 |
 |
Dear Fisher,Divya, Dave etc... I agree with most of what you have said about Galloway. In his defence, though, he insists his infamous 'we stand by you' was a plural 'you' to the Iraqi people, not a personal message to Hussein, and he was involved with protests against British support of his regime before 1991. Nonetheless, he could certainly have been more vocal in his condemnation of the government of Iraqi during the 1990s. However, the question is not simply do we agree entirely with someone's position, but to what extent we support those in the same broad movement even when we might disapprove of their tactics or positions. Thus, for example, four people are up before the magistrates in Cambridge this week on a charge of obstructing traffic in anti-war sit-downs. Some in the local anti-war movement here didn't think it was the right tactic done in the right way at that moment, but are providing moral support in the trial anyway. Likewsie Galloway and helping fund his court case, reservations notwithstanding. But how far does that go? This issue came up in a more vexed debate on Hizb-ut Tahrir last year, and there is a geography to this: the same group might be more or less progressive / regressive in a different place (eg their Wembly stadium anti-homosexual tirades, or as a grassroots movement opposing human rights abuses in Uzbekistan). I don't think there are any easy answers. We draw lines in the sand- the closer they are to us, the purer we may be, but the less inclusive the movement we will build. For all the massive susccess in organisation and mobilisation, the anti-war movment failed to get enough votes in the commons. It seems a number of Labour MPs supported Blair because they saw in the anti-war movement a hidden agenda to challenge Blair's leadership: in which case, Dave, the strength of your objection to the central role of Galloway et al is illustrated. Where does the anti-war movement go from here? Thanks for the E.P.Thompson ref and the ENDS comparisom, Dave -as for the February 15th march, who would you have liked to have seen on the podium speaking? Divya, I agree with you about the SWP and their ability to form the national Stop-he-War Coalition. However, I have more problems with the way that goals were set and slogans chosen. A SWC leader spoke at Cambridgelast week, and he did just that: spoke, not listened to other views on tactics and directions. why isn't there a word 'listensperson' in our language? Nick --On Tuesday, July 01, 2003, 1:11 PM +0100 "Dave Featherstone" <[log in to unmask] AC.UK> wrote: > 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 >> --On 01 July 2003 15:33 +0100 FISHER MICHAEL D <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I agree with much of what has been said on Galloway... > > It is perhaps an indication of the political-organisational weakness > of the left/anti-war movement that such a 'maverick figure' (to be > polite) has come to assume such a pivotal public role in the debate > on the war and the nature of the Labour Party and Labour > government. > > I, and most of the people I know, opposed the war without seeing fit > to give any ground whatsoever to the brutal Iraqi regime - a regime > that Galloway was, at the very least, happy to be wined and dined > by, while mass graves were being filled with Sadam's opponents. > > Galloway is, to say the least, guilty of a knee-jerk petulance > common among some on the left that sides uncritically with almost > any force that stands in opposition to imperialism -even when such > forces often have the blood of thousands of socialists, trade > unionists and human rights activists on their hands. > > While his opposition to the war has taken some guts, as has his > opposition to some Labour government policies, his credibility is > undermined by the weaknesses of his alternatives. > > I can't quite bring myself to donate to his legal campaign, or > advocate that others do so. > > Michael. > > > > > > > > > Date sent: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:04:24 +0100 > Send reply to: Divya Tolia-Kelly <[log in to unmask]> > From: Divya Tolia-Kelly <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > > Thanks Dave . . > > It is true that the leadership of E.P. Thomson is lacking here in the > Galloway case , but he has continued to politically active as a Labour > M.P. in opposing Blair's illegal agenda, and has shown himself to nbe one > of few to stand as a representative of his constituency, and really > represent thier anti-war feeling. He is a thorn in the side of the Labour > party because he has exposed thier lack of parliamentary / democratic > consideration of the millions of voices on these anti-war demos. So in > this instance Galloway may have limited the debate bacuse of the > limitations of his political vision, but he has been a singular voice, a > rare example of an MP who has spoken out and mobilised on the ground . . > he has argued the difficult line of being against the victimisation of > the Iraqi people for Oil. > > The difficulty is that when there is an organised grouping (however much > we object to the beaureacratisation of collective action) a 'face' or an > ellected leader emerges . . often most of us fail to stand as one, > therefore the Galloway's of this world fill the void .. . very much like > in local trade union activism, the fulkl time official isn't always the > one that has the political experience or vision but the one that > volunteered to do the job that the rest of us failed to volunteer for. As > a revisionist Galloway has been an effective opposing voice from Gulf War > in 1992, in the Iran-Iraq war . . and taken a politically precarious > position against the Labour executive . . a rare event. So although it is > true . . tyhat in an ideal world of democratic organisation we shouldn't > 'need' Galloway, here without him the supporters he brings with him (some > of whom are simply jaded Labour party hacks, and others of whom are > Glasgows radical left) provide the basis of a braoadening the coalition . > . I agree not always visionary . . and doesn't always go far enough . . > (will read that article Dave, Thank you) > > Anyway . . I think we should send the bucket around to support him at the > next IBG . . his legal campaign . . as an act of political support to > someone being picked off by a multimillion dollar action. > > Divya > > 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 > Dr Michael Fisher > Business School > Greenwich University > London SE10 9LS > > Tel: 0208 331 9740