31.01.2002

Conspiracy and dogma

Tariq Ali was the main speaker at a 70-strong Media Workers Against the War meeting on February 28 in University of London Union. The audience was relatively diverse, with the Socialist Workers Party probably providing the largest bloc. It failed to act in a coordinated fashion, however. Comrade Ali's analysis of the situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East was thought-provoking and interesting, apart from a small conspiracy-mongering diversion: "Are the USA really fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan at the moment?" he wondered. "I don't think so. The Taliban have left, because they weren't really interested in fighting. I think the USA is bombing factions of the Northern Alliance that refuse to accept US hegemony. They are being bombed into submission." Where this information came from the comrade wouldn't say. He was "pretty sure" that this was what was going on and it was "a scandal that nobody is investigating this". Surely if this were true, it would be reported at least in some newspapers - especially as these recalcitrant NA factions would be keen to let the world know. This scenario of comrade Ali's actually seems to be more of a hunch. Tariq Ali was quick, however, to ridicule another, much-repeated conspiracy theory, retailed in this meeting by a New Communist Party comrade: "The whole war is obviously all about oil," she suggested, echoing what organisations like the SWP, Socialist Labour Party, Communist Party of Britain et al identify as the USA's 'real' motivation. "It doesn't help the left that it is always trying to find economic motives," comrade Ali replied. "Of course there will be US companies making money from this war, but it was surely not the reason to start it." Tina Becker from the CPGB echoed this, posing the question of whether "an open attack in the heart of US capitalism, killing more than 3,000 Americans, isn't reason enough" for the US to want to reassert its hegemony. However, Jonathan Neale (SWP) tried to rescue the oil argument: "It is about oil and about revenge," he said. He went on to elaborate: "The US is waging this war to instil fear. They carry on fighting, because they haven't killed enough people. It would need at least half a million to a million people dead to satisfy the US government that it has spread enough fear." Apparently the US will target Somalia and Yemen just to fulfil its dead body quota. As if in this unipolar world the USA would need to slaughter a million people to secure its global hegemony! The US is clearly immensely strong: the one truly world power, in fact. Life as an SWPer must be tiring. Members are kept in a state of semi-permanent tension, promised that the big time is looming. Perspectives on the world are made to fit this slightly unhinged method. So US power relies on its ability to inculcate fear. But this power is crumbling! We are told: "There are much greater limits to US hegemony than many think "¦The worst thing we could do "¦ is to exaggerate the power of the enemy "¦ But that is exactly the direction in which dangerous illusions about US power might take us." Thus writes Mike Haynes in the current issue of Socialist Review (January). Actually, underestimating the enemy and thus facing it ill prepared is pretty fatal, too. The left is unarmed politically. Nowhere does this reveal itself more starkly than over the question of Palestine. The bulk of the British left believes that the solution to the conflict in the Middle East is "to smash Zionist Israel and establish a secular, democratic Palestine that treats Israelis and Palestinians alike", as comrade Ali put it. This echoes the dogmatic position of the SWP and most of the smaller revolutionary groups. The comrade had at least the sense, however, to admit "that Israel won't allow this to happen. That's why a transitional state form might be established sooner or later in the future, where there might be a Palestine and an Israel." The only way such an unfortunate two-state scenario might become reality is, in Ali's opinion, "through a deal of the Israeli and Palestinian rulers under international pressure". Tina Becker challenged this from the floor: "The only possibility of winning the Israeli people away from their reactionary Zionist leaders lies with the Palestinian people," she said. They have to champion the national rights of the Israelis. On the other side of the equation, the Israeli working class must fight for the right of the Palestinians to have their own independent state. If the people of both sides actively struggle to secure the democratic rights of the other, then a solid basis is laid for a voluntary union of the people of the Middle East. Unfortunately, this revolutionary democratic approach is dismissed by much of the left. Comrade Ali explained that this conflict was "a classic colonial-type situation. The only problem is that the Israelis have no motherland to go back to." So, we obviously have a tiny difficulty here. Does the nation of Israel have a right to exist or not? Tina Becker