Skip to content or view screen version

Stop the War Coalition’s humble appeal to Labour’s “new Prime Minister”

Chris Marsden | 21.04.2007 19:25

With public hostility to the Labour government threatening it with electoral meltdown on May 3, who can save it from a well of deep-felt anger that is primarily the result of Britain’s participation in the ongoing war against Iraq?

Step forward the Stop the War Coalition. The group, in the name of its president Tony Benn, chair Andrew Murray and convenor Lindsey German, has launched a campaign claiming that—with Prime Minister Tony Blair about to step down—war in Iraq and hostilities against Iran can be opposed by a humble appeal to his successor for a change in foreign policy.

The appeal centres on a petition in the form of a “Declaration to the new Prime Minister” stating,

We urge you on behalf of millions of British voters to:

1. Withdraw British troops from Iraq no later than October 2007.

2. Declare that this country will not participate in any attack against Iran.

3. Pursue a foreign policy independent of the administration of the United States of America.

The call for an independent foreign policy is designed so as not to distinguish the views of the millions opposed not only to the Iraq adventure, but any imperialist and militarist foreign policy, from those whose major complaint against Blair is that he has damaged the global influence and interests of British imperialism. This latter group encompasses sections of the civil service and foreign policy establishment and even the military, and includes those amongst whom the coalition is especially interested in winning influence—the Labour Party’s declining left rump and the trade union bureaucracy.

The Stop the War Coalition has no small difficulty in selling the idea that Chancellor Gordon Brown, who without a major upset is likely to succeed Blair, will break from policies that he has fully supported.

In an attempt to do so, Murray and German have drafted a letter to all affiliated groups, which acknowledges that “Brown has been at the Prime Minister’s right hand throughout the decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, it is our conviction that mass pressure, combined with electoral self-interest, can force the British government to break from George Bush’s wars.”

They then urge a united effort to ensure that their Open Letter to the new prime minister is “endorsed by as many Labour MPs, Labour councillors, constituency and branch officials, and officials in affiliated [to the Labour Party] trade unions as possible.”

Naturally, to be endorsed by so many Labourites all criticism of the party, which voted in favour of war alongside Blair and Brown, must be avoided. Iraq and Afghanistan are “Bush’s wars” and the order of the day is the adoption of an “independent”—i.e., unspecified other than it being British— foreign policy.

When it comes to formulating an appeal to Labour Party MPs and lesser apparatchiks, there is no room for even the mild rebuke of Blair and Brown. They are asked only to “endorse” the declaration, while being told that its presentation will be made only “after the conclusion of the leadership election.”

Such reassurances are aimed at making clear that the coalition is not interfering in the leadership contest, even to the extent of calling for a vote for those that pass themselves off as left candidates opposed to the continued occupation of Iraq—John McDonnell and Michael Meacher. The coalition leadership must calculate that neither has any substantial support in the party and the trade unions hierarchy and that their appeal must avoid any hint of genuine opposition to a Labour government.

It is for this same reason that this letter is also signed by Benn, the 82-year-old former MP and elder-statesman of the Labour left—a man whose loyalty to the party is his overriding principle.

The Stop the War Coalition is led politically by an alliance of the Socialist Workers Party, in the person of German, and what remains of the Stalinist Communist Party of Britain, in the person of Murray, who is also a leading trade union functionary. In 2003, these forces found themselves in the leadership of a mass antiwar movement precisely because the war was being waged by a Labour government and allowed to go ahead by a trade union bureaucracy that refused to mobilise against it.

The SWP in particular played a politically criminal role in preventing antiwar sentiment from becoming the starting point of a political movement of the working class against Labour. They insisted that there was no possibility of the struggle against war being conducted on the basis of socialism. It must formulate demands that could be supported by everyone, including the coalitions other major affiliates, the pacifist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Muslim Association of Britain, a small group of Arab Islamists that portrayed the Iraq war in religious terms.

