13.07.2005
The 'C' word
Information emerged this week indicating that the perpetrators of the July 7 London outrages were home-grown suicide bombers - unexceptional young men who ostensibly "lived typically low-key, suburban, 'ordinary' lives" (BBC online, July 13). This form of deeply reactionary politics is itself a "manifestation of capitalist barbarism", as last week's statement from our leadership made clear (Weekly Worker July 7). Its appearance in Britain underlines that - whatever the subjective intentions of the bombers themselves turn out to have been - the revolutionary left must respond in a principled and consistent manner. The early indications are not good. Shamefully the initial statement from the Socialist Workers Party, drafted by Chris Bambery, studiously avoided the word 'condemn' - although, speaking at Marxism, comrade Bambery appeared to imply that the statement ought to be understood as a condemnation (see opposite). By contrast, his SWP comrade, Lindsey German, had no compunction about using the 'C' word in the statement issued on behalf of the Stop the War Coalition, and neither did George Galloway on behalf of Respect (whose leadership is, of course, dominated by the SWP). Interestingly we hear that SWP members are using the Respect statement, not that of their own leadership, as the basis for motions to trade union branches. And Alex Callinicos posted Respect's, not the SWP's, version on the European Social Forum e-list. It remains to be seen whether all this represents some sort of collapse of the previous apologetics for reactionary anti-imperialism - because this time it is Londoners who have been killed, as opposed to Americans, Israeli Jews, Spaniards or Australians. On the other hand, it could simply be that the SWP leadership is trying desperately to face both ways at once: maintaining its own 'hard' position internally, but giving the go-ahead for a more politically acceptable position within its 'broad' 'united fronts'. Either way, back in 2001 there was no such confusion. Socialist Worker came out four days after the September 11 2001 suicide attacks on New York and Washington. Readers were told that the "tragic scenes" were "the bitter fruits of policies of the US state" (September 15 2001). Socialists "abhor violence and oppose indiscriminate bombings of civilians", the paper was at pains to emphasise. Yet this initial response to the horrors of the plane attacks carefully avoided explicit condemnation of the actions. Just as comrade Bambery's statement on the July 7 London bombings apparently 'overlooked' the word 'condemn' this time around. A short while later the Weekly Worker reported on debates at the official launch of the STWC in September 2001. Controversy centred on the question of condemnation. Jeremy Corbyn MP explicitly urged delegates "to be quite clear about one thing: we have to absolutely condemn these terrorist acts". Of course, the SWP has a political method of not being "quite clear" on such basic questions of principle. The draft statement it put forward for adoption contained the appalling, mealy-mouthed formulation that "We in no way condone the attacks on New York and we feel the greatest compassion for those who lost their lives." This formulation was carefully drafted. For instance, it did not mention the attack on the Pentagon in Washington - heavily implying that we would, to some extent, "condone" that action, whatever the political programme of the perpetrators. Jeremy Corbyn's principled call to straightforwardly condemn the terrorists was echoed in the founding meeting by Darrell Johnson from the Green Party and a comrade from the Worker-communist Party of Iraq, who put it forward as an amendment to the statement. Chair Lindsey German, however, ruled this out of order, because she had already pushed the statement to a vote - a manoeuvre that was typical of the way this first meeting was organised, an approach that prompted some subsequent backtracking from the SWP. John Rees closed the meeting, telling us that "this is not the time to talk about differences" (Weekly Worker September 29 2001). And we still await the right time, of course. By the second meeting of STWC in October 2001, the SWP had been shamed into allowing a little more democracy - but still not enough to allow a discussion of this question. Mike Marqusee got up to support the original statement: "We want to have an alliance that is as broad as possible. People shouldn't have fixed views when they come and join us." However, he then moved on to contradict himself and challenge the SWP. He put forward an amendment which would have deleted the formulation: "We in no way condone the attacks in New York". He wanted it replaced by: "We condemn the attacks in New York" (Weekly Worker October 4 2001). Comrade Marqusee's suggestion was ruled out of order. It was not until the October 28 conference of the STWC that the SWP was forced to give way and accept the amendment. However, the SWP itself stuck to the 'don't condone' formulation - that was the phrase used by Lindsey German when she appeared on Newsnight on behalf of the STWC on November 15. Inevitably, while the SWP's attempt to railroad through its politics in the STWC was largely successful, it had trouble keeping a lid on the debate in the still functioning Socialist Alliance. For instance, in the Weekly Worker of October 11 2001 we reported on an attempt by SWPer Tim Nicholls on the SA press list to defend his organisation's failure to condemn the attacks. Essentially, he argued that to do so means "dismissing the elements of islamic fundamentalism that oppose imperialism and demand justice for the poor [and] simply cuts us off from any chance of building the left current that is so sorely needed". Similar arguments were used by SWP comrades on the Liaison Committee of the SA at its October 6 2001 meeting in Birmingham in order to oppose a joint motion from the CPGB and Alliance for Workers' Liberty. This motion included in its demands: "No to imperialism, no to fundamentalism; for democracy and secularism; solidarity with all victims of terror: in the US and around the world." We argued that, while imperialism at home was our main enemy, we cannot duck the question of other reactionary forces. In countries where it was in power islamic fundamentalism represented reaction. This was greeted with outright hostility by leading SWP comrades. They argued that by coming out against fundamentalism and for secularism we are not only cutting ourselves off from a dialogue with muslim youth, but give comfort to the 'racist' islamophobes. Throughout the whole of this period the SWP adamantly stuck to this position: islamic anti-imperialism should be viewed exclusively as an ally and in no way as a threat. Put simply, my enemy's enemy is my friend l Ian Mahoney
Worker