19.02.2009

Complete range of opinion

In response to the renewed request from Hands Off the People of Iran to affiliate to the Stop the War Coalition, STWC chair Andrew Murray has asked for 'further and better particulars'

There was a glaring contradiction in the reasoning of the Stop the War Coalition officers in 2007 when they called on the STWC annual conference to reject the affiliation of Hands Off the People of Iran.

As Andrew Murray’s letter below references, remarks by Mark Fischer - made in the course of a CPGB aggregate - were used to suggest that Hopi should not be allowed to join.

In the debate comrade Murray, the STWC national chair and a member of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, argued that to allow the affiliation of Hopi would be to “import crippling division” into the coalition, as the method of the Weekly Worker consists of “abuse, sneers and innuendo”. This paper 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” (Weekly Worker November 1 2007).

Odd then that the CPGB - publisher of the Weekly Worker - is an affiliate, and was in 2007. We renewed our affiliation in January 2008, but so far have not received a renewal form for 2009 (although the fact that the 2008 AGM has actually been delayed to April 25 of this year perhaps indicates that the coalition’s central office is under some pressure).

And now comrade Murray responds to a letter from prominent Hopi supporters Yassamine Mather and John McDonnell MP seeking affiliation by asking Hopi to account for Mark Fischer’s views.

It seems - despite the raft of important affiliations to Hopi, and despite the STWC position paper (below) which states that the coalition “must be able to contain a complete range of opinion about the Iranian government” - Hopi may again be refused affiliation.

The Hopi steering committee will be discussing its response at its next meeting on February 28.

Hopi to STWC, January 27

Comrades,

The annual general meeting of our campaign (December 13 2008) agreed to re-apply for affiliation to the Stop the War Coalition.

When our original application was rejected in October 2007, we were told that we were an “entirely hostile” organisation and could play no positive role in the movement.

Our impressive record of work over the period since our application was blocked has comprehensively disproved the charges made against us back in 2007. Important sections of the movement have supported our fight against imperialist intervention in Iran and in support of that country’s radical workers’, women’s and students’ movements.

Over the last 12 months, Hands Off the People of Iran has won affiliations from - amongst others - the Labour Representation Committee (plus its youth wing, the Socialist Youth Network); from the 300,000-strong civil servants union, PCS, and the important rail union, Aslef.

We would very much welcome the opportunity to meet officers of the STWC to talk over any potential objections to our affiliation. We would be happy to answer questions about our work in the anti-war movement to facilitate Hopi taking its rightful place in the Stop the War Coalition.

Yours in solidarity
John McDonnell MP
Yassamine Mather Hopi chair

STWC to Hopi, February 9

Dear John and Yassamine,

Thank you for your letter re Hopi affiliating to the STWC. As you will doubtless recall, our conference in November 2007 clearly rejected your affiliation after debate. Only a further conference decision could therefore reverse this position.

Our next conference meets on April 25. We will put your letter before the next meeting of the steering committee to ascertain if it wishes to make any recommendation to the conference on Hopi’s application for affiliation.

It would be helpful if you could address two issues which could assist the steering committee.

First, I attach a copy of the policy paper on Iran adopted by the steering committee after considerable internal discussion last summer. Could you indicate whether or not you support this resolution, which forms the basis of the coalition’s work on the Iran issue.

Second, the 2007 conference was largely swayed on the issue by reference to remarks made by Mark Fischer concerning Hopi’s relationship to Stop the War. In particular, he said (all quotes from the Weekly Worker) that “there is no space within the STWC for us to fight for principled politics against the pernicious second-campism of the SWP”, that “an important goal is to establish a viable alternative political centre to the rotten politics of the STWC” and that “Hopi is a step towards the task of putting organisational muscle on the CPGB body politic.” Given that Mark is apparently the national secretary of Hopi, it would be most important to know if he still stands by these views and whether they constitute the attitude of Hopi towards STWC, or whether he would like to withdraw them.

