03.10.2001

SWP retreats

The Stop the War Coalition met for the second time on Tuesday October 2 and I am glad to report it was a lot more ordered and democratic than the launch meeting the week before (see Weekly Worker September 27). However, only 150 people attended this time - well down from the September 25 gathering.

Lindsey German opened the meeting with a report on the various anti-war campaigns that have been built over the last few weeks. There are, for example, the Muslim Coalition Against the War, Housing Workers Against the War and - don?t laugh - Christians Against Crusade.

The only other item on the agenda, however, proved to be more controversial. It was scheduled to deal with ?what happened last time?, as chair Jane Shallice announced. The first meeting was so badly and bureaucratically chaired by comrade German, a leading member of the Socialist Workers Party, that dozens of people walked out. The founding statement was voted through without the meeting being given the opportunity to put forward amendments or hear motions. A slate of ?celebrity lefties? was similarly pushed through to become the executive of the coalition - again without any of the 500 or so people in the room having the chance to either question those on the list or put forward different candidates.

I am told that the first meeting of the executive on October 1 discussed at some length the disastrous launch. One of the results was that comrade German was either told or decided for herself not to chair the follow-up meeting. She was replaced by comrade Shallice, who introduced herself as ?ex-IMG, ex-anti-Vietnam campaigner and a Red Pepper contributor. I also assure you that I have never been and am not intending to become a member of the SWP.? Everyone in the room - not least the SWP comrades (the majority) - burst into laughter. Complaints about the nature of last week?s meeting had been interpreted by many SWPers as being purely anti-SWP. That was certainly not the case. People in the audience were upset by the anti-democratic procedure. That comrade German is also an SWP member might explain why she behaved the way she did, but her affiliation was certainly not the focus of the criticism.

The executive also had to deal with a walk-out threat by the rightwing peace group, Arrow (Active Resistance to the Roots of War). The half a dozen or so members of this group had been amongst those who had criticised the previous meeting for its lack of democracy. Although they had been allowed to present their alternative proposals for a founding statement, there was no real debate, and no vote taken. As a result, they had threatened to set up a rival anti-war coalition, taking the Green Party with them, if they were denied the right to have their proposals properly discussed and voted on at the second meeting.

So the executive decided to allow a little democracy. The original founding statement and the Arrow points - a  mishmash of legalistic pacifism (see right ) - were to be discussed as two sets of alternative statements.

?Hold on a second. I actually like bits from both proposals,? a woman in the audience intervened. ?Can we discuss the proposals point by point?? she suggested to the audible approval of a large number of those present. Comrade Shallice brushed this suggestion aside: ?The longer we sit here talking about exactly what to do, the less time we have to do it.? Much better not to talk at all about the demands we should fight around and just go out and - well, do what exactly?

?Stop the war? is the only demand the SWP majority wants to allow. But surely, if we want to be an effective movement, we must address a whole range of questions that many working class people have. Why do some people hate the USA so much that they sacrifice their own lives in order to damage it? Does that mean we have to side with them? How can the situation in the Middle East be positively resolved? If we demand an autonomous state for the Palestinians, what about the Israelis? How can we stop the war? Should we actively work to undermine the war effort? Many big questions, but no answers from the organised left, I?m afraid.

Sure, ?all supporters of the coalition ? will of course be free to develop their own analyses and organise their own actions?, as the founding statement says. But, rather than attempt to build a movement that can provide answers, the coalition wants to attract the biggest possible audience - as long as they agree that ?Stop the war? is the main task: ?United initiatives around the broad ?Stop the war? slogans can mobilise the greatest numbers,? the statement reads.

Mike Marqusee got up to support the original statement: ?We want to have an alliance that is as broad as possible. People shouldn?t have fixed views when they come and join us.? However, he then moved on to contradict himself and challenge the SWP. He put forward an amendment to delete the original formulation in the statement which says, ?We in no way condone the attacks in New York?; and replace it with, ?We condemn the attacks in New York?. Comrade Marqusee is quite aware of the SWP?s problems with the infamous c-word. The comrades consciously chose this soft formulation in order to attract ?the greatest numbers?.

However, as the two sets of proposals were presented as a straight choice between two alternatives, no amendments were allowed and comrade Marqusee?s suggestion was ruled out of order. The same happened last week when comrades from the Communist Worker Party of Iraq put forward the same amendment. Not surprisingly, the SWP majority voted for the original statement, which - as a whole - is certainly preferable to Arrow?s proposals.

Supporters of Arrow had also been unhappy with the way the executive had been elected. They suggested that fresh elections should be held at next week?s meeting. They quite rightly proposed that all candidates should present themselves to the coalition, that there should be an open selection meeting and that the meeting should be able to question the candidates. They also suggested that all sponsoring organisations should be able to send a delegate to the executive.

Hardly a controversial suggestion and standard procedure in any semi-democratic organisation, one would think. SWP comrades, however, rose to speak against the proposals. ?There are only three SWP members on this committee of 10,? Jonathan Neale declared. John Rees assured the meeting: ?I?m very much in favour of everybody having their say. I want all these organisations on board. But this is why we?re having these big meetings. We can?t have an executive that is too big.? Mike Marqusee, speaking against the proposal, thankfully started by introducing himself to the audience and the rest of the members of the executive committee followed - one week after they had been elected.

Having already been given a bloody nose, the executive settled for a compromise proposal to view the current elected leadership as merely ?interim? and suggested that new elections be held ?at the last meeting in October?. I am sorry to say that I cannot give you any more details, as the meeting at this point descended into confusion. There was a vote taken to generally shift meetings to Mondays. There was also a vote taken that before we vote on a new executive we will set up a meeting with other coalitions around the country to find out if we are the national Stop the War Coalition or just the London branch. However, no votes were taken on the procedure to elect a new executive.

I am sure our current executive will work that one out. Watch this space.

Tina Becker

Arrow proposals

1. We wholeheartedly condemn the terrorist atrocities in New York and Washington DC. Nothing can justify these terrible crimes.
2. We also condemn the idea of taking revenge for these deaths by military retaliation against Afghanistan, Iraq and/or other countries.
3. We believe that the United States and Britain should proceed on the basis of international law, following the UN charter, and working through normal channels of extradition law, to bring the perpetrators of the atrocities to justice.
4. We stand shoulder to shoulder with muslim communities in Britain, and demand an end to anti-muslim attacks and prejudice.
5. We reject the erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. We cannot defend freedom by destroying it.
6. As a network, we are committed to campaigning solely by non-violent means.

Media Workers Against the War

Wednesday October 10, 7.30 pm  Camden Centre, Euston Road, London WC1 (near Kings Cross tube).
Speakers:  John Pilger, Paul Foot, Rosie Boycott,  John Foster.

Stop the war march

Saturday October 13 - assemble 12noon, Hyde Park, London.
Demonstration called by CND.
A-Day: Stop the War Coalition has agreed to assemble at 7pm in Trafalgar Square the day any military action is launched.