17.01.2002
Controversial debates
The Welsh Socialist Alliance meets in Rhayader on Saturday January 19 for its fourth annual conference. Amidst the usual suspicion and recriminations which have characterised the organisation's short history, the conference will be a key test as to whether the WSA can rekindle any of the energy and dynamism that had begun to develop in its ranks in the run-up to the June 7 general election. On the surface, there are some positive developments that could serve to galvanise our work. The organisation will be standing candidates in two forthcoming elections - Charlie Balch, a leading Communication Workers Union activist in Wales, will be contesting a council by-election in Cardiff, whilst Jeff Hurford of the Socialist Workers Party will be our candidate in the parliamentary by-election in Ogmore. Encouragingly, the Socialist Alliance in England has been asked to lend physical and financial support to the campaign in Ogmore, whilst Liz Davies (SA national chair) will speak in support of comrade Hurford at a public meeting in the constituency at the end of January. At last, a glimmer of cooperation and joint work between our two alliances! In addition Gwent WSA has proposed a series of motions to the conference which seek to strengthen the fragile existence of the organisation. These include proposals for a regular WSA publication and for a 'Socialism in Wales' day/weekend along the lines of the SWP's Marxism week. We wait to see whether the SWP will block these eminently sensible proposals. However, the conference will take place against a backdrop of confusion and growing resentment. Hanging over us will be the prospect of the Socialist Party and Cymru Goch leaving the alliance at some point in the future. This is unlikely to happen on Saturday. For a start, the SWP has confirmed that it will temporarily withdraw its constitutional amendment, which, had it been presented to the conference and subsequently passed, would inevitably have led to a walkout, as happened at the December 1 Socialist Alliance conference in London. This sudden about-turn followed a vote taken by the national council in December which asked the SWP to withdraw its amendment until a special constitutional convention in May (see Weekly Worker December 13). In this spirit, Gwent WSA has also withdrawn its motion calling for the creation of a Welsh Socialist Party, whilst the CPGB agreed not to present a motion calling for an all-Britain SA party until May. In fact, the national council will present a statement on Saturday presenting the case for the special conference, which will also debate the national question. It is likely that the large majority of the conference will support the proposal, although its hard to see why the SP should vote for it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. However, the left nationalist Cymru Goch is at the time of writing still pushing ahead with plans to present its own constitutional amendment, which calls for an independent socialist republic, on January 19. Although rumours have spread that CG will walk out when its amendment is voted down, this is unlikely. By going ahead with its amendment, CG's actions may make the case for the special conference less compelling. The economistic instincts of the SWP may prompt it to argue that the national question has been resolved by conference's vote on CG's motion and seek to circumscribe the scope of such a conference. This would be a tragedy. It is high time that the national question came to the fore in the WSA - for too long an unholy alliance of the SP and SWP have sought to keep this off the agenda. In particular it will put the SWP to the test. If it can "live with" the Scottish Socialist Party's "independent socialist Scotland", then why not with a similar policy in Wales? The SWP's capitulation to separatist nationalism would then be complete. On the other hand, as is more likely, if the SWP opposes the demand for an independent Wales, then it will be forced to justify why it, the leading force in the WSA, is opposing principled unity between socialists in England, Scotland and Wales. A difficult task certainly and one sure to expose splits in the ranks of the SWP in Wales. Most of the other motions on the agenda tend to be on bread and butter issues. However, more controversial will be the debate relating to the events that have taken place since September 11. There are three motions on these matters - from Dave Warren (SP), Julian Goss (SWP) and Cameron Richards (CPGB). Comrade Warren's motion is clearly supportable, but the same cannot be said of that put forward by comrade Goss, which reeks of tacit support for reactionary anti-imperialism. He argues that we should not "try to be even-handed in our condemnation of both sides": ie, we should be soft on the islamic fundamentalism of the likes of Osama bin Laden. Yes, our "main enemy", as comrade Goss points out, is imperialism (specifically, for those living in the UK, it is British imperialism). But that ought not to lead us to blunt our condemnation - or, worse, implicitly take the side of - our lesser enemy. For that is what we see in the shape of the Taliban, al Qa'eda and other such reactionary islamic fundamentalists. It is an insult to muslims to claim that they cannot distinguish between such people and the millions who practise islam. When we condemn one, we do not condemn the other. (Similarly to denounce the agenda of rightwing christian fundamentalism is not to drive millions of British or US people 'into their arms'.) On the big November 18 anti-war demonstration in London, muslim stewards were the most forthright in expressing their disapproval of the tiny minority who chanted their support for the Taliban and al Qa'eda. They well understood that millions of ordinary muslims have suffered at their hands. Yet some on the left want to play down the fact that the blood of tens of thousands of trade unionists, socialists and communists has been spilt because of the actions of islamicists in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Algeria - the list is long and savage. This is not to mention the butchery inflicted on women and homosexuals. In fact, the SWP's