01.11.2007
Filling a political gap
Yassamine Mather of Hopi spoke to Mark Fischer after the Stop the War Coalition conference
How do you evaluate the development of Hands Off the People of Iran so far? The idea for such a campaign has been floating around in left Iranian exile circles for some time before concrete steps were taken about nine months ago. Its progress in that relatively short space of time seems to have been pretty rapid.
It has been very rapid progress. I was initially very surprised at the level of support we picked up. This has manifested itself not simply in the 'soft' form of people signing the founding statement, but with many people coming forward over the past few weeks to publicly associate their names with our protests against Stop the War Coalition exclusions.
I am pleased by how much commitment these people are prepared to show to the campaign. This is taking the form of protests to the STWC office, offers to stage meetings in areas where we haven't had organisation before and letters of support and encouragement from both existing supporters and new people stepping forward. My own assessment is that Hopi is growing much faster than we expected, that it has the potential to grow even faster and - crucially - to put down some real roots in the movement.
What explains that success, though?
Clearly, there was a political gap to be filled. The slogans being articulated by the STWC were simply inadequate for people who know that a principled stand against imperialist intervention does not imply for one second a softness towards the theocratic regime. Quite the opposite in fact.
There is a clear majority of progressively-minded people out there who feel in their bones the need to register their opposition both to imperialist militarism and to the excesses of political islam in power. I don't think the occupation government in Iraq - which, after all, even official STWC speakers concede is in alliance with Iran - has exactly rehabilitated people's view of the social programme of political islam. Most people see such governments not simply as oppressive in general terms against women or ethnic minorities, but specifically repressive against working people and antithetical to their interests.
So, in rather stark contrast to what the STWC leadership seems to be implying, most people prefer not to have any hint of being tainted by association with these regimes - a frequent charge of the right against the anti-war movement, of course. Hopi is providing an answer to those people who are implacably against imperialist war, but who are implacably against political islam also "¦
Yes, it's not that hard is it? Instructive in this context were the comments from Abbas Edalet, who suggested that 'people on the street' would be thoroughly confused by this rather simple proposition.
It's really very straightforward. Another speaker, Anas Altikriti of the British Muslim Initiative, actually told us at the conference that he would not have been associated with an organisation that championed Saddam Hussein. If the same mistakes had been made in 2003 over Iraq as seem to be being made now over the Iran regime, it would have been fatal to the movement: the potential for those huge mobilisations would have been frittered away.
The so-called 'ordinary people' - as well as intellectuals, trade unionists and political activists - had no difficultly in the proposition that their opposition to imperialist war implied no retreat from their abhorrence of the foul regime of Saddam. People are brighter than the patronising - I would almost say reactionary - attitude to 'ordinary people' that the likes of Abbas Edalet seem to hold.
True, but a number of the speeches from STWC figures were very contradictory. There were some crass apologetics for the Tehran regime. At the same time - and sometimes from the very same speaker - there were references to the vibrant democracy movement, to the idea that the Iranian people themselves would deal with the regime that oppresses them, etc. What seemed like a soft-focus, passively rhetorical version of aspects of Hopi politics, in other words.
Their position seems to be all over the place. We get a relatively rosy picture from the Campaign Iran speaker that implied that - while there are still some problems - Iran is moving in the right direction on the democracy front. Then we get a platform Codir speaker - immediately following on from this nonsense - painting a very different scenario and pointing out to the audience that the repression in Iran has been ratcheted up dramatically over the past three months or so. (Although the fact that the CI speaker received thunderous applause and the Codir man a level that struggled to get to the volume of 'polite' probably says a lot!)
I have to say, when the Codir rep was speaking, it took me back to the good old days of the USSR. Then, Tudeh - the 'official communist' party in Iran which is an important influence on the politics of Codir today - had a constant refrain of 'peace and democracy'. Just as the speaker at the STWC did.
I think we have gone beyond the cold war slogan of 'peace and democracy' that Moscow broadcast to the world even as the tanks were arriving on the streets of Kabul with the support of the likes of the Tudeh party, of course. We must be clear that, although the Codir speaker gave a more realistic picture of the reality of contemporary Iranian society, it was not motivated by the same sort of radical vision as Hopi.
That said, there is an unfortunate coincidence here. In the 1980s, Tudeh and the majority Fedayeen (Aksariyat) not only defended the islamic republic regime but gave the name of leftists, socialists and communists to the security services of a state. They considered this to be their 'anti-imperialist duty' in support of a regime that was supposedly moving from the imperialist camp towards the 'socialist' camp.
The results are well known. Tudeh was next in line for oppression after the regime had dealt with the other leftists.
Since those days - the early 1980s we are talking about here - I have not even seen a public speaker from the Tudeh Party. Iranian progressives in the audience would simply not allow such a speaker to even get to their feet, given the despicable collaboration they were guilty of with this reactionary regime.
