18.06.2008
Build on success and credibility
Labour MP John McDonnell addressed the Hopi weekend school. This is an edited version of his speech
In our movement we don’t thank each other enough, and I just want to thank those who originally came together to set up Hands Off the People of Iran. It is a campaign that was desperately needed.
The level of sophistication, thinking through the delicacy of the issues, has been impressive. It’s so easy to launch a campaign and then be incorporated into actions that justify other developments. I think what’s been incredibly good about Hopi is its careful positioning - I know there have been other organisations that may not have appreciated that, but I’m trying to work in a completely non-sectarian way.
The attraction for me and many others is first of all that initial motivation, almost desperation, that we felt that the imperialists, having invaded Iraq, then started automatically looking for the roll-out into Iran. Most of us just wanted to do something and act in terms of preventing that further stage of the imperialist war in the Middle East.
The key thing is that we didn’t want to demonstrate any form of support for the existing regime in Iran. But at the same time, in criticising that regime, we didn’t want to give any ammunition to the imperialists to use similar arguments to those they used against Iraq. That’s why I congratulate those who set up Hopi for the thought that went into their approach. It would have been so easy to go out there campaigning against the Iranian regime in a way that the imperialists could have used as an argument to justify the war.
What has been interesting is that this campaign has been able to disseminate information which has come from real grassroots support within Iran itself. This link to individual solidarity actions - by students, trade unions, the LGBT community, minorities - means that we’ve been able to raise consciousness of what’s happening in Iran, and then also to guide people into proper solidarity work rather than just knee-jerk condemnations. The most important thing for me is that the campaign has been rooted in the struggles in Iran.
My concern at the moment, however, is that, although we have had some immense successes - particularly in the trade union movement in terms of affiliations - we still seem to be at a certain plateau and we need to break through to a higher level of raising consciousness. It has been incredibly difficult to get any stories into the mainstream media beyond just the normal condemnations of the regime.
Somehow we need to think through the dialogue - working with the NUJ and individual journalists to get the truth out about what’s happening with these individual campaigns that are taking place, and then the wider truth about the role of imperialists within the region and the continuing threat to Iran. We can give them the raw materials for their work. I suggest we approach the NUJ with the specific idea of putting on a seminar for journalists at every level.
Turning to union work, the affiliation of PCS and Aslef to Hopi has been an incredible breakthrough - 2,000 people endorsed it at the PCS conference, where I spoke.
When I’ve been speaking at various conferences I try to make sure there’s at least a reference to Iran and to the campaign. We can build upon these union affiliations, working with their executives and branches. Also the PCS and Aslef will bring others into closer dialogue. I don’t think it’s unforeseeable to win this position in the TUC itself within the next two to three-year period.
The issue with the TUC, in contrast to face-to-face work in the individual unions, is more problematic. I’m an ex-TUC bureaucrat, so I know how to kill a campaign overnight! We always used to joke about the TUC’s international department being a branch of the CIA, but I think things have moved on in terms of the potential to win positions on international issues. So we should give ourselves a target of getting a raft of resolutions through trade union conferences over the next 18 months and then on to the 2009 TUC.
In terms of the Labour left, we are organising the rank and file within the Labour Representation Committee. The LRC has about 1,300 members now, with half a dozen unions nationally affiliated. The LRC can raise the issue of Hopi and develop lines of communication with other organisations within the Labour Party. The problem is that there is now limited space. Even though issues can still go before conference, it has been largely reduced to a trade fair. Resolutions can be put up, but they can’t be voted on. Nevertheless I still think it’s a terrain on which we could organise successfully in terms of raising our profile and getting the debate going.
In parliament itself there is interestingly a kind of vacuum around this issue. Individual groups touch on it, but they simply campaign against the regime and not much else. I think there is an opportunity now - cross-party - for us to be raising the profile. We have had significant support on early day motions drafted by this organisation. There is potential for bringing together a parliamentary group of some sort capable of operating on the demands around Hopi.
I don’t think the Americans will attack Iran in the short term, but if there is any movement in that direction whatsoever, then we’ll demand a recall of parliament and there will have to be a debate on military action. After Iraq it would be much more difficult for any prime minister to commit to war or military action in advance of a parliamentary debate. Then we really must step up every mechanism of the campaign that we can.
With regard to the unions we’re now working with, we need to talk about what creative forms of action they could take. We need to do a systematic canvass - have we covered them all? Have we done enough in every region? Have we in the LRC given enough priority to Hopi? We should raise it on the LRC national executive and maybe hold a special meeting.
