04.03.2004

Rock against rocking the boat

It is just over a year since millions marched through London protesting against war with Iraq. Manny Neira argues that in its desperation to preserve the movement behind the Stop the War Coalition, the Socialist Workers' Party is actually holding it back

“We have proved that this is the peace generation, not the Pepsi generation.”

These were the boldly meaningless words opening the third annual conference of the Stop the War Coalition in London on February 28. Around 500 of us listened to Andrew Murray, chair of the STWC and leading light of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, getting hip.

It would be unfair to say that the political level never rose above this - but not terribly unfair. As the day wore on, two political ideas did gradually emerge: war is bad, and Tony Blair must go. “We were lied to about weapons of mass destruction, and about the legal basis for the war. But Tony Blair says it is time to move on. I agree: it is time for Tony Blair to move on.”

Compared to this, the revolutionary maxim of the sheep in George Orwell’s Animal farm, “Four legs good, two legs bad”, represented an impossibly lofty level of political sophistication. The animals had found, at least, a class analysis: they suffered because they were oppressed by parasitical humans. The STWC leadership would have campaigned around the slogan, ‘Whips are bad, farmer Jones must go’. Any talk of ‘animalism’ (the name socialism took in Orwell’s work) would have been rejected as divisive.

And this was, perhaps, the third and most important theme of the day. The STWC must not go beyond a broadly pacifist, anti-New Labour agenda or it might lose support - or even break up.

Lindsey German

If this sounds familiar, it should, of course: the same patronising, dumbed-down politics lie behind the Respect coalition, and derive from the same source: the desperate opportunism of the leadership of the Socialist Workers Party. Step forward leading SWP comrade, and convenor of the STWC, Lindsey German: “This was not only an illegal war; it was fought by illegal means. When you find out they bugged the secretary general of the United Nations, you have to ask, ‘What is going on in the world?’”

You do indeed. So why didn’t she? Instead of an analysis of the politics of capitalism which lay behind both the spying on Kofi Annan and the war effort it served, we were treated to another attack on the personal morality of Tony Blair: “What is the matter with Tony Blair, who not only took us into this war, but said he would do it again? Is there any question that this man is not fit to be our prime minister? None of the leaders who took us to war are fit to govern.”

She closed on the warning that the STWC was still here, and this time it was personal: “I predict that our coalition will be around longer than Tony Blair.”

Tony Benn

Andrew Murray then announced that the STWC steering committee was recommending the creation of the post of president, and nominating Tony Benn for the office. President Benn approached the microphone to cheers: “I’d like first to welcome those here from the CIA and MI5: I hope their recorders are working. It would be no bad thing to have our ideas accurately reported among their number.”

Benn placed his faith in the defence of the UN. “Throughout our movement there have always been people who have stood in defence of international law … the bugging of Kofi Annan shows that the real enemy in the mind of Bush is not Saddam, but the UN itself! This is the real nature of the long-term problem: Bush has no time for the UN.”

He would not be the last speaker that day to express illusions in international law, but he was perhaps the clearest. A utopian dream emerged: “I was looking at the UN charter and, though the security council of the UN is controlled by veto, the general assembly isn’t. We should demand the general assembly take control of the International Monetary Fund, the banks, the World Trade Organisation. Human rights, the minimum wage, healthcare rights must be enforced. It is a huge project.”

Huge, and impossible. The United Nations is not a democratic assembly of the world’s peoples, but a closed club of the world’s ruling classes. ‘International law’ is the honour amongst thieves: and there is no honour amongst these thieves.

United Nations

Conference proceeded to discuss the first batch of motions submitted by branches and affiliated organisations. Most were unsurprising restatements of SWP/STWC orthodoxy, and passed overwhelmingly. An appeal from Australians Against the War to be included on the platform for the forthcoming demonstration on March 20 was opposed, “reluctantly”, by Chris Nineham - the STWC had been “mobbed” by requests to speak - and was voted down.

