10.10.2001

My enemy?s enemy

Last week?s debate, hosted by the Alliance for Workers? Liberty, on the left?s response to the terrorist attacks on America and the imperialist war was attended by around 40 people. The platform consisted of the AWL itself, along with speakers from Workers Power, the CPGB and the Worker Communist Party of Iraq.

Given the fact that clear divisions have opened up within the Socialist Alliance over our attitude to September 11 and the subsequent war drive, it is disappointing, as Marcus Larsen of the CPGB pointed out, that the meeting was not run under the rubric of the Socialist Alliance. That John Rees and Rob Hoveman on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party vetoed the proposal to transform the meeting in this way is symptomatic of the SWP?s downgrading of the SA in the name of developing the Stop the War Coalition.

Clearly building the SA goes hand in hand with ensuring that the anti-war campaign is big and effective. These two tasks are not counterposed - but of the two it is the Socialist Alliance which is a long-term project. That is why it is crucial that our differences are debated out openly. But of course the SWP sees itself as the party. Not the Socialist Alliance. The SA is merely a transmission belt for them.

Opening on behalf of the AWL, Sean Matgamna condemned both the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The AWL has made many correct criticisms of the ?Taliban defencist? posture adopted by sections of the left, most notably the SWP itself. However, its criticism has been blunted by a tendency to overcompensate for this and stray into the ?first camp?. Comrade Matgamna argued: ?If they [the US and its allies - RG] could line up bin Laden and his people and take them out, then that would be fine.? It is true that communists would mourn the death of bin Laden at the hands of Bush as little as they would mourn Bush?s death at the hands of bin Laden. However, as comrade Larsen pointed out in his opening, such a statement ignores the question of agency and is therefore an abstraction.

Unfortunately this tendency mars the AWL?s arguments, which are often in essence correct, allowing, for example, Workers Power comrades to present themselves as ?consistent anti-imperialists? by contrast. This was the stance of WP?s Mark Hoskisson, who put the ?Taliban defencist? side of the argument to the meeting. For him the problem with the AWL was that its positions ?equate fundamentalism with imperialism?. While rightly pointing out that imperialism is the ?principal force of reaction in the world?, he seems to imagine that this means the struggle against less powerful forces of reaction should be put on hold.

So for Workers Power the immediate task of the Afghan people is to bloc with their Taliban rulers in the fight against the US; only after imperialism?s defeat can the fight to overthrow the regime be resumed - even though comrade Hoskisson made it clear he was well aware of the hatred felt by the overwhelming majority for the Kabul government.

Comrade Aso Kemal, speaking on behalf of the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, like the other speakers took issue with the line pursued by Workers Power. He described islamic fundamentalism is ?an apartheid against humanity?. Supporting the view that the working class needs to put forward its own independent position, which obviously means fighting consistently against both sides of this conflict, he argued for a movement that was ?against terrorism but not for the US?.

Comrade Larsen attempted to draw out what the logic of ?defending Afghanistan? meant in practice, beyond filling the pages of the left press with articles which seek to downplay the thoroughly reactionary nature of the Taliban regime. Rhetorically he asked: ?Are the comrades seriously intending to mobilise international brigades to Afghanistan??

From the floor Bob Pitt, editor of What Next?, expressed perfectly the softness on the counterrevolutionary regime in Kabul shared by so many on the left. He argued that ?within islamic fundamentalism there is a legitimate anti-imperialism?. For such comrades any anti-imperialism is ?legitimate? - irrespective of its murderous, repressive, anti-working class nature. This is where ?my enemy?s enemy is my friend? takes you.

Robert Grace