01.11.2007
'Don't confuse the poor workers'
At the STWC conference, Campaign Iran played the role of blatant apologist for the Iranian regime. Tina Becker takes a closer look
Clearly, US imperialism is the biggest enemy of our class in the world today - for us here in the metropoles of imperialism, as well as for our brothers and sisters in Iran. But should we tell them to suspend their struggles against their own theocratic, reactionary regime, until this particular imperialist threat has gone away? Or the next one after that?
Why does the leadership of Stop the War Coalition want the anti-war movement to keep quiet about the increased repression inside Iran? The official message for public consumption is 'because it gives the warmongers ammunition to attack Iran', as speaker after speaker from the leading STWC factions put it.
Of course, this makes no sense. Even if we keep quiet about it, the repression is still there for everybody to see: the workers' and social movements in Iran have found plenty of ways and means to tell the world. Also, George Bush and co are hardly waiting for the left to protest about human rights abuses before they can put imperialism's plans for the region into practice.
Clearly, something else is going on - and this was most clearly formulated by supporters of Campaign Iran.
At the heart of the matter lies the mistaken belief that Iran is an "anti-imperialist state", as Campaign Iran leader Abbas Edalat said when he opposed the CPGB's motion on international solidarity. And aren't we anti-imperialist too? So, logically, my enemy's enemy must be my friend - a view that is wholeheartedly shared by the Socialist Workers Party-Communist Party of Britain leadership of the STWC. Nothing new there.
What is new is the extent to which the STWC has used speakers from Campaign Iran to apologise for the crimes of the theocracy. In other words, to give the islamic regime 'ammunition' to continue its attacks on its own people.
Not anti-imperialist
Iran is clearly not anti-imperialist. This was actually inadvertently pointed out by Edalat's comrade, Somaye Zadeh from Campaign Iran, who got her knickers in a twist in her 15-minute contribution. In her effort to counter the "demonisation of Iran", she went into quite some detail about how helpful president Ahmadinejad has been in cooperating with the occupation governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
She might also have told the audience that in 2003, the Iranian government banned any demonstrations opposing the US invasion of Iraq or that, once the bombs started falling on Baghdad, Iran's islamic regime was distributing halva (a sweet used at feasts) in celebration. "No wonder they celebrated - the imperialist invasion of Iraq gave them unprecedented influence in Iraq," writes Iranian exile and Hands Off the People of Iran activist Yassamine Mather.1
The islamic regime's desire to consolidate its imperialist aspirations is coupled with neoliberal policies internally. Many of the protests from below focus against the stepping up of privatisation, against cutbacks in social services, and against attacks on living conditions and trade union rights.
Secondly, belittling the crimes against our brothers and sisters in Iran is, of course, a morally repulsive attitude that should be challenged by all democrats. But, crucially, it is more than that: what we do today tells us a lot about what we will be doing tomorrow. International solidarity is not just a nice thing to do. It is a concrete manifestation of the alternative world we are trying to create. The means influence the end. Apologise for dictators today and you will have no problem finding excuses why you need to oppress others in the future.
Hurrah for sex changes
Somaye Zadeh is clearly a bourgeois nationalist, but one thoroughly approved of by the SWP. She has been glowingly quoted in one role or another in Socialist Worker since December 2003 (then as a member of the Bectu broadcasting union).
As she went through her "five lies against Iran", about a quarter of the audience got increasingly frustrated. It started with a few murmurs when she described how Jews in Iran seem to be the happiest on the planet - and very "proud" of their country.
But this was nothing to "lie number five: Iran is an undemocratic and repressive country". She had already been booed for reading out this title - and was deservedly heckled throughout this last part of her speech (and not just by Hopi supporters).
A few of her apologetic comments demand a closer look:
l The government was voted in with "overwhelming popular support" and "the kind of vote that George Bush can only dream of".
Zadeh forgot to mention that dozens of candidates have been banned from standing in elections. In effect, Iran is a one-party state. True, there are divisions in the ruling faction (which might any time break to the surface), but most left and minority movements are just not allowed to participate openly in elections. And, of course, Stalin used to get even better votes - imagine how jealous Bush must be of him.
l Award-winning films, magazines, newspapers and websites have "flourished in recent years".
Zadeh failed to mention that most of the award-winning films by Abbas Kiarostami and Jafar Panahi are banned inside Iran. She also did not criticise the fact that the regime has consistently tried to close down critical magazines, newspapers, websites and blogs that have sprung up in opposition to its repression. Many activists in Iran adopt false names to avoid arrest and persecution - often to no avail.
l "In the case of women, the situation is not so black and white either."
