01.11.2007

Why the witch-hunt?

Cameron Richards examines why Hands Off the People of Iran and Communist Students have been made scapegoats

The conference was a strange occasion. Reflecting the decline in the fortunes of the anti-war movement since its highpoint in 2003, attendance ranged from about 150 at the beginning of the morning session to just over 300 by the afternoon.

The low turnout meant that the majority of local groups outside of London were probably not represented - many are now effectively moribund. The leadership of the STWC seemed tacitly aware of this problem, even if the likes of John Rees and the SWP are prone to triumphalism when assessing the impact of the anti-war movement on British politics.

Yet any lull in anti-war sentiment was clearly regarded by the top table as a temporary phenomenon. The increasing likelihood of an attack on Iran is for the leadership the key to reversing the fortunes of the coalition. Indeed one could be forgiven for thinking that the STWC is positively relishing the prospect of a US attack on Tehran.

This is why the issue of Iran was made the centrepiece of the conference. Indeed, it is not possible to understand the leadership's decision to witch-hunt Hopi and Communist Students without recognising its centrality.

Not simply is the leadership keen to focus activists' attention on Iran. It also wishes to inculcate into them the politics to be fought for inside the anti-war movement. Hence, it regarded Hopi and CS as soft targets in its political battle to exorcise any criticism of the Iranian regime.

The leadership wants to present such criticism as the work of sectarian extremists intent on wrecking the anti-war movement. Although not stated quite so explicitly, Hopi and CS are to be regarded as a fifth column - led, of course, by the evil CPGB.

One can only speculate as to the real reasons for the leadership's zeal in appeasing the Tehran regime. Unfortunately, for the top table at least, we did not prove to be the easy prey that the SWP, CPB and Socialist Action had hoped for.

This was not simply because of the admirable work done by Hopi, in particular, in the run-up to the conference, making a nonsense of the claim that it was a CPGB front organisation. Nor was it only because of the eloquent defence of Hopi's politics made by comrades on the conference floor. Or because, although the leadership excluded the motions of Hopi and CS, it was unable to prevent the already affiliated CPGB moving one of them instead.

No, the leadership was also paradoxically exposed by some of the pathetic apologetics for Tehran put up by the STWC to defend its position. Pride of place must go to Somaya Zadeh from Campaign Iran, who, despite being from a family of Iranian exiles, did her level best to present the regime in the most positive light possible.

Abbas Edalat, former member of the Fourth International, who tried to claim the regime was anti-imperialist, made a similar spectacle of himself. Some people never seem to learn. He believed that a campaign on two fronts - against an attack, but criticising Tehran - would simply confuse British people.

That said, it would be wrong to see the leadership's decision to put up these speakers as pure folly. Rees, Murray and co, using the guise of broadness, really do not give a monkey's about what nonsense is spouted about the regime. Only those anti-war campaigners who are openly critical of Tehran are to be condemned. That is the message to go out to the anti-war movement.

That said, Hopi has quickly established itself as the main opposition current to the apologetic politics of the STWC leadership. In a sense, Murray's provocation has given us much free publicity. A significant minority did vote against the exclusions and even some of those delegates who voted with the leadership will have been perturbed by some of  the ludicrous claims made about the regime in Iran. Not bad at all for an organisation which will only be having its founding conference on December 8.

We should be under no illusion, however, that the attacks on us will now cease. On this at least we can even expect John Rees and George Galloway to stand shoulder to shoulder against Hopi.

Nevertheless it was clear that the crisis in Respect has ended the leadership's united front once and for all. It was very noticeable that in the morning session the Galloway wing of Respect was conspicuous by its absence.

Galloway himself only arrived at the conference towards the end of the day. As he waited to be called to the top table to deliver one of the closing speeches, with his new offspring next to him, he was flanked by two of his factional allies in Respect, Linda Smith and Ghada Razuki, both erstwhile allies of the SWP.

When he finally delivered his speech, generally very well received, he did not get applause from all quarters of the audience. This might have been expected from members of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. However, John Rees, Alex Callinicos and Martin Smith refusing to clap him was a picture to behold.

We wait to see whether the humiliation of John Rees by George Galloway will have repercussions for the unity of the leadership of the STWC. Watch this space.