31.01.2002

Why not an SA event?

From all accounts, the meeting last Friday with Farooq Tariq of the Labour Party Pakistan was a success (see report opposite). It brought together different voices against imperialism's 'war against terrorism'. Also an important debate on socialists' attitude towards the movements of political islam was aired. But why was this meeting not hosted by the Socialist Alliance instead of by one of its smaller supporting organisations, the International Socialist Group? Surely such events could be organised by the SA to boost our profile and to develop our collective political culture of solidarity. Unfortunately old habits die hard. The reason why the meeting was the 'property' of the ISG and not the alliance as a whole is because the ISG did not want to upset the political sensibilities of the Socialist Workers Party. In the lead-up to the November 2001 SA executive committee meeting I suggested that the alliance - in association with the Scottish Socialist Party - invite comrade Tariq to speak in Britain on the imperialist war against Afghanistan and the situation in Pakistan. This was received positively in most quarters, with Alan Thornett of the ISG saying he would follow it up. While my suggestion was not formally passed by the executive, the consensus was that comrade Thornett would contact comrade Tariq. Shortly afterwards I was told he was not immediately available and that was the last I heard of the matter - that is, until a couple of weeks ago. It was announced that comrade Tariq would speak in London under the auspices of the ISG. When I asked on the SA discussion e-list why this was the case, the ISG's Terry Conway replied that, "It became clear that the proposal was controversial with several groups in the alliance." Where and when did this become "clear"? In what forum of the alliance was this raised? With which organisation or organisations was it "controversial"? Comrade Conway's justification for organising the event under an ISG banner is that; "Given a short time scale, organising the meeting under controversial conditions was not the best way to build a successful meeting and give the PLP the best conditions to put forward its ideas." The real reason seems to be that the ISG contacted the SWP and found that the SWP was not keen on the meeting being under the auspices of the Socialist Alliance. However, to its credit, I understand that the SWP said that it was up to the alliance to decide this. It was the ISG that declined to bring any of this to the attention of the alliance. This is unfortunate. A final point. Why does the SWP not want the Socialist Alliance to be associated with the LPP? The answer is that the SWP strongly disagrees with the LPP on one key point. The SWP is not known for its fondness for public polemics with other left currents. Any direct criticism of the LPP is difficult to find. Instead we get a sideswipe at the "Pakistani left" in the most recent International Socialist Journal. In an otherwise good article on 'The long torment of Afghanistan', comrade Jonathan Neale calls on the left (particularly in Pakistan) to bury its differences with islamism: "There will be no hope in the Middle East if the left there cannot understand that the islamists now lead the resistance: not because ordinary people are stupid or reactionary, but because the islamists have seemed to be the only people fighting imperialism. The islamists have served those people badly and betrayed them when in power. But ordinary people can only be won from the islamists by joining them in resistance to imperialism. This does not mean terrorism. That is another form of a small minority trying to impose their will on the world. It means mass demonstrations on the streets and general strikes to back them up. This is now possible in several countries in the Middle East. "In Pakistan the islamists now demonstrate carrying pictures of bin Laden. The left demonstrates separately carrying signs saying, 'No to the Taliban, no to George Bush'. Both kinds of demonstrations are small. Ordinary workers in Pakistan do not by and large support the islamists or the Taliban. But in their guts, day by day, they feel that George Bush is far more of an enemy than Mullah Omar. It would not be easy for the left and the islamists to march together in Karachi. But if they did hundreds of thousands who support neither would fall in behind them" (International Socialist Journal No93, December 2001, pp54-55). It seems that for the SWP political islam in the Middle East perhaps constitutes some form of 'deflected permanent revolution'. Profoundly wrong. But why should we not be able to debate the question openly under the collective banner of the SA? The ISG's solicitude for the sensibilities of the SWP is touching, but not the type of robust approach we need in our alliance. Marcus Larsen