06.05.2009

Differences 'no barrier' for us

Hands Off the People of Iran has received a letter from Andrew Murray, chair of the STWC, concerning Hopi's affiliation. Mark Fischer replies

Obviously, the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition feels very vulnerable about their continued refusal to recommend acceptance of the affiliation of Hopi. The comrades have made themselves look ludicrous in the movement by their stubborn refusal to include our campaign - and clearly, they are coming to realise that themselves. The short letter from Andrew Murray - coalition chair and prominent member of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain - represents a welcome backtracking from the altogether more hostile stance in 2007, when Hopi was first barred.

Back then, comrade Murray sent Hopi and Communist Students (which was excluded as part of the same bureaucratic package) more or less identical letters, which stated that “a study of statements and articles issued by your organisation show that you are entirely hostile to the coalition, its policies and its work … Under these circumstances, it is impossible to regard your application as in any way supportive or sympathetic” (see Weekly Worker October 11 2007).

Now, it seems, these “statements and articles” which defined Hopi as “entirely hostile” in 2007 have morphed into the altogether more benign form of “political differences” which - “while real and serious” - do not “constitute a barrier to [Hopi’s] affiliation”. Where comrade Murray told the 2007 conference that to welcome Hopi would be to “import crippling division” (Weekly Worker November 1 2007), now these “differences can be addressed within the Coalition’s structures”!

We are seriously being asked to believe that the only reason why the officers of the STWC now want to see Hopi excluded is a series of statements which I made in a Communist Party membership aggregate on January 14 2007 (Weekly Worker January 18 2007). That is, nine months before the STWC conference and nearly a year before the actual founding conference of Hopi, in December of 2007 (Weekly Worker December 13 2007).

I remind readers that the CPGB - the organisation I was addressing when I made these comments (and the assembled comrades did not exactly drown me out with outraged heckles) - has remained an STWC affiliate throughout this whole period. I would also add, however, that I continue to think that the leadership of STWC has “rotten politics”. It is no secret. CPGB writers in the Weekly Worker, including myself, strive to expose the crass opportunism of the SWP and the Morning Star’s CPB - John Rees, Lindsey German, Chris Nineham and Andrew Murray not excepted. Behind the anti-imperialist rhetoric there lurks apologetics for reaction and a worrying appetite for class-collaborationism.

As for Hopi providing an “alternative political centre”, it should be noted that at our last AGM there was a proposal to that effect. It did not come from me or the CPGB. It received just one vote. So Hopi is unambiguously committed to fighting from within STWC. As national secretary of Hopi that is a policy I support. That is, if we were allowed to affiliate.

The STWC leadership is being inconsistent. Perversely, Communist Students (also dubbed “entirely hostile” to the coalition in 2007, remember) has been accepted as an affiliate this year without even a raised eyebrow from the STWC officers. (In formal terms, of course, this is a breach of the democracy of the movement, as it was the 2007 AGM that originally disbarred CS. It was not within the remit of the officers, therefore, to actually accept CS’s affiliation - not that the CS comrades are complaining, of course.)

Transparently, this is all confused nonsense which can only bring the coalition into disrepute. The STWC leadership is insulting the intelligence of activists in the movement if it expects them to swallow this. All comrades need do, after all, is read the reports from the 2007 conference in this paper, which detailed the arguments put forward then for the rejection of Hopi’s affiliation. It fell to Steve Bell of the Communication Workers Union and Socialist Action to explain on behalf of the leadership why the inclusion of our campaign would be tantamount to “accepting serious conflict and disruption” into the coalition.

Concretely, comrade Bell informed conference that:

l Hopi would introduce a “pointless debate” in the ranks of the anti-war movement and distract it from its main goals - clearly a reference to our open hostility to the Tehran regime and insistence that our real anti-imperialist allies are to be found in the ranks of the democratic and workers’ movements that the theocracy is systematically and brutally oppressing.

l It was “absolutely clear that Hopi is a front organisation for the Weekly Worker, set up in opposition to the coalition”. Quoting my remarks to the 2007 CPGB aggregate, comrade Bell told the STWC delegates that they were made at “the founding conference of Hopi” - deliberate or not, clearly a total misrepresentation.

l The CPGB and Hopi even go so far as to “characterise Campaign Iran as apologists” for the Tehran regime (it is - MF). This is appalling, as “We should not be telling the people of Iran what kind of government they should have” (all quotes from Weekly Worker November 1 2007).

It is crystal clear that the growing success of Hopi has rattled the STWC leadership. The affiliation of major unions such as PCS and Aslef; the partisan adherence of the leader of the Labour left, John McDonnell (who co-authored Hopi’s original protest letter against this year’s exclusion); Hopi’s record of unflinching opposition to any imperialist intervention in Iran, whether it takes the form of military strike or sanctions - and our exposure of those elements in the workers’ movement that have provided a left cover for these; our record of solidarity with the struggles of the women’s, workers’, students’ and LBGT movements in Iran itself - all of this makes a mockery of comrade Bell’s idiotic charge that Hopi is a “front” for the CPGB with no other purpose than a sectarian project to simply be “in opposition to the coalition” and bring “disruption” into its ranks.

In my opinion, the Hopi steering committee should write, yet again, to the STWC asking for talks to clarify the issues and with a view to hopefully “[overcome] the differences” between the two organisations. I think we should underline that, while there are important political differences, these do not include nonsense about Hopi’s supposed status as a CPGB “front organisation” or the fact that I am critical of the politics of the STWC leadership. The STWC prides itself on its  broadness. That ought to mean that there is room enough for Hopi.

Andrew Murray’s letter

Dear colleagues

As you may know by now, the Stop the War Coalition conference last weekend overwhelmingly rejected your application for affiliation.

The officers had hoped that the issue could be remitted to allow correspondence to continue with a view to overcoming the differences between us. However, the movers of the motion seeking your affiliation (the CPGB) declined to do so, as was their right, so the issue was put to a vote.

I should make it clear that it is the view of the officers that the political differences between STWC and Hopi, while real and serious, do not constitute a barrier to your affiliation. Such differences can be addressed within the coalition’s structures.

The problem is, and remains, the hostile attitude towards the coalition publicly expressed by your national secretary, an attitude Hopi collectively seems unwilling to disassociate itself from. Until you are able to do so, there is no point in considering further any application for your affiliation.

Several of your letters have suggested that Hopi is being singled out for special treatment from the officers. To the extent that this is true, it is because we have had no other applications for affiliation from an organisation that is described by its own national secretary as constituting an “alternative political centre” to the “rotten politics” coalition within the anti-war movement.

If and when Hopi is prepared to address this last issue seriously, then we can, of course, consider a more positive relationship.

April 30