployed and disruption to the whole arms control process that otherwise might secure the departure of the F-111s from Europe for good.
Therefore, instead of calling for removal of American nuclear weapons from Britain. Labour should be pressing for a change in NATO strategy away from "flexible response" and for a (multilaterally negotiated) elimination of battlefield nuclear weapons from Europe.
This position does have its strong points. The authors of the Fabian pamphlet are quite right to point out that American nuclear forces in Britain and NATO war-fighting strategy are more important questions than the British "independent deterrent".
There would indeed be little point in pursuing a policy of ridding Britain of American nuclear weapons if its only effects were to sabotage the chances of changing NATO strategy and securing international agreement to eliminate battlefield nuclear weapons from Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)