08.11.2001

Greenwich

Strengths and weaknesses

Greenwich Unison organised a ?Stop the war? public meeting on November 1 that attracted over 100 local activists.

Speakers included Bruce Kent (ex-chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), Liz Davies (Socialist Alliance, but speaking for the Stop the War Coalition), Guy Taylor (Globalise Resistance) and Chrissie Ross, an East Greenwich methodist minister who, it seems, was a last-minute substitute for the advertised London Unison speaker. At the front were Unison and National Union of Teachers banners, and to the side were stalls from Unison, the Socialist Party, Stop the War Coalition and Greenwich Socialist Alliance. The Socialist Workers Party, though obviously there in numbers, preferred to wear other hats until the end, when Socialist Worker appeared for sale.

Ade Walters, vice-chair of Greenwich Unison, opened proceedings. Comrade Walters explained that the meeting had been called to ?enable ordinary people to voice opposition to the war?. Bruce Kent concentrated on the ?immorality, illegality and stupidity? of the military attack on Afghanistan - which he described as akin to chucking petrol on a fire. US foreign policy, he said, would have dire consequences for much of the world, but he thought this could be counteracted through the use of legal proceedings in accordance with international law.

Chrissie Ross (Methodist) voiced her surprise at being asked to speak at such a meeting. However, she explained how she had discussed it with her daughters, Abigail and Mimsy, who had advised her to ?tell them to make love, not war?. Admitting to being an ?emotional pacifist? opposed to all war, her solution was to ?work with god?. Ms Ross said she was amazed at the timidity of the church - ?Where are their voices?? she asked.

Guy Taylor (Globalise Resistance) rose to speak and was met with spontaneous and almost orgasmic glee from the GR/SWP section of the audience. Somewhat embarrassed, comrade Taylor quipped, ?I haven?t said anything yet.? The first socialist speaker, comrade Taylor treated us to a series of rather trite and confused radical liberal statements. He referred to profits from war, the flexing of US muscle and an ever so soft ?We have to campaign for a better world - a world without weapons?. Following John Pilger, he ascribed imperialism?s motive for the war to its desire to install an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. He summed up this crude reductionism with the remark: ?You can?t have McDonalds without McDonald Douglas - wherever the military goes, there goes economics.?

Liz Davies began with an outright condemnation of the September 11 attack and, being a lawyer, went on to say that the perpetrators should be brought to justice - citing for example the International Criminal Court, not ratified by the US for fear of being brought before it. Referring to the bombing of Afghanistan as heaping injustice on a long suffering people, comrade Davies was careful to confine her condemnation to the American government and not its people.

Despite her description of the Taliban as an ?awful and oppressive? regime, comrade Davies argued that the US and Britain have no right to depose them - it is for the Afghan people to determine their own future. Calling for a ?third way?, comrade Davies said we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Afghan people - against the bombing and the Taliban.

Identifying herself as a socialist, comrade Davies was for a broad movement in which differences could be discussed between us as friends. In the long term we need to build a new world order; in the short term we need to stop this war. This was, despite some weaknesses, the most balanced and progressive speech from the top table.

Speaking from the floor, Greenwich Unison branch secretary Onay Kasab (SP) enumerated three reasons why he felt trade unionists have to be involved in the movement to stop the war: (1) that it was in the main our fellow brother and sister trade unionists who were killed on September 11; (2) that it will be the working class that pays for the war; and (3) that the voice of working class people needs to be heard. Arguing that it was not enough merely to oppose the war, comrade Kasab said we have to have answers for those who say, ?What about the terrorists?? Pointing to the danger of islamic fundamentalism - especially should a Taliban-style regime take over in nuclear-armed Pakistan - comrade Kasab highlighted the need to address issues such as Palestine. Avoiding legalistic ?solutions?, comrade Kasab said it was for the Afghan people to overthrow the Taliban.

Another SP comrade, Chris Moore, said how pleased he was that the SWP had now changed its position and had agreed to condemn the attacks on September 11. He went on to say that we have to look at solutions in answer to the domination of US foreign policy. So far as comrade Moore was concerned, we need to fight for the democratisation of society, control of the oil companies and ultimately socialism.

A number of other speakers from the SWP (wearing various hats) and a member of the Communist Party of Britain made anti-war, anti-US statements, one SWPer urging us to ?go and leaflet the mosques!? Frances Hook (Greenwich Stop the War Coalition) called for an all-inclusive campaign, but went on to argue that ?political? groups should ?hold back? in the interests of a broad anti-war movement.

Daphne Liddle (New Communist Party) stated that relying on legal process was a mistake, but she did not go along with comrade Taylor?s oil pipeline theory: for her September 11 was merely the excuse to solve a crisis of overproduction. Our comrade from the NCP at least had the merit of arguing that war is a feature of capitalism and that to end war we need to end capitalism.

Was the meeting a success? Certainly it was a very welcome Unison initiative and, given the short notice, 100-plus was a good turnout. It has certainly given a boost to the local Stop the War Coalition, bringing together a number of union activists. However, as well as commenting on the positive aspects upon which we can build, we also need to identify the negative, so that we may overcome them.

In this respect there were two main weaknesses. Firstly, as a union-organised event we have to admit that there were virtually no rank and file members present - 99% of the audience were activists of one sort or another, mostly members or supporters of left groups. Comrade Walters had asked from the chair that campaigning in the workplace be discussed at the end of the meeting - but it did not happen. Secondly, the meeting was fairly typical in its pacifistic, liberal sentiment, its legalism and its subordination of independent working class politics - despite the odd peppering of socialist rhetoric. With strict time limits there was little room for real political debate. A good initiative, successful to a point - but we can and should do better.

In place of various left groups with differing analyses, methods and aims we need a united working class party able to advance independent working class solutions, a party able to lead a broad movement, not tail it. Here the development of the Socialist Alliance into a fighting revolutionary party of the class is key.

Alan Stevens