01.11.2007

Friends of Tehran

The annual conference of the Stop the War Coalition upheld the decision to exclude Hands Off the People of Iran and Communist Students. Mohsen Sabbagh reports

Before the Stop the War Coalition's sixth annual conference, Communist Students and Hands Off the People of Iran found their applications to affiliate rejected. However, both organisations were allowed to present their case against exclusion at the start of the October 27 conference, with Ben Lewis speaking for CS and Yassamine Mather for Hopi. It fell to Steve Bell of the Communication Workers Union and Socialist Appeal to explain why their affiliation would be "destructive" for the coalition.

Comrade Bell spoke first and argued that, whilst it was "unusual" to refuse affiliation, in regards to CS and Hopi it was "well founded". Otherwise we would be "accepting serious conflict and disruption". What conflict comrade Bell believes their inclusion would cause was not stated. Since both organisations' position against any imperialist aggression and for the immediate withdrawal of western troops from the Gulf is surely shared by the STWC leadership, it can only be their open criticism of the Iranian regime and demand for solidarity with the workers' and democratic movements in that country that would bring the "pointless debate" to which he referred.

Clearly a debate on whether or not one supports the Iranian regime is far from "pointless": it is absolutely crucial to the impact of the movement. But for comrade Bell, like so many on the left, when a repressive regime comes under attack it is the duty of socialists to, at the very least, water down their criticisms of it. However, according to chair Andrew Murray, the STWC has "no fear of debate on this issue - the sort of views advanced by Hands Off the People of Iran have been debated at almost every one of our conferences." If this really is the case, then what do STWC and Comrade Bell really have to fear?

Another of comrade Bell's arguments was that it is "absolutely clear that Hopi is a front organisation for the Weekly Worker, set up in opposition to the coalition". In order to 'prove' this he quoted Mark Fischer's remarks to a CPGB aggregate (which the steering group had copied from the Weekly Worker and which, by the way, was said by comrade Bell to be a "quote from the founding conference of Hopi".

The article reported comrade Fischer as saying: "An important goal is to establish a viable alternative political centre to the rotten politics of the Stop the War Coalition and Campaign Iran." The call for an alternative political centre was misrepresented by Bell as an intention to establish a rival organisational centre, whereas in reality the CPGB is opposed to irresponsible and small-scale splits in the movement. Our aim is to make a political challenge, which is why we regard Hopi as so significant.

A second quote - "Hopi is a step towards the task of putting organisational muscle on the CPGB body politic" - was the 'evidence' that Hopi is a CPGB front. Our comrades helped to initiate it and have certainly put some effort into this important campaign, but we do not control it. The breadth of support it enjoys is testimony to that.

The real reason for the exclusion of these two bodies soon became apparent, however, when comrade Bell said that the CPGB and Hopi even go so far as to "characterise Campaign Iran as apologists" for the Tehran regime (surely not). The reason why this is so appalling is that "We should not be telling the people of Iran what kind of government they should have" - socialists just don't do that kind of thing, do they?

Comrade Bell thought it was particularly telling that Amir Javaheri Langaroudi (a CPGB dupe, obviously), in his written reply to Andrew Murray's circular on behalf of Hopi, had said that "Hopi sees its main task as giving a voice within the coalition to left activists inside Iran, who were deeply hurt and angered by pro-Hezbollah slogans raised in last summer's anti-war demonstrations in London and elsewhere". Bell interpreted this as meaning the main task was to "fight the orientation of the coalition". Criticisms of the STWC leadership's politics are not allowed, it seems.

Yassamine Mather of Hopi stressed that Hopi was co-initiated by Iranian exiles and was pleased to enjoy the support of the CPGB, as well as that of the Green Party and Scottish Socialist Party, for instance. She argued that Hopi's affiliation, far from being 'destructive', would actually strengthen the anti-war movement. There should be no doubt that there are many people in Britain, as well as many Iranian exiles, who are against any attack on Iran, while at the same time opposing the Tehran regime. With the STWC at best downplaying the regime's repression and at worst excusing it, many of these people would stay away. The inclusion of Hopi, however, would demonstrate that the STWC would accommodate their views.

