13.12.2007

Sanctions: a form of 'soft' war and preparation for massive bombing

December 8 saw the launch conference of Hands Off the People of Iran - an open and democratic anti-war campaign in solidarity with the peoples of Iran. Chris Strafford reports on this important conference

Hands of the People of Iran held a successful launch conference on December 8. Nearly 90 members and observers packed the Somerstown Community Centre in central London. Comrades from many different political organisations and persuasions ensured that the conference was lively, with a wide range of views expressed and amendments and motions voted on.

Iranian comrades played an active role in the discussions, helping provide the basic understanding of the situation to enable informed debates. It was clear that the democratic culture of Hopi ensured that everyone felt comfortable speaking and putting forward their ideas. A 17-member national steering committee was elected unopposed, with most groups and tendencies represented.

Conference was opened by Yassamine Mather from Workers Left Unity Iran (WLUI). She said that the last year has been a success in getting Hopi established, and went on to describe how and why the campaign was initiated and the links we have established with, for example, recent student protestors in Iran. Torab Saleth from WLUI led a commemoration for the 180,000 people killed by the islamist regime, and conference stood for a minute's silence in their memory.

General discussion

The authors of the four briefing papers on the conference website opened a general discussion on the situation in Iran and internationally. Mike Macnair of the CPGB opened the session by discussing the current splits in the US ruling class, the possibility of an Israeli military attack on Iran, and the irrational logic of current US policy. From the point of view of US imperialism's immediate interests in Iraq, a Georgian or Lebanese-style 'colour revolution' or a simple military coup would aim to install a regime in Tehran that would reduce the influence of Iranian client parties in Iraq. Such a change would, of course, in no way benefit the working class and oppressed of Iran. Military threats used for this purpose could easily tip into open war.

David Mather from Hopi Glasgow explained that it is the working class of Iran that suffers most from sanctions. Sanctions should not be seen as an alternative to war, but as a prelude to it. He also discussed the capitalist character of the 'anti-imperialist' Tehran regime: it is more compliant with the IMF and neoliberalism than many other 'third world' regimes. He referred to the current imprisonment of the leadership of the bus workers syndicate, and criticised the common view that political islam is in some sense 'part of the anti-globalisation movement'.

Mark Fischer (CPGB) discussed fighting on two fronts and solidarity campaigns. Comrade Fischer argued that independent working class politics was essential, as the working class are the only meaningful anti-imperialists; it "should be in our DNA as socialists" not to subordinate working class politics to other forces. Comrade Fischer finished his address by saying that the anti-war movement can "walk and chew gum": ie, we can fight on two fronts - against imperialist war, against the theocratic regime.

Israeli socialist Moshé Machover discussed the nuclear issue and the threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, as well as the splits within the US ruling class. He argued that, though Iran has become an obstacle to US imperialism's immediate plans in the Middle East, "our enemy's enemy is not our friend." This applied to both sides: Iranian oppositionists who saw the US as a friend were as deluded as western leftists who presented the Iranian regime in the same way. He argued that it was a betrayal of the working class in Iran for socialists to take the side of either the imperialists or the regime.

The general discussion which followed addressed two issues: the international situation and Hopi's relationship with the wider anti-war movement. On the first issue, Stuart King from Permanent Revolution (PR) said that the evident divisions and dissent within the US ruling class show that Bush is in a weak position to launch a military attack on Iran. Hence Hopi should focus on campaigning against sanctions and the ongoing US policy of destabilising Iran, and on building even stronger links and contacts within Iran.

Mike Martin from Hopi Sheffield said that the threats to Iraq are part of the general war drive - "still very much about oil" - and that the ultimate target is China. Tami Peterson from the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) urged Hopi to highlight the struggles and repression of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Iran. She also criticised comrade Macnair's briefing paper and the argument that the US is "exporting destruction" to keep its own economy afloat: the framework of Ellen Meiksins Wood's Empire of capital - that imperialism is now primarily a matter of domination through purely economic means - was more useful.