It would be useful to have any response you may wish to make by the end of this month if possible.

Yours
Andrew Murray
National chair

STWC position paper on Iran

1. The US Congress agreed, late in 2007, on an expansion of covert operations in Iran, to the tune of $400 million. This was carried through despite the findings of the National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran had halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003.

2. In March 2008, admiral William Fallon, recent head of US central command, resigned under pressure, after telling the Financial Times that military action against Iran was not his “first choice”.

3. In the final week of June 2008 Israeli armed forces were involved in aerial military exercises, under US supervision, with over 100 F15s and F16s taking part. During the same week, Shaol Mofaz, Israel’s deputy prime minister, stated that if Iran continued with its nuclear programme Israel “will attack it”.

4. On July 14 2008, Israel’s senior defence official, general Amos Gilad, told the BBC that Israel is preparing itself for military action against Iran, and will do so if diplomacy fails. The previous day The Sunday Times reported: “President George W Bush backs Israeli plans for strike on Iran.”

5. According to Scott Ritter, “ … there are no constitutional impediments to the Bush administration taking military action. Not only has the US Senate passed a non-binding resolution (Kyl-Lieberman) which labels the Iranian Revolutionary Guard command as a terrorist group, but it has left in place, unchanged, two war powers resolutions (September 2001 and October 2002) which give the president free reign to use military force against the forces of terror, state and non-state-sponsored alike.”

6. There are countervailing forces inside the US establishment. Defence secretary Robert Gates has, in the last three years, spoken of how hazardous a war with Iran would be for US interests. Chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs, admiral Michael Mullen, said, in early July 2008, that an attack upon Iran would be “extremely stressful” for US forces. Barack Obama, whilst favouring an increase in unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran, has promoted a policy of negotiations with the Iranian government. The decision by the Bush administration to participate in international talks with Iran on July 19 and 20 is a potential change of policy. As is the report on July 17 that the US government intends to establish a US interests section in Tehran.

7. Clearly it is a matter of debate whether Iran is going to be attacked in the near future or not. However, STW must prepare for this possibility. For some time now STW has been winning signatories to a ‘pledge’ to respond to an attack upon Iran. This work needs to continue. In addition, branches should ensure that they have definite plans to swiftly respond to an attack.

8. STW needs to be clear on how a broad policy of opposition to a war upon Iran can actually work. The more likely an attack upon Iran, the more the coalition will come under hostile pressure to narrow its response.

9. STW has organised around a simple platform of ‘Don’t attack Iran’, ‘No sanctions and no new intervention in Iran’. This is both principled and effective. Our opposition is directed at the aggressive policies of the British and US governments, not at dictating solutions to the internal problems of the Iranian people. An attack upon Iran will be an attack upon the Iranian people, and a denial of national sovereignty.

10. The movement against such an attack must be able to contain a complete range of opinion about the Iranian government. Those taking part will vary from those sympathetic to the Iranian government to those seeking to overthrow it. But what can unite these forces is the common hostility to other governments seeking to decide the course of Iranian history with no regard to Iranian sovereignty.

11. STW will not extend its slogans beyond those indicated above. This will not be agreeable to all those who oppose such an attack, particularly those who believe that it is equally important to oppose the Iranian government. Individuals and organisations that hold such a position have to decide whether they can or can’t work around the coalition’s clearly defined remit.

12. The guidance to branches is that the coalition wants to hear from, and work with, all the representatives of different political trends in Iranian society. But STW platforms should not be used to organise debates about the nature of the Iranian regime. We want to utilise our limited resources to organise against imperialist threats to the Iranian people. The coalition will listen to all Iranian voices, but prioritise those who accept the limits of our platform.

13. The officers of the Stop the War Coalition will examine the possibility of calling a day of action against war with Iran.

14. In the coming months we will need to ensure that the threat of an attack upon Iran remains a theme in our meetings, actions and public statements.