The issue around the workers’ role is fundamentally important. When the cluster bombs were being brought in via Scotland, it was PCS traffic controllers and others who first identified them.They were raising concerns and subsequently learnt what was being transported - I don’t think they’d allow that to happen again. That might be a discussion that happens within PCS now.
Thanks partly to the good work carried out by other campaigns, people now know a lot more about their legal responsibilities as well as their legal rights. Following orders does not give you the cover for participation in the assemblage of certain weapons. Remember, it’s PCS that organises immigration officials and MOD too, so there’s all sorts of potential for fruitful discussion and development about what could happen in an emergency situation. We need to talk to RMT and others as well.
In terms of government, they are in disarray. They go from sabre-rattling to quietude if they can. All they are waiting for now is to see what the Americans do. If there is a government led by Barack Obama, with a commitment to dialogue of some sort, they will swing behind it. If it’s more reactionary than that and it moves on to more sabre-rattling, then I think Britain will just fall in line, as always. This means an opportunity for us to lay out an alternative agenda in parliament.
What of my attitude to America itself? As regards Obama, there is a large number of people who get dewy-eyed every time you mention his name. My view is straightforward - he is like any other American Democrat. He is committed to market forces, the capitalist system and imperialism, and I don’t see any dramatic change in that core stance coming from any government led by him.
But there are opportunities based on the statements he’s made and, more importantly, on the movement that has developed around him - wanting to get rid of Bush and looking to Obama for hope for the future. Our job is to link up with progressive forces in that movement, without sowing illusions in Obama himself.
The Iran issue will be a test of the new administration and a test of the movement that Obama has developed. We should aim to undercut what could be an alliance between Obama and Brown - which may not be as reactionary as that with Bush, but will still be opportunist - as we move towards capitalism’s demands for greater ascendancy in the Middle East and future control over oil supplies. We should be linking up progressive forces here with progressive forces over there to set out some agenda for future cooperation.
That’s the sort of work I think we should be doing over the coming period and we’re now recognising that we’ve got the resources to do it. That’s really exciting. Within our different organisations - whatever political party, movement or campaign we’re in - we are finding people willing to help. And there is a new generation coming forward who are becoming cadres in all this.
The damage that we’ve suffered since setting this organisation up is largely as a result of sectarian prejudices and jockeying for position. It’s very easy to condemn a campaign as just a front for something or other - that’s what’s happened to us. But we’re breaking through all that now and that’s why we’ve got these affiliations coming through. We’ve done it by being completely open - this is what we stand for and if you support us, come along: we’ve got no other agenda. Of course, you can have a wider debate within the organisation about the different analyses and I’m sure there’ll be disagreements.
What we’ve got to do is use every contact we can to turn that issue around in Stop the War Coalition and just take the heat out of it. What is this about? We want to work together on this issue, and why not?
I couldn’t come to the founding conference, but it was filmed and it was all on Indymedia. There’s a transcript on the website and that’s how I was able to discover what happened. Our openness and transparency has been completely right. So with individuals or trade unions, if they can’t sign up to what we believe in, let’s try and bring them on a bit further if we can.
One way of doing that might be at the Convention of the Left, taking place at the same time as the Labour Party conference in Manchester. What seems to be happening, almost spontaneously, is that a whole range of political organisations, political campaigns and social movements are arriving at the same conclusions - that we need to work together and learn from one another in a non-sectarian way. All the individual sectarian activities and speeches that get made are a turn-off to a large number of people and they are reacting against it. We have to build on our successes in that style and atmosphere.
It’s about a very clear definition of our campaign. We work in solidarity with the Iranian people and their progressive struggle. We campaign against an attack on Iran because it’s an attack on those people - the lesson of Iraq can be seen in the effect the invasion had on the people themselves. Hundreds of thousands died, and the suffering and exploitation is immense.
As we approach a general election we need to be clear as an organisation about what statements we want to put to people and we should be working on that now. When I last spoke in Trafalgar Square I genuinely forgot to say, ‘Troops out now!’ and then the following week I get condemned in the Weekly Worker! I felt like saying, ‘Look, I forgot, I’m really sorry’! There is, though, also the question of trying to mobilise and bring people as far as they will go.
The period is propitious, and the campaign itself, as I say, has done exactly the right thing in its positioning and so built up the credibility it now has. On that basis there is a real opportunity not just of staving off the threat of attacks on Iran, but of developing a progressive movement that links up with progressive movements in Iran looking to create a different society.
| Read on:  Weekly Worker archive |
