23.03.2006
My enemy's enemy
Alan Stevens reviews George Galloway's new pamphlet 'Target Iran' - and is not impressed by its one-sidedness
In Target Iran - why the US wants war George Galloway says his intention is "to sound the alarm and to contribute to strengthening the force that can avert catastrophe: the international anti-war movement". By producing a timely agitational pamphlet in his usual popular style Galloway again demonstrates that he is the leading anti-war MP.
However, there is a serious weakness, a definite one-sidedness that leaves the Respect figurehead's analysis superficial and simplistic. But the problem is not just that Galloway, the non-Marxist, understandably has a non-Marxist analysis - he also reveals himself, in carefully couched language, as an implicit apologist for the reactionary, anti-democratic Iranian regime.
It is essential to understand a problem completely, in its many-sided complexity. This is the only way to successfully chart the way forward. To merely identify and concentrate on the 'main enemy', whilst ignoring interrelationships, contradictions and objective imperatives is just not enough.
Galloway does a good job exposing US-UK terrorism, mendacity and hypocrisy, etc. This is on one side. On the other is the next potential victim, Iran and its people, who together make up some undifferentiated unitary entity. The Iranian regime, however, is part of the problem - it is not unconnected to the global system of capital. The machinations of a brutal US imperialism and the repression of the Iranian regime are two sides of the same coin - and to the cost of Iranian workers in particular and all workers in general.
Mehdi Kia spelt it out in his article, 'No to US aggression, no to Iranian regime' as follows: "The new Iranian president has explicitly enunciated his threat to use force to put down dissent, and is relying on the US war drums to help in this task" (Weekly Worker March 16).
The Iranian regime has been stoking tension at an international level with bizarre statements, denying the holocaust, claiming to want to push Israel into the sea and such like. To focus on the warmongering policies of the US without also directing some fire at the islamist regime will emasculate the anti-war movement. After all by repressing their own people, the Iranian regime makes it easier for imperialist aggressive policies to be realised.
Unfortunately, George Galloway wants to focus anger only on the US (and UK) warmongers and, opting for black and white simplicity, he therefore alibis the Iranian regime - even if he uses the words of others to do it. He first lays out Iran's voluntary compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as against US-UK non-compliance and the likes of Israel, which did not sign up to start with. True and worth knowing - but in the context of what follows the appeal to the liberal-legalistic mind just adds to the soft sell: US - evil aggressor; Iran - innocent victim. US - bad; Iran - good (or at least not as bad).
Galloway quotes facts and figures claiming improving life expectancy, literacy, education for women, increasing use of contraception, etc under the islamic regime. It all sounds quite rosy - and, of course, we are reminded that anyway "most countries in the Middle East and indeed throughout the developing world are autocratic".
It goes on: "In spite of all the perils from the state power, different social groups in Iran have been engaged in campaigns for their class, gender and ethnicity equality. They have achieved many more reforms of family, education and employment than in US-backed regimes in the region." It is presented as though this somehow makes the "state power" in Iran not so bad and for that reason undeserving of attack.
Nothing explicit about its responsibility for repression, restrictions on democracy and the rising tide of struggle against the regime - just a few oblique references to progressive movements for which 'Iran' can claim credit.
We are told that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his opponent, Akbar Rafsanjani, both got more votes than Tony Blair - we are meant to deduce that the Iranian regime should therefore be regarded as legitimate, despite the fact that no remotely progressive candidate was allowed to stand in the 2005 presidential elections. Contrast this dodgy statistical fare with the much more meaningful statement of Mehdi Kia, who reminds us that, given such a rotten choice in last year's elections, two thirds of the Iranian people "chose to stay at home".
Galloway refers to the genuine student, women's and workers' movements saying, "the last thing they want to see is an escalation of threats or manipulation from Washington". That is absolutely correct. But I would think that Iranian workers and progressives also do not want to see an escalation of threats or manipulation from Tehran - which, as comrade Kia explains, only makes it easier for the US to excuse and disguise its aggression.
Galloway points out: "For human rights defenders in Iran, the possibility of a foreign military attack on their country represents an utter disaster for their cause." He goes on: "Is it not obvious that the space for progressive movements within Iran will shrink to the exact extent that Iran is squeezed from without?" Yes, exactly - but there is another side to the equation, George. I would add: is it not obvious that the repressive regime in Iran knows this and is compelled by increasing opposition and resistance to engage in provocations and brinkmanship with a dangerous external enemy precisely to help shrink the space for progressive movements that oppose them?
The fact that imperialism is the greater enemy does not mean you must ignore a lesser one. Sometimes you have to fight on more than one front.
Leaving aside the disarming flannel about the Iranian regime, there are two other major weaknesses in Target Iran. Firstly, in relation to US imperialism, Galloway does see a certain level of complexity, but his analysis does not go very deep.
There is the historical tendency of the US to escalate military action when it is losing (as in Vietnam). George sees that and warns about the war drive having its own internal logic, making it difficult to pull back. He can also see that the stakes are high because the Project for a New American Century is running into trouble. However, much of his argument revolves around "delusional neo-conservative lunatics". You get the impression that things might be different if some more sensible people were in charge in the White House.
There is a high degree of irrationality in American politics - but it has a real foundation in declining options for US capitalism. Bush and company are not just some group of power-crazed nutters who accidentally find themselves in office - they are there at the behest of the American ruling class. That they are there and act as they do is symptomatic of a serious crisis. The stakes are not only high: they are getting higher.
The other weakness is the absence of class politics. The drive to war is an increasing feature of capitalism in decline - war is its means of avoiding a crash and a weapon against the workers. The stronger and more combative the working class, the greater our chance of restraining and finally defeating the war class. A million demonstrators could not stop Blair, but massive strike action and civil disobedience led by the working class would have.
The extent of imperialism's crimes is the greater because the working class is relatively weak, disorganised and demoralised. The left worldwide is a shambles and, so long as it remains a shambles, the workers will stay disarmed. The need for independent working class politics and organisation is clear. We cannot fight effectively without it. This is why the CPGB prioritises the fight for a revolutionary party.
Whilst it seems that George Galloway has other plans, he remains the most prominent and well known member of Respect and its only MP. But, ever the maverick, Galloway does not even give his party a single mention in this pamphlet. And, as for the need for working class organisation "¦