22.11.2001

Socialist Alliance must take lead

50,000-plus take to the streets of London

The November 18 demonstration against the imperialist war called by the Stop the War Coalition saw the movement continue to build on the momentum established on October 13. Once again demonstrators gathered in their thousands. Coaches streamed in from every part of the country, from Edinburgh to Exeter, from Plymouth to Peterborough. Cities like Nottingham and Birmingham brought sizeable contingents from local British-Asian communities, and a staggering 40 coaches came from Birmingham alone.

Estimates of the size of the march have varied enormously. The official police figure of 15,000 was so understated as to be ludicrous. However, some media outlets were more truthful, and Sky News reported - that there were ?probably thousands more demonstrators? than the CND-organised event (there were around 40,000 on October 13). The Stop the War Coalition claimed 100,000 immediately afterwards, but I would say that somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 would be about right.

But the official police estimate shows that sections of the establishment were keen to downplay the anti-war mood. It hardly merited a mention on BBC TV or radio news, while several newspapers - notably The Times and The Daily Telegraph - ignored the event totally. However, both The Guardian and The Independent carried reports (the former on the front page). Once again the focus was on the muslim contingent. Quotes were sought specifically from the tiny pro-Taliban, pro-bin Laden section of the march. The Guardian especially gave prominence to these types . Thus Azmat Rehan was reported as saying: ?We believe in the Taliban. The news only shows the bad side. The good side is that they stabilised the country? (November 19).

Especially given the sudden and rapid implosion of the Taliban, the fundamentalist section was actually smaller comparatively. Other muslim contingents marched under slogans for peace and justice for all ? and specifically against terrorism. Leaflets handed out by a handful of ?Friends of al Qa?eda? fundamentalists were to all intents and purposes answered by those which condemned the September 11 attacks as ?unmuslim? - so much for the view of, amongst others, the Socialist Workers Party, that statements against fundamentalism coming from the left would cut us off from muslim support.

The demonstration was overwhelmingly leftwing - in the broadest sense of the term - and besides the various muslim factions contained a number of distinct strands. This ideological ferment within the anti-war movement was immediately in evidence upon arrival at the Hyde Park assembly point. Apart from the SWP, Stop the War Coalition, Socialist Alliance, etc, pacifists, anarchists and the Communist Party of Britain all had contingents. Trade union banners were few in number and often had hardly anyone behind them. This political diversity of the movement was again illustrated from the platforms in Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square, which together featured no fewer than 36 speakers.

These ranged from the ?usual suspects? like Tony Benn, George Galloway et al to non-political ?celebrities? like Bianca Jagger. However, perhaps the most powerful and eloquent testimony against the war came from those who have been directly involved. Yvonne Ridley, the Sunday Express journalist held by the Taliban on charges of spying, delivered a rejoinder to those who claim the imperialists were targeting only the Kabul regime and al Qa?eda: ?Afghanistan is more than the Taliban.? Michael Levin of New York Trade Unionists Against the War argued: ?It is important that those of us who have suffered don?t want to inflict the same thing on other people.?

It is inevitable that pacifistic cries against all war and illusions in the United Nations or ?international law? will be rife as the movement begins to take shape. But revolutionary socialists and communists must combat wrong ideas, not pander to them. We oppose the imperialist ?war on terrorism?, irrespective of whether or not it meets with the approval of the UN or is strictly in accordance with bourgeois legality. The aim of such laws is of course primarily to protect the interests of the ruling elite; reliance on them will only ideologically confuse and disarm our movement.

Tony Benn echoed a commonly held view on the rest of the left that this was a ?war for oil?. While it would be wrong to deny that oil has been one of the factors that has previously influenced US policy in the region, to say that it is the determining factor in the decision to launch the current offensive is to seriously misunderstand the manner in which imperialism dominates that part of the world in the 21st century. The SWP, for example, declares in its leaflet distributed on the demonstration that if the US/UK coalition were victorious, ?It will feel free to attack any popular movement threatening the multinationals? domination of the world?s oil.? Actually most oil in the Middle East was nationalised long ago. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Algeria, etc exercise state monopolies. Shell, Exxon, BP buy the stuff on the open commodity market at prices which are held high by the Opec cartel.

Compared to October 13, there was less of an appetite for ideas. The war goes in favour of Bush and Blair. Their success dulls opposition, fervour and inquisitiveness.

Nevertheless, the overall situation presents the left, and more specifically the Socialist Alliance, with an opportunity for advance. The SA did have a reasonably high profile on the demonstration, and our democratically agreed slogan, ?Stop the war?, (in place of the pacifistic ?No to war?) was seen on the hundreds of SA placards that were carried throughout the march. And this time - unlike on October 13 - SA leaflets were actually handed out rather than being left in their boxes.

Even at this stage the Socialist Alliance has a vital role to play in the anti-war movement in building the united working class force that, alone, can stop Blair in his tracks. But there is no doubt that its main component does not see it that way. The SWP views the ?broad?, ?reformist? SA as a foil for its own ?revolutionism?. As on the previous demonstration, the SWP struck a left pose, this time with placards reading ?Imperialism can?t bring peace?. The reasoning behind this ?division of labour? is deeply opportunist and a product of the SWP?s stated desire in an internal bulletin to ?reflect and shape the developing radicalisation by making itself the core of the anti-imperialist left wing of the anti-war movement? (my emphasis Anti War Notes 4 November 8). Yet surely the Socialist Alliance is an obvious candidate for that role - embodying as it does the highest unity of the organised left. Yet the SWP continues to use its dominant position within the SA to downplay it.

In the STWC this self-serving opportunism has been combined with a spectacular failure of leadership. In the best Bernsteinian spirit, the movement appears to be everything, with the aim reduced to nothing - the movement being the field within which the SWP sect harvests its recruits.

Initially we were told that the STWC ?couldn?t possibly comment? on internal Afghan politics for fear of spoiling the ?winning formula? of uniting everybody. Opposing the reactionary Taliban regime was certainly off limits. However, events leapt ahead of the STWC. Kabul fell, the Taliban collapsed and clearly it was felt that supporters had to be reminded that there was indeed still a war on. The Northern Alliance had to be condemned as an ally of the imperialists, which in turn necessitated some comment on the Taliban themselves.

So the STWC announced in a press statement: ?Contrary to claims in some sections of the media, at no time has the anti-war movement in this country supported the Taliban or indeed any other armed faction within Afghanistan. What all these factions have in common - including both the Taliban and Northern Alliance - is their contempt for democracy and human rights and their reliance on sponsorship and weaponry supplied by outside powers? (November 14).

It was of course true that the STWC itself had never openly come out in support of the Taliban - although of course some of its components, not least the SWP itself, tacitly hold such a position. But, as that self-appointed left-watcher, David Aaronovitch, pointed out in his column in The Independent, the same STWC had voted against the CPGB-AWL motion which opposed the Taliban.

The SA should fight for a leading role, not only within the STWC, but also within the broader anti-war movement. Socialism must be put on the agenda. Part of that fight is to advance concrete slogans that advance the working class movement and take the fight to the Blair government.

In formulating these slogans we must recognise that the imperialist war has clearly entered a ?new phase?. The rapid disintegration of the Taliban has posed awkward questions, not just for our rulers, as they scramble to patch together a government that will hold together in Afghanistan, but also for our fledgling movement.

As the STWC has implicitly recognised by its statement, it is now essential to take a stand on the internal politics of Afghanistan. We need to be armed with answers, combining a rejection of the Taliban and the Northern Alliance with solidarity for the democratic struggle of the peoples of Afghanistan.

James Mallory