Above all, the SWP gave pride of place to any Labourite who would still register a protest against war, provided that they were not called on to politically oppose the government or break with it. Every official placard was a denunciation of “Bliar” and not his government.

Since 2003, the Stop the War Coalition has continued to plough the same furrow, disillusioning tens of thousands of working people and youth in the process. Like the Grand Old Duke of York, they have marched them up to the top of the hill, again and again and again—insisting against all evidence to the contrary that “mass pressure” and “electoral self-interest” will force the government to listen to the will of the people.

This appeal to the Labourites worried about their electoral fortunes now reveals its fundamental purpose. It is an attempt to preserve and restore the political grip of Labour and the trade unions over the working class at a time of crisis that is on the brink of becoming terminal. It marks out the STWC, the SWP and its front party Respect as the last line of defence of the bureaucracy and resolute opponents of any expression of independent political action by the working class.

Chris Marsden

Comments

Hide the following 16 comments

Bravo

21.04.2007 20:27

Definitely needed saying again and you said it well. One criticism of the STWC petition that you missed out is the senselessness of keeping the troops in Iraq while not supporting an attack on Iran. If the US bombs Iran, UK troops will be on the frontline of a major war with Iran whether Brown supports it or not.

The same goes for Robin Cooks headstone epitaph "I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war". If the US bombs Iran then the UK forces will be at de facto war with Iran since they are facing them today as part of the 'coalition'. Once British troops are attacked or witness their 'allies' under fire, there will be no vote, attacking Iran will be 'an act of self-defence'.

So why call for a return of our troops in October 2007 ? It is senseless or it is treacherous. So could this indicate September be a more likely date for strikes than the obviously leaked April dates ? Western troops aren't comfortable fighting in the middle-eastern summer heat.

Danny


very well put

21.04.2007 20:33

I totally agree, and your article's excellently written.

For an account of how exactly the same forces played a role in holding back any serious opposition to fascists in Newcastle last weekend, see:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368242.html

The big question I think your article leaves unanswered is what to do about it? Say I wasn't politically active, thought your article was spot on, and wanted to do something about it? Maybe you could put on at least a link to something you would suggest people could get involved in?
Just a thought.

admirer
mail e-mail: frfi_northeast@yahoo.com
- Homepage: http://www.frfinortheast.co.uk


DIY

21.04.2007 21:46

I admire your link, but don't rely on others to do what you know needs to be done.

I was abroad when I read of a BNP rally in a local city. I was visiting a country where the anarchists organised their own 'fight-clubs'. I can't fight much but I don't back down. Without any organistation I scared the BNP away. I contacted the message boards of the football forums in that city, young men who enjoy fighting or at least know how and why to. I contacted a few relatives and friends and one or two anti-fash groups. We knew where the BNP were marching so we passed on info and broke down into little groups arranging our own tactics and preparations.

I posted a single message on the fash boards letting them know they would be stopped. We showed up, about 30 strong. They never. They are only brave when they out-number you - but you don't need a group behind you to win the streets from them. You can build a group quickly for any purpose. Nobody likes a fascist.

danny


Admirer: what is to be done...?

22.04.2007 12:02

The article is posted from the World Socialist Website, so I suppose the response is supposed to be 'join the Socialist Equality Party'. Not really for anarchists then.

Rich
- Homepage: http://www.wsws.org


"Stopping" the War

22.04.2007 18:38

I agree with this article. The Stop the War Coalition appear to be grovelling to the Pro-War Party simply because it is the beloved party of the 'left'. It horrifying to see the anti-war movement repeatedly engaging in activities which have not and will not succeed in stopping any war. Especially when there are so many non-violent campaigning tactics that they could engage with.

...sign the petition, write that letter to pro-war party/polician, watch the casualty figures continue to rise. Respond by marching (again and again, ... and again) and submitting to anti-democratic laws like SOCPA.

