home

contact

action

weekly worker

respect the unity coalition

european social forum

theory

resources

what we fight for

programme

join

search

communist university

links

our history

Enjoy the
Weekly Worker?
How about showing us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a substantial amount of money. Our only source for that financial backing comes from people like you: readers and supporters of our newspaper. You may not agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma, but we know that 1000s of comrades appreciate our open, critical and democratic press

Send cheques, payable to CPGB, BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XX or donate online:

Weekly Worker 555 Thursday December 2 2004

Stop the War Coalition reports

Sheffield

Opposite illusions

On Thursday November 23 around 70 people gathered for a meeting organised by Sheffield University Stop the War Coalition. Included amongst them were CPGB, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party and Workers Power members, as well as many unaffiliated individuals. After a few technical problems with the sound system the meeting got underway, chaired by a prominent local SWP member.

The first speaker was Dr Saloum Ismael, a member of Doctors for Iraqi Society and eyewitness of recent events in Fallujah. In a harrowing speech he outlined his interpretation of the assault, claiming the British media had showed “less than one-10th of the tip of iceberg”. Despite being a doctor Ismael was arrested several times, his house raided four times and both him and his father subjected to degrading treatment. Since entering Fallujah in March Ismael witnessed systematic abuses, such as the closing of the bridge to the hospital, the bombing of civilians (50% of casualties were women), the cutting of water supplies and the destruction of 20 mosques. Compelling photographic evidence substantiated many of these claims. In terms of casualties Dr Ismael gives figures of 750 killed and 1,800 injured. In addition there are 50,000 refugees with little food and insufficient shelter - a dire position with winter approaching and reports of typhoid outbreaks.

Ismael claimed that the occupation was creating unity amongst Iraqis and that supposed divisions and the risk of civil war between sunni and shi’ite had been largely fabricated by America. True, it is in US interests not only to sow divisions, but to exaggerate them so as to stress its own role as ‘peacemaker’ and ‘bringer of democracy’, but that should not lead anti-imperialists to pretend such divisions do not exist. Overall, however, Ismael offered important insights into events in Fallujah, although it was not backed up by any real political analysis other than quoting Noam Chomsky. Ismael’s answers to the ‘What can we do?’ type of question were to promote “awareness” and “try to help people”.

The next speaker was Tom Whitaker, a member of the Stop the War Coalition’s steering committee and the National Union of Students. Whitaker gave the usual pacifist-type speech on how war is bad, 100,000 killed, etc, but again no real examination of the political and economic basis of the war and occupation. He made the point that the combination of the anti-war movement and the Iraqi resistance was “holding in check” the imperialist ambitions of Bush and his neo-conservative clique.

The main thrust of Whitaker’s speech was to emphasise the need to build the London demonstration called for March 19, the international day of action declared by the European Social Forum. Certainly we should mobilise for this demonstration, but surely the fundamental lesson of the February 15 2003 demonstration was that we did not stop the war. Particularly in a state with such a huge democratic deficit numbers on the streets alone are not enough. According to Whitaker, our role was to try and get “our” government to bring “our” troops home. Of course we should be calling for the imperialist forces to be withdrawn (from all countries), but on a working class, internationalist basis, not that of implying some common, cross-class ‘national interest’.

The final speaker was Labour MP Alan Simpson. His speech was typical left Labour fare, replete with illusions in the United Nations and the Geneva convention as vehicles for progressive social change. Perhaps rather incongruously comrade Simpson stated of Iraq: “If I was there, I would be in the resistance.” Yes, but which specific component of “the resistance” should working class politicians support?

Bemoaning the American election results, Simpson criticised Kerry’s failure to embrace an anti-war position (“crap results between crap candidates in a dodgy election”). He called for the withdrawal of pension funds from the USA as a way of pressurising George Bush (“If we stop paying, they have to stop playing”). Surely in that case “we” should withdraw funds from Britain too.

Frankly there is a degree of clutching at straws in all this - hardly surprising in the absence of a confident working class movement. However, the truth is the only way imperialism can be defeated is through the efforts of the international working class, first and foremost in the exploiter countries themselves. Which then is the correct path - propaganda for revolutionary defeatism or liberal phrase-mongering?

Simpson quoted Tony Benn as saying there were “too many socialist parties and not enough socialists” - the conclusion we were supposed to draw being that the left had failed and should be considered irrelevant, and that the answer lay within Labourism. I could not agree more with the Benn quote, which is precisely why Britain needs one workers’ party operating on the principles of democratic centralism.
Only 10 to 15 minutes were allowed for contributions from the floor. Alistair Tice, full-time Socialist Party activist, was the first to speak and emphasised the role of the trade unions in Iraq. Whilst clearly the unions are an important area for the left in general, the Socialist Party’s overemphasis on them is indicative of its economistic outlook. Several speakers, prominent SWPers included, gave typical back-slapping speeches. One student member of Sheffield University Stop the War Coalition called for opposition to all armed resistance, claiming: “If there wasn’t one gun in Fallujah, they wouldn’t have attacked it.”

