Divya, Nick etc...
I agree that that the flaws of Galloway and the SWP are minor compared
to the sins of US imperialism.
I would however disagree completely with the analysis that
'The Stop the War coalition needed Galloway . . . .'
There is always going to be the risk that leaders/ prominent speakers
etc
are going to be pilloried/ discredited by media etc which is hostile
to
antiwar movements etc. But to my mind this is why it was a gross error
of judgement on the part of the Stop the War coalition to allow
someone
to be put up as a key speaker for the movement - who had such a
discredited record vis a vis the regime in Baghdad...Regardless of
whether
or not he took money from the regime he had been filmed praising the
Iraqi leader in no uncertain terms...
This is why I think the comparison with ENDS is relevant - the
movement
for European Nuclear Disarmament bascially formed alliances between
New Left anti-nuclear campaigners in Western Europe and dissidents
fighting the regimes in Eastern Europe. Through doing so they
articulated
an innovative position which was hostile to both sides in the Cold
War-
and neatly circumvented the Communist sympathiser charges that were
always hurled at CND... ENDS is vulnerable to being depicted as a semi
personalised project of EP Thompson as he took such a lead role in it
- he
claimed somewhere that he thought ENDS had been a key actor in the
end of the cold war- and he writes about it in his collection of peace
essays Zero Option...
It was this innovative set of alliances and the formation of political
identities which refused the binary oppositions of the cold war which
I
think are relevant here... I think the likes of Galloway and Benn
closed down the possibilities of articulating the opposition in this
way...I
don't really care that much about political leadership- but I'm still
gobsmacked that this was a mass movement - biggest political
demonstration we may ever see in London and in terms of the speakers/
leadership there was very little that represented this...
Dave
----------------- reply -------------
> Nick, Dave . .
>
> I think that the circumstances of the Galloway saga, mirror
questions
that
> are important in considering tactical alliances in collective
struggle
> against something like American Imperialism especially when it is
supported
> daily through media propoganda which supports unquestioningly the
American
> line on -the existence of WMD in Iraq and now Iran; the exclusive
right
of
> the West to secure WMDs to use against (illegally, and
indescriminately)
> against any nation which is usefull to the Imperialist agenda. At
the
end
> of the day to challenge it means to expose the lies and to build a
coherent
> - united front to maximise the effect of an Anti-War/ Imperialist
movement.
> The problem is that individuals are strengthened by fighting under a
banner
> - effective organisationally, but divisive in a 'popular front'
situation.
> As activists it is important to keep sight of the bigger struggle,
because
> a tirade against Galloway in the face of American corruption doesn't
help
> the fact that an attack on Galloway, is an example of the lengths
that
the
> American state will go to to occlude the truth, and to stamp out any
mass
> mobilisation. Thier aim is to discredit the individual and to
tarnish the
> credibility of organisers/ leaders of opposition movements, this is
a
> common tactic on thier part (Anti-Poll Tax/ Anti-Capitalism
moivements
> included).
>
> In the same way the SWP is an organised group which has been
consistent in
> its Anti-Imperialist stance - In this war, the last gulf war and has
> consistently argued against sanctions placed on the Iraqis in the
> intervening period. The SWP have also been consistent in organising
> locally, exposing government cuts in education, and health. As
activists
we
> may not sign up to the banner of the SWP, or the Galloway fan club,
but
> both has value as critical neccessities in any organised anti-war/
> Imperialist movement. The Stop the War coalition needed Galloway . .
..
..
> and the left in general needs activists on the ground to build a
challenge
> to both domestic and international injustices. There is no effect in
> exacerbating sectarian differences, only in addressing points at
which
we
> can build alliances and effective political action.
