22.03.2007
Debate SWP won't have
The March 20 'people's assembly', billed by the Stop the War Coalition as "the debate parliament won't have", was, of course, nothing of the sort. Phil Kent reports
Split into three sessions - Iraq, Iran and British foreign policy after Tony Blair - it turned out to be nothing more than a massively extended rally.
Starting at 2pm, we were addressed by some 20 MPs and MEPsfrom Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Plaid Cymru, and by 8pm, when proceedings were thankfully brought to a close, we had also heard a lord, an ex-lord and an American presidential hopeful. Add to these two or three trade union functionaries, a handful of muslim clerics and the organising stratum from the STWC and you had almost 40 speakers from the top table. The people may have assembled (about 1,000 came to Central Hall, Westminster), but they did not get to speak much.
Tony Benn chaired the first session on Iraq in his usual affable way, introducing each speaker as a stalwart of the peace movement and fighter for justice. Indeed the speakers did emphasise the illegality of the war, the positive role that the United Nations should play once Britain and America withdraw and how important it was to get our brave boys home safely. A coalition as broad as the ocean, but definitely not anti-imperialist.
The anti-imperialist contingent was led by Sami Ramadani who had unfortunately overdosed on anti-reality pills. Iraq has apparently been flooded by weapons from Bosnia that have fallen not into the hands of 'the resistance', but US-backed militias. Ramadani believes that 90% of all killings are carried out either by US forces or their lackeys. Once the evil "they" are removed, Iraq will be on course for a democratic, united future.
A slight crack in the all-pervading diplomatic unity was introduced by Haifa Zangana, a Kurd who cursed the two leading Kurdish parties for doing absolutely nothing for the people, being incurably corrupt and using violence against critics. Sounds like they are part of the "they" that needs to be removed as well. As a women's campaigner, she was concerned by over a thousand rapes that have occurred over the recent period. Again the implication was they were all carried out by the occupiers or their allies. Anti-reality pills were being passed around like sweets. It is bad enough when Blair lies to us, but it is worse when our own side does so because they cannot stomach the truth.
Dr Azzam Tamimi argued that the greatest problem in the Middle East was the treatment of the Palestinians. He called for a Palestinians state with Jerusalem as its capital. Not really the subject of this debate, but it emphasised the interconnectedness of Middle East political problems. As another example a Libyan nationalist who was not called to speak staged a demonstration because he felt the sufferings of his people were being ignored by the British left. True, the meeting's desire to narrow the debate to the present western military adventures in the region and its obsession with getting rid of Tony Blair had an Anglocentric tone. No-one is proposing a joint programme to unite the peoples of the Middle East and Europe for anything - only against the US and Israel. We march, they die, but Iraqis can only wait for the UN and NGOs to sort everything out once the occupiers have gone.
As is the custom with such events, we are asked to acclaim a declaration on the subject in hand and the declaration on Iraq calls for "the full withdrawal of all British troops no later than October 2007". This was challenged by Workers Power comrades, who correctly demanded troops out now. Why this date? Simple. It is in accordance with Liberal Democrat policy. STWC chair and Communist Party of Britain member Andrew Murray said that everyone in the coalition had actually been in favour of the troops being withdrawn four years ago, but this particular wording made the coalition broader.
The Lib Dems opposed the war before it happened, but felt obliged to support 'our troops' once the invasion began. Now they want them out of the Iraqi quagmire - although staying in Afghanistan is apparently unobjectionable (as quite possibly would be the next imperialist adventure). Nobody criticised the Lib Dems - instead the majority cheered when one of their number talked about bringing the troops home. That is how the Socialist Workers Party likes it - play down our differences and keep it broad. That will keep up the numbers (it hopes), even if it rules out arming the movement with coherent politics.
Workers Power also moved that the people's assemblies should come together to "democratically coordinate the resistance to war on as wide a basis as possible, and to link it to resistance to other neoliberal attacks". Kate Hudson (CND and the Morning Star's CPB) replied that everybody knew and understood what the Stop the War Coalition stood for and respected it as a result. Widening its scope would narrow the basis for its support. It would certainly get rid of the Lib Dems.
The debate on Iran produced even greater unity. Elaleh Rostami Povey argued that the Iranian regime was not the problem, since democratic progress was possible under it. For instance the one thousand teachers arrested for going on strike last week have nearly all been released from jail. A Plaid Cymru speaker agreed that Iran was not the worst power in the Middle East.
John Rees set the agenda for the final session. He gave his usual competent performance highlighting the hubris of the warmongers. The Spanish and Italian backers of the war on Iraq are gone, Blair is going soon and Bush is a lame duck. The anti-war movement is centrally placed to intervene politically in the coming period because we were right about the war.
The problem is that the movement did not cause Blair's downfall, and moreover the people's assembly served to highlight its weaknesses. Next week we won't be STWC: we will be Save the NHS or something else. Come the May elections, we will be Respect, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat or nationalist. Who knows?