10.08.2005
Defend the 'traitor' George Galloway
The Weekly Worker has warned on many occasions that the state's assault on democratic rights will, sooner rather than later, be directed against working class politicians and organisations. The furious attack on George Galloway for daring to side with the Iraqi resistance against the US-UK occupation confirms our warnings. Speaking last month in a series of interviews and meetings which were screened by Al Jazeera and Syrian TV channels, Galloway infuriated the establishment with his statement of the obvious: "The biggest terrorists are Bush and Blair." He claimed that "poor" and "ragged" Iraqis "have made the country ungovernable" and said it was "normal in every liberation struggle" to carry out military operations "against the occupying forces and their collaborators". The response of The Sun - as part of its welcome for Blair's package of 'anti-terrorist' proposals - was: "Let's hope the prime minister finds it easier to place British-born troublemakers under house arrest. He could start with George Galloway. The traitorous MP says in Syria that suicide bombers are martyrs and he praises them for murdering our troops. If that's not inciting international terrorism, what is?" (original emphasis, August 6). The Sunday Times dubbed Galloway's remarks "surprisingly close to treason", while Tory defence spokesperson Gerald Howarth said: "I really think it should be a criminal offence for somebody to encourage insurgents and others to attack our troops." A spokesperson for the attorney general did not rule out "possible grounds" for initiating prosecution. Obviously it is pretty unlikely at this stage that Blair would contemplate slapping some control order on Galloway or charging him with "condoning or glorifying terrorism" - still less making him the first defendant since Lord Haw Haw to be charged with treason. For the moment it will be muslim clerics and other islamists who will be targeted. But the fact that all those possibilities have been mentioned in relation to Galloway demonstrates how, further down the line, those from the left and the working class movement will be in the firing line. After all, the islamists are hardly a major threat to the rule of capital - least of all in the US or Britain. The state knows who its main enemy is and is pleased to have a ready-made excuse to encroach upon our hard-won democratic rights - in the expectation of being able to use its new powers against the working class movement in the future. Just as the ruling class knows who its main enemy is, so too do we. That is why we are for the defeat of the US-UK occupation and, what is more, uphold the right of the peoples of Iraq to expel the invaders. However, we are not indifferent to the political programme of the Iraqi resistance. In fact there is not a single resistance: there are many resistances, including those who at present are not using the methods of armed struggle. True, if we had to choose, we would prefer the victory even of the islamists or Ba'athists to that of the imperialists. But we do not have to choose between these two forces. We favour the imperialists being driven out at the hands of a working class-led movement, and, crucially, using the crisis caused by the occupation of Iraq to bring about regime change in both the US and UK. That is why we must criticise some of Galloway's utterances he made while in Syria. There was an unmistakable Arab nationalist and religious tone to much of what he said. According to Galloway, in response to the invasion, the Iraqi people decided to defend not only "their country", but "their honour, "¦ their families" and "their religion". Of course, muslims have a duty to resist oppression, according to the Koran. No doubt many would claim that the war on Iraq is part of a US-led, worldwide Judeo-christian 'crusade' against Allah. But ironically the US has no problem with a specifically islamic state in Iraq. In fact the proposed Iraqi constitution - being pushed through at the insistence of the Americans - looks certain to enshrine islam as the basis of Iraqi law. According to various leaks of the draft, article 5.4 reads: "The state shall ensure harmony between the duties of a woman toward her family and her work in the society and equality with men in the fields of political, social and economic life without conflicting with or disturbing the provisions of the islamic sharia" (my emphasis - see www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf). Article 22 of the draft states: "In addition to the rights stipulated in this constitution, Iraqi citizens enjoy the rights stipulated in international treaties, agreements and international legal documents that Iraq has signed or joined or that are considered binding according to the provisions of internal law, so long as these do not contradict the provisions of the islamic sharia. Non-Iraqis inside Iraq enjoy all human rights, as long as they observe Iraqi society's moral values, public manners and the like" (my emphasis ibid). Far from denying or suppressing islam, the invasion has created the conditions for it to triumph. As the above extracts show, at the very least it seems sharia will be granted a veto when it comes to legislation and social practice. Any democratic constitution must, of necessity, be secular - ie, it must ensure the complete separation of religion and state, while guaranteeing the right to religious worship, practice and expression. In order to provide equality between all citizens, the religious and the non-religious, no religion must enjoy any kind of privileged position. However, Respect has rejected secularism, presumably because the Socialist Workers Party leadership calculates that taking such a principled stand would upset religious leaders. Specifically the "muslim activist" wing of Respect. Indeed both the SWP and Galloway are engaged in an opportunist attempt to pander to religion. Galloway said in Syria: "Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners: Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent." This is dubious language, to say the least. Taken in conjunction with his overtly religious remarks ("We believe in the prophets - peace be upon them"), this statement plays to the conservative patriarchal sentiments prevalent amongst the muslim hierarchy. It is the role of the 'head of the family' to determine in whose "hands" his "beautiful daughters" should be placed - and they should certainly not be betrothed to those non-muslim "foreigners". Strangely the Respect website - normally keen to carry every Galloway statement or musing - makes no mention whatsoever of either his remarks in Syria or the reaction to them. There is a rebuttal of the recent attacks on Mohammad Naseem, general election candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr, but no defence of Respect's most well known figure. Why is this? Perhaps there was no-one available to update the site during the holiday period? No, that cannot be the case, since there is a fulsome tribute to that "powerful and principled advocate of peace", Robin Cook (statement, August 6). And it cannot be a question of space, since the website still carries Galloway's statement, issued on June 6, congratulating the Bangladesh cricket team for its victory over Australia in a one-day international. So why so shy? Could it be that it is fine for Galloway to come out with such language in the Middle East, but not back home in Britain? Better to stress the fact that British boys and girls are being put at risk by Tony Blair than to make such a clear call for their defeat. True, if you look hard enough, you will find statements on the website to the effect that "the defeat of the US-led occupation of Iraq is critical" and "the Iraqi resistance deserves the support of the international anti-war movement" (in the 'International' section under 'Policy'). But such bold declarations never seem to make it to the otherwise crowded home page. The best way we can help to bring about the defeat of the occupation is by fighting to mobilise the working class in Britain. This is made all the more difficult by abandoning the programme of socialism and secularism and using the language of islam and Arab nationalism. Hardly the basis upon which to build a working class movement. Once again the contradictory nature of George Galloway's politics is revealed. On the one hand, he openly calls for the defeat of 'our own' state and identifies US and British imperialism as our main enemy. Excellent! On the other hand, however, he panders to islam and nationalism. Peter Manson
Worker