analysis of the current imperialist war is entirely in keeping with its past methods. Previously, on occasions, as in the 1982 Falklands conflict, it had correctly combined opposition to the British war effort with a refusal to pander to the Argentinean junta's reactionary anti-imperialism. Its stance was to advocate that workers in both belligerent nations could only gain by declaring that 'the main enemy is home.' However, this position was jettisoned in 1987-88 when American support for Iraq in the first Gulf War prompted the SWP to abandon its former defeatist position and call for a victory to Iran. This time reactionary anti-imperialism became a progressive force - failure to back it would apparently mean lining up with US imperialism. The practical consequences of such a policy are today little known to most SWP members. Yet in 1989 leading SWP theoretician Alex Callinicos in an 'Education for socialists' pamphlet spelt them out. After writing platitudes to the effect that socialists in Iran oppose every attempt to create confidence in the Khomeini regime, he goes on to argue: "But revolutionaries would not support actions which could lead to an immediate collapse of the [Iranian] front and a victory for imperialism (for example, strikes which would stop munitions getting to the front)" (SWP Marxism and the national question London 1989, p20). Extending this analysis to the present war in Afghanistan, the currently hidden programme of the SWP would necessarily lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Afghan masses should have sided with the Taliban. To revolt against Taliban rule would incur the deadly wrath of 'revolutionaries'. Thankfully, the SWP has no sympathisers in Afghanistan. The aims of the motion presented by the CPGB are threefold: firstly to root opposition to imperialist wars in a progressive anti-imperialist politics: secondly, to promote active solidarity with the tiny forces of the Afghan left; and finally to put the WSA at the centre of such activity in the principality. Cameron Richards Motions on Afghanistan Motion 1 Conference condemns the intervention of US imperialism and its allies in Afghanistan. The actions of Bush and his pet poodle Blair have resulted in a humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions in a country that was already one of the poorest in the world. US imperialism waged war in Afghanistan to re-establish its international prestige which was damaged after the attack on the twin towers. However, the victory over the Taliban has done nothing to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan or to end terrorism. Instead, the dropping of millions of dollars worth of bombs has only succeeded in furthering the ambitions of the bloodthirsty warlords grouped around the Northern Alliance. This does not mark any real progress over the Taliban for the mass of Afghani people. While condemning the attacks of September 11, conference recognises that capitalism by its very nature creates the poverty, inequality and social and national oppression that leads to the blind alley that terrorism represents. While capitalism remains it will be impossible to build the just, peaceful and prosperous world that Blair hypocritically alludes to in his propaganda. The real fight against the horrors witnessed in Afghanistan and elsewhere must be linked to a global struggle against capitalism and for a socialist society. Dave Warren, Swansea WSA Motion 2 Imperialism means a handful of states and their associated multinational companies holding a monopoly of financial, economic and military power. Globalisation is the economic expression of imperialism. War is the military expression of imperialism. To successfully oppose globalisation it is necessary to oppose imperialist wars, such as that waged by Britain and the US against Afghanistan, and threatened against Iraq, Somalia, etc. For this reason the WSA does not try to be even-handed in its condemnation of both sides. Our main enemy, as workers and as socialists, is US (and British) imperialism, not islamicism. If we joined with Bush and Blair in their condemnation of political islam, or 'islamic fundamentalism', we would help drive muslims into the arms of those like Osama bin Laden who portray the war as one between 'muslims' and 'christians'. We would find it less easy to oppose the racist backlash at home, and we would be left with no basis for a united anti-war movement in Wales. Julian Goss, Cardiff Central Motion 3 1. The WSA must aim to shape the developing radicalisation by making itself the core of the anti-imperialist left wing of the anti-war movement in Wales. The case for socialism must be advanced by our ranks. 2. The WSA opposes all imperialist wars, sanctions and bullying. The main enemy is at home. Oppose all calls for increased 'defence' spending. Oppose all moves to curb democratic freedoms and liberties. Oppose scapegoating of migrants and asylum-seekers. 3. There is reactionary anti-capitalism and there is progressive anti-capitalism. We stand completely against the reactionary anti-capitalism of bin Laden and islamic fundamentalism. We condemn the attacks that took place in New York and Washington on September 11. 4. Imperialism wants to impose a settlement in Afghanistan in its own interests. We must champion the rights of the Afghan masses, combining a rejection of the Taliban and the Northern Alliance with solidarity for the democratic struggle of the peoples of Afghanistan. The WSA calls for: * Imperialist forces out of Afghanistan * For a secular, democratic Afghanistan * For freedom of religion * The end of the oppression of women * Equal rights for all national groupings * For the right to form political parties and trade unions * The land to those who work it 5. The WSA actively supports the Afghan Workers Solidarity Campaign and joins with the SSP in sponsoring the AWSC. The initial amount pledged by the WSA to the AWSC to be a minimum of £300. 6. The WSA calls for the immediate lifting of UN sanctions against Iraq and an end to the US/UK bombing. We condemn the onslaught by Israel against the Palestinian people and support the creation of a Palestinian state. Communist Party of Great Britain
Worker