The issue of the UN was raised again, though, in a motion from an organisation calling itself ‘Action for UN Renewal’. This called on the STWC to “change the conduct of our own government and support efforts to bring real democracy into the actions of the UN by next year’s 60th anniversary.”

Their speaker argued that “the charter of the UN says it exists to end the scourge of war. Unfortunately, things go badly wrong on the security council from time to time, and so we must reform the UN to bring it into line with its own charter.”

Badly wrong? From time to time? This contribution was bizarre, but prompted an interesting reply from Alex Callinicos of the SWP. He criticised the UN as an institution established to “ensure US world dominance”, but argued: “We must recognise that there are different attitudes to the UN in the STWC. Tony Benn has defended it, while George Galloway has called it a ‘thieves’ and beggars’ kitchen’. Let’s not divide the movement.”

This argument was again reminiscent of those advanced during the Respect launch, where the SWP had expressed support for, but voted down, motions calling for open borders and republicanism in order not to scare off potential supporters who were presumably anti-immigration monarchists. Here, the SWP was arguing (quite correctly) that reform of the UN was no road to peace, but opposing the adoption of any formal position on this central question.

The STWC is being turned into a blind alley for anti-war protestors. Rather than acting as a forum in which they can discuss ideas and develop a political understanding of the reasons underlying the wars they oppose, it is deliberately refusing to draw those political conclusions for fear for alienating those who might not agree. Perversely, this self-censorship is being imposed not by bourgeois pacifist forces, but by the ‘revolutionary’ leadership of the SWP. In fear of its own politics, it has moved to the right not only of its own rank and file membership, but to the right of the mass of activists in the STWC. It is not reaching out to the anti-war movement in order to draw it on to socialist politics, it is standing between the movement and its natural political development to the left.

Party games

The conference moved on to discuss four motions on electoral policy. The steering committee encouraged support for all candidates who opposed the war in Iraq, and the current US-UK occupation. The proviso that “such candidates or parties share the coalition’s founding values of support for civil liberties and opposition to racism” was added, presumably to rescue the STWC from the embarrassment of seeming to endorse the far-right British National Party, which supported neither the invasion nor the occupation.

This debate was given life by a motion from the Green Party which called on the coalition to demand of “party affiliates and any other organisations not to claim any particular or unique support from the coalition in any future elections”. They were clearly angered by Respect, which publicly advertises itself as the political expression of the anti-war movement.

Chris Bambery of the SWP spoke against the Greens. “This is a gagging order. When people ask, ‘How should we vote?’, Jeremy Corbyn has the right to argue that they should work to win back the Labour Party, and George Galloway to support Respect. This resolution reminds me of that question which appeared on US visa application forms: ‘Are you (or have you ever been) a supporter of the Communist Party?’ To stop people answering these personal questions is going too far.”

The position of the steering committee was endorsed, and that of the Green Party rejected, by substantial majorities.

Secularism

Delegates now discussed the question of the US-UK occupation of Iraq.

The Communist Party of Great Britain had submitted a resolution on this subject: “The STWC commits itself to campaign in solidarity with the democratic, secular and socialist forces of resistance in Iraq.” A much longer resolution from the Jewish Socialist Group laid stress on the same point, calling on the STWC to “build links with emergent progressive and democratic forces in Iraq and provide solidarity to defend them from attack from the occupation forces, the Iraqi puppet movements and from fundamentalist forces”.

In short, it was not sufficient to give blanket, uncritical support to Iraqi ‘resistance forces’, when some of those forces were clearly reactionary, oppressive, and anti-working class. My mind was drawn back to meetings organised by the Worker-communist Party of Iraq in support for their campaign against the creeping imposition of sharia law and the erosion of the rights of women already well advanced in some regions. They accused the British left of being soft on political islam as an ‘anti-imperialist’ force: a diagnosis based on the politics of the largest left group, the SWP.

A speaker for the JSG addressed the issue: “To end the occupation and allow self-determination are vital demands, but on their own they remind me of those instructions on fireworks: ‘Light the blue touch paper and run like hell’. We are not isolationist but internationalist. Self-determination means imperialism cannot impose a solution, but not that we have nothing to say about the society that emerges. There are democratic movements in Iraq that deserve our support; and in supporting them we support self-determination.”