The examples Zadeh listed were bizarre, to say the least. A female race driver, an all-female fire brigade unit "¦ Does the fact that there was a Jewish women's choir in the Auschwitz concentration camp make condemnation of the Nazi regime less "black and white"? And while there are female lawyers and MPs (no judges, by the way), female university graduates have very limited opportunities for working in certain fields. She also did not mention the fact that women cannot leave their house without wearing a headscarf, unless they want to risk beatings or arrest by Revolutionary Guards.
l "At the same time as homosexuality is not allowed, Iran does allow sex changes and in fact the average number of sex changes in Iran is seven times that of the whole of Europe."
This provoked the most outrage at the conference. Homosexuality is not just "not allowed" in Iran. Zadeh knows quite well that an increasing number of gays are being executed (lesbians are persecuted, too).2
Sex changes have been legal since the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini passed a fatwa authorising them nearly 25 years ago. Whereas homosexuality is a "sin" punishable by death, transsexuality is categorised as an illness subject to cure. Some homosexuals may see the drastic step of undergoing a sex change as the only way to carry on with their life. But not a word about any of this from the Campaign Iran speaker.
But, not surprisingly, there has been plenty of discussion about the issue on various blogs, websites and email discussion forums. While some of them misquoted what Zadeh actually said, the meaning of her words is all too clear: homosexuals in Iran can always go and have a sex change.
Only crass political opportunists like Andy Newman (whose utterly misnamed Socialist Unity blog has enjoyed a brief flurry of relative prominence, as SWP dissidents and prominent Respect members alike have decided it is a suitable vehicle for the leaking of their internal documents) have attempted to excuse her comments.
Outrageously, he writes: "I have read no evidence ever that a gay man who enjoys (or in Iran perhaps aspires to) same-sex relations, would be prepared to have his own dick cut off for it. In my experience men are fond of their dicks, and I cannot see why anyone would undergo gender reassignment unless they genuinely wanted gender reassignment. It seems verging on homophobic to me to suggest that gay men and lesbians have less intrinsic sense of their own sexual identity ..."
Unofficial figures put the number of people who have had the operation at a staggering 150,000. Is that because by some fluke of nature there are just more transsexuals in Iran than on the rest of the planet? Not very likely, Andy.
And if there was any doubt, let's look at the original article from which Zadeh took her facts and figures. It quotes Maryam Khatoon Molkara, leader of Iran's main transsexual organisation: "In Iran, transsexuals are part of the homosexual family. Is it possible that a phenomenon [homosexuality] exists in the world but not in Iran? Transsexuality is a real disaster. It's a one-way street. But if somebody wants to study, have a future and live like others they must go through this surgery."3
Zadeh tried to fend off the hecklers by telling the audience that she is an Iranian exile who cannot go back to Iran. This just made matters worse: why the hell did she allow herself to be pushed into such disgraceful apologia if she and her family have suffered repression first hand?
It was a bit like watching a dissident being forced to celebrate the achievements of Stalin's Russia before they were put up against the wall. It does not matter if Zadeh is self-deluded or was simply given her speech by Tehran. It stank. And with a large section of the SWP enthusiastically responding to her speech and giving her a standing ovation, they clearly showed that this is their position, too.
People are stupid
In opposing the CPGB's motion on international solidarity Casmii founder Abbas Edalat supposedly gave an additional reason as to why a fight on two fronts - against imperialism and the theocratic regime - is impossible.
It's because people are stupid: "Put yourself into the shoes of an ordinary member of the public. If you tell him, 'Don't attack Iran, but it is a vicious repressive regime', he gets confused. And he's already confused by the massive demonisation of Iran."
But hold on - if this "ordinary member of the public" has already heard about Iran's anti-democratic measures and sheer repression through the media's campaign of demonisation, would it not confuse 'him' even more if we asked 'him' to join with us in opposing any attack on that country? But who cares about logic? Just like Somaye Zadeh, Edalat was wildly clapped and cheered by the SWP.
This dismissive attitude towards the working class is of course the root of the economism and bureaucratic centralism of the Trotskyist sects. People just do not get it. Which is why we have to do their thinking for them. People just would not understand how they could fight for higher wages and against the constitutional monarchy system. They would get "confused" about what we stand for if we allowed our own minorities with different views to go public.