What we can say, however, is that, as evidenced by his speech to the conference, the 'official communists' of Iran seem to have learned from the dire consequences of their treacherous actions. But the new converts - the Trotskyists who are making excuses for this repressive regime - have learned nothing and are repeating the disastrous mistakes of the past. The results could potentially be the same this time round also, if the progressive movement of Iran is in any way tainted by this rotten method.
That's right, it is a rotten method and a deeply unpopular one. In this context, you have to wonder why. Why did the STWC leaders press ahead with the exclusions of Hopi and Communist Students? No-one believes their nonsense that this was because both are associated with the CPGB - after all, why not do the CPGB at the same time if that is the case? Why stage a very public debate, why be prepared to pay the cost of a great deal of criticism from relatively large sections of the movement?
I hope my suspicions about this are misplaced. I have many friends and comrades in the Socialist Workers Party and what I'm going to say at this point is not directed towards them in any sense. However, I am very concerned by the presence of the Iranian state radio and television in the conference.
I am glad that - given the presence of these official state apparatchiks of the regime - we did not take those members of the Iranian left to the conference who cannot be filmed by the regime because of security issues associated with them, their comrades or families "¦
And I didn't notice this decision being put to the conference either. We should have been asked at the very start of the day's proceedings if this was acceptable.
No-one was even told by the platform that they were present. I simply recognised the station's official logo. I assume that when they were interviewing people like John Rees - which we saw during the breaks in the conference - that they identified themselves as being from the state broadcasting media.
Now we have to say this. A clear message will have been taken from that meeting by the Iranian government. Critical, pro-worker, pro-democracy voices in the coalition were being excluded - in the glare of the camera lights of Iranian state TV. The STWC leaders sent out a signal about what sort of anti-war movement they are determined to construct.
They now have to make clear whether this was a conscious decision on their part or not. If not, they are incompetent as leaders; if so, then they are politically bankrupt.
Also indicative was the statement from John Rees - that I have heard from other people as well - that he had met the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah. I referred to the differences between the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iranian version in the short time I had to address conference, but let me expand on this now.
It is true that the Lebanese Hezbollah has a different history and a different image, especially after the last few years, than the Iranian government. It has been pragmatic in its interventions on the Lebanese political scene. However, Hezbollah in Lebanon was set up by Iran in the late 1970s prior to the islamic regime coming to power: its leaders are not independent of the Iranian state nor do they claim to be.
What is extremely worrying is the level of ignorance of these sorts of basic facts about the Middle East that is on display. We expect it from Brown or Bush, but it is truly frightening when it comes out of the mouths of prominent figures in the anti-war movement. They need to be aware that Hezbollah was at the centre of Irangate.
Just to remind readers, this scandal involved Hezbollah taking US hostages in Lebanon - at the behest of the Iranian government. Then Iran negotiated with the US - with McFarlane, Reagan and Oliver North - about the release of these hostages in exchange for the delivery of arms to Iran to fight what was then dubbed (and incredibly is still thought of by some sections of the left) as an 'anti-imperialist' war against Iraq.
Hezbollah played a crucial role in all of this. Its Lebanese branch took the hostages. Iran paid the money - through the conduit of Swiss banks - to the Nicaraguan contras who were at the time fighting the Sandinista government. And Israel was the supplier of the arms to the 'anti-imperialist' government sitting in Tehran.
There are many lessons to be learned from Irangate. It happened at the height of the regime's 'anti-imperialist' posturing, long before it turned to the politics and economics of neoliberalism, long before IFM loans were informing the clergy's approach to the economy and attacks on the working people.
So those who are talking up the regime's 'anti-imperialism' today really should try to read some history. Perhaps to revisit what they actually mean by 'anti-imperialism'. They should not fall into the trap of knee-jerk reactions to mainstream politicians' stupid and profoundly misinformed comments about Iran. The anti-war movement cannot fight ignorance with ignorance. The famous 'person in the street' is far more intelligent than many leading figures in the STWC seem to give them credit for.
So are you saying its present leadership is in danger of actually discrediting the anti-war movement?
Yes, I am. During the conference there were a lot of references to how at the beginning of the movement the same hall had been packed to the rafters and overspill meetings had to be organised. There were a lot of empty places on October 27, however.
This is an anomaly that must be faced and honestly accounted for. The actual percentage of people in Britain who are anti-war is now much higher than in 2003. The occupation is clearly a disaster. Even prominent pro-war journalists and commentators have publicly recanted and apologised for their support for this misadventure.
So what has happened to the movement? Why does the prospect of a new war now not mobilise in the same way? The answer is obvious - because the politics of the leadership of the movement are thoroughly disorientated and disorientating. There is no clear line about what needs to be done to oppose and stop the war on Iran - apart from the old favourite of more and more marches, of course.