The steering committee opposed this view: “We want to make the STWC as inclusive as possible. We also took the decision to build the movement with the Muslim Association of Britain, and the JSG are asking us to build solidarity with some groups in Iraq but not others. We oppose that as much as we would oppose muslims asking us to support only muslim resistance.”

So the STWC was simply being even-handed: between resistance based on fundamentalist political islam, and democratic, secular, working class forces. The opportunism of the SWP’s leadership was again evident. They might favour democratic politics themselves, but they would not alienate the MAB or possible islamic supporters of the coalition by allowing the STWC to do so.

Ian Donovan of the CPGB defended working class politics: “We are all aware of the immense suffering the war has caused. This situation brings opportunities and dangers for progressive forces. We are seeing mass working class mobilisation in parts of Iraq: we must support this. Imperialism has destroyed the infrastructure and welfare systems in Iraq, forcing people towards the churches as the only providers of welfare. We cannot present an undifferentiated anti-war movement. We must promote an independent working class agenda.”

Both JSG and CPGB motions were voted down.

National council

The steering committee presented a proposal for a new body to be formed: a national council of the STWC, meeting two or three times a year in different areas of the country: “All national affiliates would be invited to send representatives.” The steering committee would continue to meet every few weeks in London, as before (all members of the steering committee also being on the national council).

This proposal was passed by the conference. The CPGB, previously excluded from attending the steering committee even as observers despite being a national affiliate of the STWC, looks forward to receiving our invitation to the first meeting of the new national council, which will apparently be held in April or May.

Steering committee

The final business of the day was to approve the recommended nominations for the steering committee. The Green Party was not satisfied with its representation, and moved a resolution seeking to make Jean Lambert MEP a vice-president of the coalition.

Hugo Charlton put their case: “I don’t understand why there can only be one Green representative. There are three from Labour, and four from the SWP - why not two Greens? It is very important not to promote any one political party.”

Another green clearly felt we were not sufficiently alive to Jean’s qualities as a human being: “I am asking that you make Jean Lambert a vice-president of the STWC. Why? She speaks for the Greens! She speaks with wit, and vivacity! She has fought for the rights of refugees, and will continue to denounce this war! When the grassroots greens march, Jean is with us - she puts her head above the parapet! Make her a VP! There are loads of them - it doesn’t make any difference! But it does to us!”

Evidently so, but even this impassioned plea brought only a handful of votes. Already aggravated by the formation of Respect, the Green Party is becoming clearly disaffected with the STWC - or, more specifically, the SWP’s leadership.

Media and intelligence

There was then a discussion of the question, ‘Who got it wrong? The BBC, intelligence service or Blair?’

Jeremy Dear, general secretary of the NUJ, parodied outrage: “I’m angry you should even be discussing this. Hasn’t Lord Hutton already sorted it out? I know he has, because I read it in the introduction to his report - and in the Sun.”

He mocked the criticism of the BBC: “So much intelligence information offered in support of the war was based on single sources: the government have some audacity in attacking journalists for relying on single sources, when they took us to war based on single sources.”

The government’s attacks on the BBC had a wider political meaning: “They are not just attacks on journalists; they are attacks on the public’s right to know. We should be proud to say that our movement got it right! We are proud of it, and will fight on to the bitter end!”

A somewhat surprising visitor, ex-MI5 man David Shayler, defended the security service: “What I want to know is why MI5 isn’t getting up and complaining. I don’t think MI5 made claims they couldn’t justify - the government built the claims up.” He called for “better intelligence services, with better oversight in parliament” - a suggestion which won unthinking applause. Here at last was a suggestion less likely than a democratically controlled UN: a democratically controlled secret police.

George Galloway

Next up was George Galloway. “Just outside, I was asked by the BBC if David Blunkett would follow up the threat of putting Clare Short on trial for breaching the Official Secrets Act. I said, ‘Make my day’,” remarked the member for Clintwood East.