After Comrade Mather, Ben Lewis presented the argument for Communist Students. Like Hopi, CS is not a CPGB front, he said. Certainly it was set up by CPGB comrades, but it is an autonomous organisation. However, even if one believes that CS and Hopi are CPGB fronts, where was the logic in refusing them while allowing the CPGB to remain affiliated? Comrade Lewis rejected the lie that CS and Hopi are "telling the Iranian people what to do". We are, however, proud of our support and solidarity with working class struggles and movements in other countries. This is known as internationalism. Comrade Lewis also made no attempt to hide his criticism of the STWC leadership, but said it was essential to be able to "frankly exchange ideas" if the movement is to move forward.

In reply Andrew Murray, began by saying: "I will endeavour not to be too polemical." It is a lie, he said, that "this movement" consists of "supporters of the Iranian regime". It is a variation of the lie that said the STWC was made up of supporters of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein. He quoted an article from Rahe Kargar, paper of the Organisation of Revolutionary Workers of Iran (which he had had translated from Farsi), accusing the STWC of "shameless defence" of the Iranian regime. He did not seem concerned that his attack on one of the Iranian groups supporting Hopi was in contradiction to the assertion that the campaign is a CPGB front.

To allow the affiliation of Hopi and CS would be to "import crippling division", as the method of the Weekly Worker is "abuse, sneers and innuendo". It had attacked him in the past and, although he had been on the receiving end of worse attacks from the likes of The Sun, we do not "let Rupert Murdoch join the coalition". Yes, Andrew, but it is the CPGB, not Hopi or CS, that produces the Weekly Worker.

The vote that took place immediately after the debate saw Communist Students and Hands Off the People of Iran refused affiliation. The steering group's motion to exclude them was carried with "25 or so against", according to comrade Murray. However, it seemed to me that there were rather more votes in opposition than that. Nor was this the overwhelming majority that comrade Murray's dismissive tone implied, as at this stage the hall was less than half full and a good many people abstained.

However, despite Hopi's exclusion the motion it had submitted was still heard. This was because, when we were informed of the ban, the CPGB itself put in exactly the same motion, which not only expressed vehement opposition to any imperialist attack, but pledged support for the democratic opposition to the Tehran regime. Our motion was moved by Tina Becker.

It so happened that the previous speaker was John Rees, who had said: "No matter what the character of the regimes under attack, the main enemy, especially for people in the imperialist countries," is at home. And, yes, Saddam Hussein had headed a "brutal regime", but that did not stop the coalition mobilising against the US-UK invasion. He did not say what he thought of Ahmadinejad, but continued, to huge cheers: "Every word that the critics of the Iranian regime say may be true, but that doesn't justify an attack or give us the right to tell Iranians how to run their society. If accounts are going to be settled with the regime, only the Iranian people themselves are going to do it - end of story." (Even louder cheers.)

Comrade Becker started by remarking that John Rees may be surprised to hear that the CPGB agrees with just about everything he had just said. Hopi's statement makes clear that the main enemy is indeed imperialism. We are not telling the Iranians what to do, but we are supporting the democratic and workers' opposition to the regime. What comrade Rees had left unsaid was that it is perfectly possible to fight on two fronts.

Pretending that the regime is not repressive weakens the anti-war movement, comrade Becker concluded. The STWC will be dismissed as an apologist for Tehran if it maintains its current position and this will reduce its appeal. The promotion of Campaign Iran and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, on the one hand, and the rejection of Hopi, on the other, sent out a clear enough message that our enemies would be sure to seize upon. The CPGB motion was defeated by a larger majority than the motion to exclude Hopi and CS.

Exposing the practical futility of the exclusion of the two groups, both Ben Lewis and Yassamine Mather were allowed, as individual STWC members, to stand for the steering committee. Once again, not surprisingly in view of the large presence of the SWP, they were both defeated, although this time they mustered a good quarter of the total vote.