OK, so what will Hopi do next to fight the looming attack on Iran?
I actually came out of the STWC conference feeling very sad about the profound ignorance on display from leading political activists on the reality of politics in the Middle East. I could barely believe it.
And to see such a complex issue as Kurdistan reduced to crude conspiracy-mongering by Sami Ramadani made me almost despair. The idea that Mossad had infiltrated the PKK - for god's sake, wake up, Sami!
So Hopi has an absolutely vital task of education and political clarification, I believe. To spread information and knowledge about the anti-war, student, women's and working class movement in Iran. But, crucially, to put all of that in the context of the region as a whole - the Kurdish issue, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel. People have to become clearer about the complex issues involved here if they are going to be effective in fighting imperialism and war and show genuine, effective solidarity with the Iranian people.
What about a group of people in this country who we might expect to be very knowledgeable about this already - the Iranian exile and ex-pat population in this country? Why has there been such a low level of mobilisation of these forces so far?
There might be an element of depoliticisation - even of those people who originally came here as political exiles. But there is no doubt that the Iranian community as a whole is extremely concerned about the prospect of war. The majority have relatives in Iran. They are aware of the terrible effect that even sanctions will have on ordinary people over there. So, whatever the problems, there is definitely an objective basis to mobilise them into the ranks of the anti-war movement.
There are subjective problems, however. Centrally, the perspectives of the leaders of the anti-war movement that we have highlighted many times. As I have said before, many Iranians went to anti-war demonstrations, but when they heard slogans like 'We are all Hezbollah now', they turned away. I know Iranian labour movement activists who have written about this: it's a common theme amongst many Iranians I speak to. I don't think the people who were chanting this realise the connection of the word with the kind of oppression people have faced in Iran.
So let me put it this way - anyone who is perceived as being in a sort of alliance or non-aggression pact with the Iranian government simply will not get support from either the exile or ex-pat community. If they were that keen on the regime and the effects its policies have had on people, they would not be refugees or 'migrants' over here in the first place.
Hopi has not even properly started to address this community yet. The only Hopi meetings we have had so far in Farsi have been outside Britain. But the key point is that the anti-war movement is being weakened because of the low levels of involvement of the Iranian community and this is because certain political forces are determined to downplay criticisms of the theocratic regime. This is very dangerous, as it will lead to disunity and the fragmentation of anti-war activity.
Where Hopi is organised in Holland, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, we are seeing the formation of exclusively Iranian-based campaigns organised as totally independent units, with no real collaboration with the host anti-war movement.
So you think the danger of ghettoisation is a real one?
I think we will win the argument. I think the response to Hopi from many Iranians - people who are not driven by sectarian political considerations or bamboozled by STWC leaders - is an overwhelmingly positive one. But it is clear that we cannot rely on Iranians to win the fight for us.
This community has already suffered 28 years of exile because of the repression of the regime. There is no way on earth that they can be rallied behind the slogan 'We are all Hezbollah'. But we can't simply rely on them to be our shock troops either. Yes, they must mobilised, but the mainstay of Hopi must be British activists.
This battle is just beginning and it will be conducted on different fronts. Organisationally in terms of mobilising forces, etc. Politically through countering soft-core nonsense about the theocratic regime. But also, surely, at the level of theory.
You are absolutely right. A speaker at the conference actually made positive references to Mohammad Khatami, the 'reformist' president. In fact, the Khatami period coincided with the beginning of neoliberal attacks on the working class. Market forces and privatisation were allowed to devastate the country. The systematic non-payment of wages dates from that period. Political murders directed against the regime's opponents were endemic. Ahmadinejad has simply followed in Khatami's footsteps.
The idea that you see a liberal capitalism evolve and then somehow the regime evolves towards democracy in parallel is simply practically unviable and theoretically bankrupt, as proved by our bitter experience. Today is the worst of times "¦ but that period was the beginning of the worst of times.
The Iranian regime is - in the words of one Iranian poet - an "untimely government". No matter what it tries to do, it creates more monstrosities. It is organically incapable of self-reform. The range of movements and political forces that are opposing this barbarous system are only at the very beginning of a debate about this and we here in the west are in no position to really shape such a discussion.
However, we can help and inform our own debates with those arguments and new ideas. We have to contribute to a process of this new left rejecting the ideas of the old. Maoism, Stalinism, Trotskyism - these sorts of trends have been proved in theory and practice to be absolutely disastrous. If we can work with this emerging left in Iran, we can find answers that will not simply have tremendous implications for Iran, but for the struggle across the region and in all countries where the politics of secularism, democracy and socialism are in a life and death struggle with political islam.