>
> With regards this group gaining 'personal capital' I think this is a
myth -
> Like any Trotskyist party the SWP sees itself as a vanguard party -
a
> source of history, knowledge and experience in building an active
network
> of trade unionists. In my view this doesn't build 'personal
capital', but
> builds a larger movement . . with a membership that is active daily
I
don't
> feel threatened by thier activism. I am pleased that they exist and
are
> active so that we have a basis for building collective action
against
> issues like the Galloway injustice, and the current activities of
the Bush
> corporation. In short for building an effective movrement on the
Left
the
> faults of Galloway and the SWP are miniscule in the face of the
power
of
> the American state and its anti internationalist agenda, and the
resources
> it has at hand to smash any opposition to it.
>
> Divya
>
>
>
>
> >Dave,
> >
> >Thanks for this useful point- it returns to the recurring question
about
> >how broad a spectrum of alliances we feel we can engage in. I think
it
is
> >pretty remarkable that a group of SWP folk and the odd CP member,
with
> >support of people as 'colourful' (to put it politely) as Galloway,
and
the
> >alliance with the Muslim Association of Britian (which made many
people
> >uncomfortable), could form the core of a group like the
> >Stop-The-War-Coalition that was able to mobilise more than a
million
people
> >onto the streets. These groups could have tried to make more
personal
> >capital out of it than they did (although here Galloway may indeed
be
an
> >exception).
> >
> >I don't know much about the END; do tell me more, and what lessons
you
> >think can be learnt for the current anti-war movement.
> >
> >What do list members think about the SWC, participation in it, and
its
> >future role in the broad anti-war / anti-globalization movements?
> >
> >Nick
> >
> >>
> >> i think it was actually damaging to the anti-war movement to
have
> >>someone with his record and style, and with such a compromised
> >>attitude
> >>to Hussain taking such a strong leadership role...I think it
closed
> >>down
> >>the possibilities of developing a more nuanced opposition which
was
> >>against both Hussain and Bush/ Blair- the kind of imaginative
> >>geography
> >>of resistance pioneered by groups like the campaign for European
> >>Nuclear
> >>Disarmament (END) in the cold war...
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>----------------- reply -------------
> >>>I believe that independent auditors cleared Galloway of all
charges
> >>in
> >>>regard to war on want.
> >>>
> >>>He met Saddam Hussein twice, the same number of times as Donald
> >>Rumsfled.
> >>>The latter met him to sell weapons and back his war on Iran; the
> >>former to
> >>>try and mediate the impacts and effects of war.
> >>>
> >>>I agree, he is a self-publicist, and his champagne-socialist
> >>lifestyle does
> >>>little to endear him to me. Nonetheless, he has been an
important
> >>and
> >>>persistent voice in the anti-war movement.
> >>>
> >>>I guess the hat won't be passed round at the IBG, then :-)
> >>>
> >>>Nick
> >>>
> >>>--On 26 June 2003 11:32 +0000 Jon Cloke
<[log in to unmask]>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > I agree completely; George Galloway's been a relentless
> >>self-publicist
> >>> > for a number of years who apparently believes that the more
times
> >>he gets
> >>> > on TV the better for the Iraqi people, which is a dubious
> >>proposition
> >>to
> >>> > say the least - and his fawning on Saddam Hussein was
something
> >>suitable
> >>> > only for those with a very strong stomach.
> >>> >
> >>> > These allegations were to my mind always going to prove false,
as
> >>the ones
> >>> > made by the Telegraph will be, but that doesn't alter the fact
> >>that
> >>> > Galloway's made a large amount of money over the last few
years in
> >>
> >>his
> >>> > role as professional dissident, for very little benefit to the
> >>people he
> >>> > claims to represent.
> >>> >
> >>> > Let him fund his defence out of his own deep pockets.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Jon Cloke
> >>> >
> >>> >
>
>>___________________________________________________________
__
> >>____
> >>> > Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
> >>> > http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess
>
> Divya Tolia-Kelly (Dr)
>
> Lecturer in Human Geography
> Department of Geography,
> University College London,
> 26 Bedford Way,
> London WC1H 0AP.
> United Kingdom.
>
> tel: +44 (0)20 7679 7586
> fax: +44 (0)20 7679 7565
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~dtkelly
>
|