On our relationship with the wider anti-war movement, Kath McMahon from Hopi Edinburgh explained how she had ensured that her local Stop the War Coalition group was working with Hopi. She made the point that we should not underestimate the intelligence of the STWC membership when opposing the war and being in solidarity with the Iranian progressive movements. Anne Mc Shane from Hopi Ireland told conference about the situation there: Hopi now seems to be accepted as a legitimate component of the anti-war movement by Socialist Workers Party comrades in Ireland. Comrade Mc Shane also highlighted the smear campaigns against Hopi, especially on Indymedia, and she expects the tensions between the apologists and Hopi to increase.

Andrew Coates (Ipswich) talked about his disappointment with the STWC and said that Stop the War "could not rise to the occasion" in generating the necessary political challenge and in backing the Iranian working class. Steven Monaghan from Hopi North West spoke on the situation in Manchester and the hostility and lies that have been encountered by Hopi supporters. He also urged comrades to stay in the STWC and fight for our politics within it. John Bridge (CPGB) agreed with comrades McMahon and Monaghan that we should not write off STWC, but underlined that we should expect increasing hostility from the SWP and the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain.

Founding statement

We then moved on to discuss amendments to the founding statement. The procedure adopted was to take one speaker for and one against each proposed amendment and, once all amendments had been moved and opposed, to have an open discussion. The text of the existing founding statement, and how it would look as amended were projected by way of a laptop to facilitate discussion. This also allowed the meeting to consider amendments from the floor, the proposed text being typed in immediately and presented. The resulting discussion was on occasion somewhat chaotic; but was always open, democratic and creative. In this report I have simplified the discussion by attributing comrades' comments to the proposal they were addressing.

A number of the amendments either had a drafting character or were uncontroversial. Thus Permanent Revolution proposed an amendment to add explicit reference to Iraq to the original formula "the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops from the Gulf region", so that the amended text reads: "the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region". This was passed unopposed. Hopi North West proposed to add a new bullet point making clear our opposition to sanctions against Iran. Even though Hopi has always been against sanctions, we needed to clearly say this in our founding statement. This amendment was also unopposed.

Yvonne, a supporter from Brighton, proposed to add support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people's rights and struggles in the founding statement. She argued that LGBT issues had been swept under the carpet in STWC and we should not do the same here. This amendment was passed unanimously.

More controversial were proposed amendments which seemed to comrades (both their supporters and their opponents) to touch on Hopi's fundamental mission: that of combining rigorous opposition to US imperialist threats to attack Iran with opposition to the Tehran regime and solidarity with the Iranian workers' movement and its allies.

A PR amendment moved by comrade King sought to delete two paragraphs which referred to the US as having strengthened the regional position of the Iranian regime and to the role of Tehran's Iraqi clients in the US-sponsored 'government' in Iraq. In their place PR proposed to put a paragraph summarising the tasks of Hopi. Yassamine Mather spoke against, pointing out that the Iranian regime had supported the occupation of Iraq. It is also true that the US-UK invasions have strengthened Iran's regional influence by getting rid of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Comrade Mather explained that Iran was playing an "active participatory role in imperialist policies".

Nick Rogers (CPGB) supported PR's proposal. He pointed out as an aside that, like Tami Peterson, he did not agree with comrade Macnair's analysis of imperialism. But this was not being put to the vote. The two paragraphs PR proposed to delete were analysis, not political line. We should not tie ourselves down to one particular analytical position. Sachin Sharma (CPGB) argued against comrade Rogers' contribution, saying that we must break through the existing left on a sound political basis. The conference decided to add in the new paragraph but keep the existing paragraphs above it.

Nuclear arms

PR's second amendment was to delete the demand for a "nuclear-free Middle East as a step towards a nuclear free world". Comrade King argued that the campaign as such does not really need to take a position on the issue; PR, for its part, defends the right of what he called semi-colonies, like Iran, to develop nuclear weapons. This is a matter debated among socialists, not something on which a campaign should take a position. Comrade Machover spoke against but agreed that more clarity was needed in the clause. He said it was important to take into account the hypocrisy of Israel as a major nuclear power that complains of Iranian proliferation, and we needed to solidarise with anti-nuclear campaigners in Israel and to ensure that we raise in the wider movement the point that there is a real and grave threat of a nuclear attack on Iran.