“The idea that a jury would convict her is absurd. We have our criticisms of Clare Short, but if she’s a loony (and that’s the tone of the attack now), why did Blair have her in his war cabinet until 12 months ago? She says that the transcripts of Kofi Annan’s conversations were indeed circulated, but Blunkett says they weren’t. So who are we to believe? I know who I believe. Not just because of their inherent plausibility: but because it is clear the government mounted a whole campaign of deception to drag us into this bloody war.”

The focus was again on defeating Blair: “This week, with the revelations of Katherine Gunn and Clare Short, will be the week Tony Blair’s fall began. On March 20 we’ll be in London demanding Blair must go.”

MAB

Despite the strenuous efforts of the SWP to meet the political wishes of the MAB, it must have been galling for them that there was no more a muslim contingent at the STWC conference than there had been at the Respect launch. The MAB restricted itself to a single speaker.

“One of the best things to have happened to the MAB in its history was this blessed alliance. We opposed the war, and we thought nothing would content Bush and Blair but the conquest of country after country: but now they wouldn’t dare cross a border. The resistance they are facing in Iraq makes it impossible for them.”

He said that Bush was waging a war on democracy in the name of democracy: “I have just come back from the Lebanon, where if you talk of democracy and human rights, they think you are a lackey of George W Bush.”

Though clearly intended for his current audience, his closing statement was, incredibly, nominally to the left of most we had heard that day from SWP revolutionaries: “We will work together until imperialism is no more, until capitalism is no more and until we have a world of justice.” The question remains, of course, what do we counter capitalism with: consistent democracy and secularism, or islam?

Jeremy Corbyn

Left Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn returned to the theme of the war’s illegality. “There was no legal basis for the war, and that is why the trial of Katherine Gunn collapsed; and why the advice of the attorney general must be released.”

Ranging widely, he spoke of the government’s continuing attacks on civil liberties, of the struggle between Israel and Palestine - “a war of F16s against rifles and stones” - and of the prisoners held by the US in Guantanamo Bay.

“The STWC had a huge effect, because it united so many people. It is a movement which won’t go away. We sometimes feel isolated and attacked by the media - as others in harder situations do around the world. But on March 20 we’ll be standing together all around the world. We are stronger and more numerous than they are.”

John Rees

The final speaker was John Rees. He spoke of the move to “privatise the world”, and the way in which the interests of corporations were reinforced by the state, repeating the memorable phrase that “there can be no McDonalds without McDonnell Douglas”.

He foresaw problems for the neo-conservatives, though: “When the New York Times said that there was a second superpower - the anti-capitalist movement - that was a vital admission.” This quote seems to have gone to his head. Clearly speaking as leader of this newly identified super-power, comrade Rees lost himself in his own rhetoric: “We didn’t stop the war, but the US is stuck in Iraq - the resistance of the people of Iraq is the hammer of the global anti-war movement.”

As prematurely as Bush had done, he declared victory. “We have halted them. We are what stands between them and the next war. If we stop, they will regroup and reorganise.” There was no stopping him now. Surely even the SWP cadre, hardened to this kind of thing, winced inwardly as John reached his crescendo: “Go back to your communities and tell them we have stopped the war machine! We are part of a movement as great as the Chartists, as great as the suffragettes, as great as the early trade union movement!”

As great as the early trade union movement: here at last the classless, apolitical dream of the SWP was laid bare. The organised working class was not the force which would change society and thus stop war: a new ‘anti-capitalist’ movement would replace it. It might include monarchists or those opposed to immigration (who must not be alienated from Respect), or political islamists (who must not be alienated from the STWC). It might be bourgeois reformist (working through the UN), or reactionary and anti-democratic (resisting the US occupation to establish sharia law in Iraq).

It might be anything - as long as it swelled the numbers on the demonstrations, got candidates elected to the European parliament and rescued the SWP from ever returning to the impotence and irrelevance of its sectarian past.