Brian B
- Homepage: http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/antiwar-discuss/


Letter to Stop the War Coalition

22.04.2007 19:39

This is my letter to the Stop the War Coalition (sent by e-mail to  office@stopwar.org.uk):

To Stop the War,

Please stop your love affair with the Pro-War Party. There are better things that those in the anti-war movement can be doing. Engaging in activities that have not and will not stop any war is counter-productive and wasting the time of campaigners. This party that you are spending so much time on is made up of war criminals who have voted for endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and continue working with their colleagues who are continuing those wars and threatening Iran.

Labour is NOT against the war. It is the architect of the middle east war and it will not stop while it is in power.

Brian B
- Homepage: http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/antiwar-discuss/


Brian B

23.04.2007 05:32

“..there are so many non-violent campaigning tactics that they could engage with…”

“..There are better things that those in the anti-war movement can be doing…”


Well, don’t keep these tactics secret. If you know how to oppose wars better than STWC you have a duty to share your wisdom with the rest of us.

If you ask me the original article was written by NuLabour…

I’m surprised and disappointed with Danny’s comment.

Marcher


I’m surprised and disappointed with Danny’s comment

23.04.2007 21:17

First, and most importantly, I am just a punter with too much time on my hands. Don't dare be surprised or disappointed at any of my comments. I am disappointed by my own comments enough for both of us.

Secondly, that website maybe socialist but lots of good anarchists are socialists and some of them contribute articles there. I am forever making the point you don't need to be a socialist or label yourself as 'left' to be an anarchist, and I get a lot of stick for doing so. I get called fascist for doing so, people equate me with Ayn Rand which is much the same thing.
The counterpoint is also true - you can be socialist and label yourself left and still be a good anarchist - hell, most of the best anarchists are also socialists in my experience. Because they are they seem to think this is a prerequisite of anarchy and it is not, but it's not a mutually exclusive thing either.

Third, that website is damn good . I hate to say it, but if it wasn't reposted here so often I'd probably start reading it. I'm guessing they pay for their articles and have editors, and IM obviously doesn't, but if you want this site to remain the best citizen-journalism around then we should learn from the successful 'opposition'. Punters like me shouldn't have to quote their articles, we should be able to quote soley from other IM articles. They should be quoting from here, and if this place keeps growing and we all take some care over our writing maybe they will.

Danny


Stopping War

23.04.2007 21:35

"Well, don’t keep these tactics secret. If you know how to oppose wars better than STWC you have a duty to share your wisdom with the rest of us."

No it is not right to put the onus for stopping the war onto one person - demanding me alone to display my 'wisdom' as you sarcastically put it. People need to get together to discuss the fact that the war has not been stopped using the current tactics - all the people in the anti-war movement. I have been consistently saying this for a long time now. It should be possible to connect thoughts together and come up with a way to stop the wars in BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq.

Brian B
- Homepage: http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/antiwar-discuss/


I ain't marchin' anymore

23.04.2007 22:32

"Well, don’t keep these tactics secret. If you know how to oppose wars better than STWC you have a duty to share your wisdom with the rest of us."

People here do share their tactics. There are plenty of examples in IM archives of better tactics that the STWC put forward. I personally can't at this moment. I would get grassed up to the police by a resident spook if I did. I would recommend everyone who does have new tactics to share here to couch them in language that you can defend in court.

So, in that spirit, lets examine past examples. In general terms, how did the French and German resistance operate to oppose the Nazis ? What have freedom fighters (as opposed to those nasty terrorists) learned since then ? That information is freely available on the net to anyone genuinely interested.