In the general discussion, Gerry Downing from the Campaign for a Marxist Party said that the demand for a nuclear-free Middle East was unworkable, as Israel already has nuclear technology and that any demand against nuclear weapons should be aimed at Israel's nuclear weapons programme. Comrade Downing argued that the reason why Iraq was attacked was because it has no weapons of mass destruction and presented an easy target. Charlie Pottins (Jewish Socialists Group) reminded conference of the 'workers' bomb' idea held by orthodox Trotskyists in the 1960s about Soviet nuclear weapons. He said that with hindsight the cost of the nuclear arms race helped in the collapse of the Soviet Union, so the bomb should not be seen as an effective defence against imperialism. It would be wrong to support the Iranian regime getting its hands on nuclear weapons and as socialists we must be against the proliferation and maintenance of nuclear weapons.

Mike Macnair agreed with comrade Pottins, but argued that the nuclear-free demand should refer explicitly to Israel, and US and UK nuclear-armed forces in the region. Steve Freeman from the Revolutionary Democratic Group said that we should concentrate on being against nuclear weapons in Israel. But comrade Bridge asked whether socialists should be advising the Iranian regime to nuke Israel if they entered into a conflict, while comrade Mc Shane argued that the workers' movement should not support arming our class enemies.

The PR amendment was defeated in the vote, but an amendment from the floor drafted by comrades Machover and Freeman, adding specific reference to US, UK and Israeli nuclear weapons, was adopted.

Hopi North West proposed that we should add to the slogan against Israeli expansionism the words "and support the heroic Palestinian struggle for self-determination and the right to return". Steven Monaghan, moving, argued that Israel is the "spearhead" of imperialism in the Middle East and that it is essential for us in Hopi to take a clear position of opposition against the systematic terror and ethnic cleansing. Moshé Machover spoke against, saying that, as worded, it implied support for the current Palestinian leaderships (Fatah and Hamas) and support for a two-state solution.

Comrade MacMahon argued that the Palestine issue was beside the point, that we should keep the campaign aims succinct and that it really does not need to be there. Comrade Monaghan responded by saying that it is Zionism which is fuelling a lot of the trouble in the Middle East and that Israel is a launch pad of imperialism. Conference remitted the amendment to the steering committee to be reworded.

Main enemy

Hopi North West also proposed to add: "The main enemy is imperialism. The Iranian regime is not an anti-imperialist force." The second sentence was revised in the course of the discussion to: "The Iranian regime does not represent a progressive or consistent anti-imperialist force." Sachin Sharma (CPGB), moving the amendment, argued that the main enemy is imperialism, and that time and time again we have been accused of giving equal weight to the slogans, 'No to imperialist war' and 'No to theocracy'. Comrade Sharma also argued that Iran is not an anti-imperialist force.

Azar Majedi from the Organisation for Women's Liberation Iran spoke against the first sentence of the amendment. She argued that the main enemy is not imperialism but that the working class of Iran is faced with two poles of terrorism: the theocratic regime and imperialism. Comrade Machover also spoke against the amendment, arguing that it was too simple a formulation and that there is such a thing as reactionary anti-imperialism that we should take into account. Comrade King was another who spoke against, arguing that the amendment was simplistic. Under some circumstances US imperialism would be the main enemy, but under others the regime would be. Comrade Bridge said that we should discuss the differences and issues more, but that he did not support what comrade King was saying.

Azar Sheibani from Women's Campaign Against All Misogynist Laws in Iran said that the proposed war on Iran was a war against humanity and it would harm the movements in that country. She said that the regime was using the threat of war to attack the social movements. Comrade Sheibani argued that it would be ordinary people who would organise and fight imperialism: the Iranian regime was not anti-imperialist. Comrade Macnair argued that if the main enemy is imperialism then the only alternative is socialism; he went to say that it is an illusion that Iranian capital is anti-imperialist.

Comrade Fischer said that it is correct to insist that the main enemy is imperialism: if Iran was attacked, the lesser evil would be the victory of the Iranian regime - not that we should positively advocate such an outcome. Tony Greenstein (Jews Against Zionism) argued that the main enemy is the one immediately confronting you; therefore the main enemy of the Iranian working class is the theocracy. Houzan Mahmoud from the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq said that STWC misleads the anti-war movement, as it supports islamist forces, and that it is wrong to think that the left and the islamists can fight together against imperialism. Does the STWC leadership think "bin Laden and Al Sadr should replace Marx, Lenin and Engels"?

The adapted version of the amendment was passed.