Such idealistic pacifism is just as impotent as the approach of the SWP and the like - giving uncritical (if sometimes unspoken) support to all those elements, however reactionary, engaged in fighting the US-UK forces. For example, one comrade challenged Tom Whitaker to answer the question, “Does the Stop the War Coalition support the armed resistance?” Whitaker said the STWC supported the Iraqi people “in whatever methods they chose to use”.

The central question in Iraq is the building of a mass-based political movement, led by the working class, to defeat the occupation and, of course, in current circumstances it is absolutely essential that such a movement be armed - not only to defend itself against the imperialists, but also against the reactionary islamists and Ba’athists.

A number of people, myself included, were not called to speak and there was very little by way of concrete answers from the platform speakers in their replies. I am aware the meeting had overrun and that the room had only been booked for a certain time, but this is not an excuse for stifling debate.

Ted North

Hackney

Difficult questions

The Stop the War Coalition appears to be making efforts to re-ignite the campaign against the occupation of Iraq. The November 29 public meeting in Hackney was part of a series being held nationally whose main focus is to build for the March 19 demonstration as part of a global day of action. There is also a ‘national day of disobedience’ planned in February. As usual the emphasis is on size and the mood of the main component part of the STWC, the Socialist Workers Party, is determinedly short-termist.

The 100 or so people present heard from a variety of speakers. Sami Ramadani, an Iraqi political exile known for his critical articles in The Guardian and Socialist Worker, began by calling for the immediate withdrawal of occupation troops. He argued that the war depended on lies and distortions and that the existence of terror gangs in Iraq had been greatly exaggerated. He also believed that the gangs who killed Margaret Hassan and other hostages formed a tiny minority and did not have the support of the people. In fact it was far more to the advantage of the occupation forces to have such killings take place, as it helped feed their propaganda about the ‘war on terror’. The CIA are running a massive operation in Iraq and it may well be that these killings form part of that operation, he claimed.

He also described what he called a ‘divide and rule’ tactic, where the occupation forces postponed attacks on the southern cities and targeted Fallujah and Baghdad. They wanted to portray themselves as the custodians of peace. In fact the opposite was true and the longer the allied forces stayed in Iraq, the longer the war would go on.

Eddie Cherry of UK Veterans for Peace joined him on the platform. This organisation was set up very recently and works with Military Families Against War. He spoke with anger and passion about the situation for working class men who have joined the army. Many ordinary soldiers are not given standard-issue body armour - leading to a number of deaths, including that of Gordon Gentle, whose mother, Rose, has been campaigning for the troops to be brought back since he was killed. Cherry tried to show “the other side of being in the army” - the high suicide rate among veterans as well as the 9,000 who suffer from Gulf War Syndrome. Those who did not want to fight in this “illegal and horrific war” should exercise their right to conscientious objection and refuse to go.

Ewa Jasiewicz, an activist from the Iraq Occupation Focus who had spent eight months in Iraq, then spoke about the privatisation and business deals being imposed by the puppet government. She gave the example of ‘order 39’, which privatised the oil industry and allowed 100% profit repatriation to overseas companies. Income tax for companies operating within Iraq has been reduced from 45% to a mere 15%. She described what she called the “bomb and build” tactic and the ensuing suffering of the Iraqi people as their rights are trampled on.

Chris Nineham rounded off the speakers list. He talked about the news blackout and the lack of any balanced reporting. However, he believed that the resistance was growing in strength. So too was the opposition to the war in Britain. He mentioned a recent poll, which said that 57% of people are against the war. This was far more than in 2003, when the mass demonstrations took place. He believed that the Blair government was adding to the opposition by their so-called ‘war on terror’. This had caused tension and polarisation and it was all leading to a massive outburst of anger. He was certain that this would result in a major demonstration on March 19.

As usual the debate from the floor was dominated by SWP members with pre-set contributions. Julie Waterson and others refused to concede that there were difficult issues. What then should the STWC’s attitude be towards kidnappings and videoed executions? What about the Iraqi trade union movement? What about the danger of another Iran? And surely the anti-war movement needs to become a movement for democracy if it is going to challenge the system that produces and fosters war. All this was dismissed by Chris Nineham and other SWP members who believe that the movement is everything and the final aim nothing.

Certainly, it seems that the mood is hardening, particularly among military families. A member of the local Territorial Army was present and anxious to get involved. Military Families Against War will be targeting all local TA headquarters over the next few months in an effort to win them over. But there are important arguments yet to be won, not least within the trade union movement. Principal among these has got to be the issue of whether there should be a phased withdrawal in the line with the requirements of imperialism or the call for troops out now. It is certainly not the case that simply by building demonstrations we will win the struggle. What about the political alternative? There was no mention or sign of Respect. It appears that it has been sidelined until after March 19.

If the initiative to rebuild the movement is to be serious, it must tackle difficult questions. To begin with, the leadership of the STWC must allow democracy within its ranks so that these burning issues can be debated.

Anne Mc Shane

Print this page