For the first time Sunday I heard a British government minister refer to economic terrorism in connection with Al Qaeda.
This was David Blunkett Home Secretary saying, as I caught it, "the more they can destabilise our economy and the world economy the better it will be for their intent" A somewhat unguarded statement fortunately for them not broadcast in every subsequent news bulletin. This was in the context of a joint intitiative with the USA to stage a mock terrorist attack simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic. It is consistent with the fact that the mock exercise held in the UK last year was at the Bank underground station. It is also consistent with the news that the French rail system has recently been held to ransom by threats to the whole system. It is consistent with the little publicised fact that the British government eventually decided it had to negotiate with the IRA after the IRA blew up the Baltic Exchange. Why the Baltic Exchange? Not clearly for the usual purposes of terrorism which is for its supposed political excitatory role. No, the Baltic Exchange was featured on an Open University sociology course available to IRA prisoners in long term detention, as a crucial link in the re-insurance processes of finance capital. Baltic Exchange plus threats to attack key road and rail junctions. So terrorism and the counterploys to terrorism are rapidly evolving. The WT Centre had a dual role, as one of the prominent symbols of US power, and as a key economic target. But even more key for economic rather than for political terrorism would be a communications hub. >From a socialist point of view both are reactionary are ultimately strengthen the hold of the ruling class over the mass of the people. A lot may depend on whether the terrorists give up their essential use of political terrorism. If they switch systematically to economic terrorism, that implies they are far sighted enough to aim at specific goals as a result of the terrorist war. Ideologically in their own terms they may feel tht is reformist, and they cannot ask for such sacrifices for reformist goals. To the extent the terrorism becomes economic, within the ruling strata it becomes cheaper for finance capitalism to negotiate. The multi-lateralist imperialists will win out over the unilateralists. Finance capitalism in general over the sectional interest of a minor player like Cheney and his neo-conservative chums. Bush is that little bit more on the defensive. Chris Burford