One message at a time. Then, slowly, gradually, workers might just develop enough understanding to rule the world. In the meantime, 'the party' will think for them. Not the whole party, of course. But the central committee on behalf of the party. And maybe not the whole central committee. Maybe just John Rees.
It all makes sense.
What is Campaign Iran?
In October 2006, Action Iran (led by the Socialist Workers Party), Iran Solidarity and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (Casmii) merged to form a single umbrella organisation, called Campaign Iran. Confusingly, this campaign in turn is affiliated to the international Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (Casmii). Even more confusingly, Campaign Iran's website (www.campaigniran.org) consistently talks about Casmii only.
But then, there is no real political difference between the three. They are all united in their desire to concentrate solely on attacking imperialism's war plans. Following on from that position, Campaign Iran too refuses to voice any criticism of the theocratic regime. And, as was clearly shown at the weekend, they are prepared to do more than that: they are prepared to act as blatant apologists.
Do not be fooled that the organisation's mission statement says that, "Our core values include respect for human rights and a democratic state, in particular freedom of expression, freedom of press, an independent judiciary, equal rights for women, ethnic and religious minorities in Iran."4
This sentence seems to have been added only recently - I do not recall seeing it when I checked the site a few months ago. No doubt this reflects the reality of the current wave of popular struggles against the regime, which over the last few months has increased massively in size, strength and fervour. No organisation campaigning on the question of Iran can remain totally silent on those protests and demonstrations.
However, in reality Campaign Iran quite clearly does not act on that part of its mission statement. Quite the opposite. Abbas Edalat, former member of the Fourth International (Usec) and founder and prominent spokesperson of Casmii, has, for example, told Hopi supporters that today there "are no forces in Iran who are fighting against both the threat of an imperialist invasion and the regime" (Weekly Worker April 26).
He implied that all of those tens of thousands of teachers, students, women and workers who have been on strike and demonstrating in their universities are actively working - or at least hoping for - a US invasion to topple the regime.
It is interesting that this former Trotskyist (and supporter of the revolutionary movement against the shah in 1979) has moved far to the right of the speaker from Codir (Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People's Rights), who, as a supporter of the Tudeh Party, would have supported the islamists in 1979. Incredibly, they seem to have swapped roles.
No wonder that Edalat is hated with a passion by a lot of the leftwing Iranian bloggers who are fighting precisely for both an end to the imperialist war threats and for democracy in their own country. I leave it to Weekly Worker readers to look up some of the unpleasant stories that circulate about Abbas Edalat on the internet.
And no wonder that Casmii's mission statement needs to clarify that "Casmii is independent of all political groups and governments, in particular the Iranian government, and adheres to no particular religion or ideology". Just in case you were wondering. And you will wonder, reading some of the revolting garbage their leading members come up with.
Take the leader of Casmii in the US, Rostam Pourzal, who - incredibly - is able to top the crap spewed out by Edalat.
On the Monthly Review website, he published a truly revolting article5 on the much-reported women's demonstration in Tehran in June 2006, which was brutally broken up by police, with many arrested: "Most of the opposition sources with whom I am familiar exaggerate the government's shortfalls and do not tolerate any discussion of its accomplishments "¦ I was reminded of all this by conflicting reports about the women's demonstration in Tehran last week. Contrary to dispatches by news services, I learned from an eyewitness whom I infinitely trust that he saw no beating or gassing of the demonstrators."
Pourzal helpfully goes on to quote from the email of the unnamed informer, who told him: "I witnessed a few women protesters being asked by some female police officers to walk away. In response the protestors started screaming hysterically at the officers and accused them of beating them, an accusation which looked unsound. 'Why are you beating us?' shouted a woman protestor at a female police officer, who was visibly shaken and became speechless at such an accusation. Small crowds of bystanders would also converge on these places to see what is going on, as it is typical in the Iranian culture. I did not see any expression of sympathy by these bystanders and onlookers for the cause of the protestors."
On Iran's president Ahmadinejad, Pourzal writes elsewhere: "But there is a quite modern side to his grassroots popularity, too, that stresses non-dependent national development. Like the French and Dutch rejection of the proposed EU constitution earlier this summer, Ahmadinejad's landslide win was a vote for authenticity and against forced globalisation "¦ To millions of voters of modest means, Ahmadinejad symbolises resistance to the anti-democratic global free-trade elite with whom the relatively secular reform movement has aligned itself."6
It is a disgrace that in the name of a mistaken idea of "anti-imperialism", an organisation like the SWP should align itself with such reactionary apologists for a regime that has killed tens of thousands of socialists, democrats and communists.