A more relevant case study perhaps would be to look at the STWC demo at Grangemouth oil refinery as the Iraq war broke out. It was called on a Saturday when there was no workers there. It was barely publicised but still drew a lot of protestors. The police were informed in advance. There was some speechs. There were activists there but no actions took place. The police outnumbered the 100 demonstrators by at least 500, plus the helicopter. Now, if you can shut down the oil refineries this shuts down the economy and the government fold. The fuel-VAT protest had already taught us that. So a handsome, wise, young anarchist (?) had travelled between the five main UK refineries trying to raise support for a simultaneous block. He was faced with lots of good reasons not to try. 'The police would use violence' 'There will be a backlash in the press'. So our humble young hero suggested new tactics to make it work. No one would commit to them alone, it was too risky, 'potentially violent'. And what, a million innocents have had to die from this smug pseudo-pacifist discretion ?

So my advice, the minute you hear of US strikes on Iran, don't post, don't pledge, don't petition. Act the way you would if your own family was being bombed.


For I flew the final mission in the Japanese sky
Set off the mighty mushroom roar
When I saw the cities burning I knew that I was learning
That I ain't marchin' anymore

Now the labor leader's screamin'
when they close the missile plants,
United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore,
Call it "Peace" or call it "Treason,"
Call it "Love" or call it "Reason,"
But I ain't marchin' any more,
No I ain't marchin' any more

Danny


Brian said:

23.04.2007 23:44

“..there are so many non-violent campaigning tactics that they could engage with…”

Really? Do share these ample tactics you speak so wisely of Brian?

“..No it is not right to put the onus for stopping the war onto one person…”

Ha! You’re full of shit Brian! I suggest you engage brain before commenting in future because you have made yourself look quite silly. What a wanker!

Anyone else got any suggestions, or are all of you full of it too?

lol@BrianB


Danny’s solution (sic)…

24.04.2007 13:21

is a Police State..!?!

Remember the miners strike and the brutality issued out to them, and for what?

Marcher


And he marched the down again.

25.04.2007 09:42

"Danny’s solution (sic)…is a Police State..!?! Remember the miners strike and the brutality issued out to them, and for what?"

For daring to be socalists standing up to an unjust right-wing government ? For threatening to cut off energy supplies ? Both things you seem to disagree with.

I'd love to stay to argue but you don't seem to be making any argument or any coherent point. Since I'm the only person here who has been interviewed by the cops in the past month over a post I allegedly made, it seems a bit 'Alice in Wonderland' to say I am promoting a police state by suggesting an oil-refinery block. Less of the Pils, bud, more of those pills.

Danny


Anarchy in the UK

25.04.2007 12:33

If you guys seriously threaten to shut down the oil refineries, to shut down the economy and therefore the government, the government in turn would almost certainly remove our remaining civil liberties and instill a police state.

However, what would happen instead if five, ten, fifteen or twenty million marched peacefully as a united front in London in protest against to the wars? Not that it is ever likely to happen if anarchists such as yourself keep undermining STWC and its supporters such as military families against wars..

Undermining STWC and destroying any links with genuine Labour Party activists plays into the hands of an unjust right-wing government.

Blair seems hell bent on destroying Labour and our hard fought for civil liberties, and so do you, albeit ‘inadvertently’, apparently.

Marcher


No-brainer

27.04.2007 19:44

"Really? Do share these ample tactics you speak so wisely of Brian?"

I did not use the word ample. You did.


"Undermining STWC and destroying any links with genuine Labour Party activists plays into the hands of an unjust right-wing government."

The person who posted this should either use their real name or change it to something more honest like 'labour supporter'. The first suggestion I would have to this person is that you should stop supporting 'Labour' party. The last thing you should do when engaging in an anti-war campaign is to start telling others to grovel to the most pro-war party around that also just happens to be the one carrying out the evil wars of aggression....
..... 655,000 have died due to the Iraq war in case you need reminding.

Brian B
- Homepage: http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/antiwar-discuss/


“ample”

28.04.2007 19:03


I’ll give you a clue…


“..there are SO MANY non-violent campaigning tactics that they could engage with…” – Brian B


Still no tactics then Brian?

Thought so.

Aretha Franklin...