08.03.2012

Doing their job

Tina Becker's speech to the 2012 STWC conference on behalf of the CPGB

This is one of the very few controversial motions at this conference, so I hope the chair will use his discretion to allow an actual debate on this issue. In short, two organisations have not been allowed to be officially present here today. I am not just a member of the CPGB, but also of Hands Off the People of Iran, which was never allowed to affiliate. The CPGB(ML) - which is very different from the CPGB, sharing nothing with us but part of the name - was expelled last September (after having been an official affiliate for many years).

In both cases, the reason cited was that the organisations were “publicly attacking the Stop the War Coalition” or, as Lindsey German put it earlier on, they had used language that was “not acceptable”. Well, what is a public attack? That’s quite hard to define, isn’t it? Were they sabotaging STWC events? No. Did they call on people to leave the STWC? Form a rival organisation? No. Were they in breach of the aims and the constitution of the coalition? Not even that.

No, in reality, we are talking about political criticism. The CPGB(ML) criticised the STWC for not actively siding with the Libyan government of colonel Gaddafi (and they used quite colourful language, as often happens when there are disagreements). It is a view I find absolutely risible and I’m glad it was voted down earlier on today. But is that a reason to expel an organisation? Hardly.

In the case of Hopi, we are campaigning for the view that the anti-war movement should actively support the people of Iran against their dictators, while also fighting against war and sanctions. You voted against that position this morning, which obviously is your right. However, Lindsey said earlier on that there are “very different views on Iran” represented in the STWC. This one isn’t! But Hopi is clearly a legitimate part of the anti-war movement and should be officially represented: for example, PCS, Aslef and the Green Party are nationally affiliated. When parliament debated the latest threats against Iran last week, it was Hopi that prepared the briefing paper for John McDonnell MP.

Hopi is clear - and totally agrees with the STWC on this: the main enemy is imperialism. Hopi is totally opposed to the drive towards war and the use of sanctions. Hopi also meets all the criteria of membership outlined in the STWC’s aims and objectives. These in fact state that “supporters of the coalition, whether organisations or individuals, will, of course, be free to develop their own analyses and organise their own actions”. Which is precisely what Hopi and the CPGB(ML) have done.

The STWC was set up as a broad and inclusive organisation, to gather together as many anti-war activists and organisations as possible. And, as Tony Benn put it earlier on, it is an anti-war organisation, not “an ideologically pure” coalition. For example, I have very little sympathy for the politics of the CPGB(ML) - and vice versa, I presume. I also think the Coalition Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran is very soft on the Iranian regime. There are lots of different views and organisations in this room, but all are agreed that imperialism is our main enemy.

And yet some organisations are allowed to be officially represented here and others aren’t. It seems to me we are weakening our own forces if we pick and choose what is a ‘good’ anti-war organisation and what isn’t. We are on a very dangerous trajectory by doing this - we are actually doing the job of our opponents.

Surely our anti-war movement must be healthy enough to absorb such criticism and be able to think, openly debate and take its politics seriously. That’s why we want the officers to look again at these issues and overturn the ban on these two organisations .