I'm posting my resignation letter to the Stop the War Coalition Steering Committee for anyone whose interested.
I resigned a while ago and have had no reply to my letter - I don't expect it will be shown to anyone apart from the SWTC officers. The future strategy of the STWC is mapped out by the SWP's John Rees, a leading member of the STWC at
http://www.swp.org.uk/SR/274/SR1.HTM. The coalition aims to become a social democratic alliance run by the
SWP that ignores/fails to understand the growth of the global justice movement as anything other than a nieve, idealistic source of membership for a more mature, union-orientated organisation quickly created and dominated by the SWP (Rees says of the STWC that "Its precursor was the anti-globalisation movement"). The reality of who opposed the war (muslims, schoolkids, people from a variety of backgrounds) is replaced with a fantasy (unions) that
fits the formula. I had thought the SWP and their allies in STWC were serious about working with people involved in anti-capitalist groups that don't accept their dogmas but I didn't find that. You just get abuse with no hope of influencing anything. So I resigned.
I should maybe emphasise that I think the coalition has done an excellent job of organising big marches - but probably mistook riding a wave for being the wave. It's a problem sects have. Anyway...
29th April 2003
Dear officers,
At the last two meetings of the Stop the War Coalition Steering Committee I have been attacked for being "divisive" by the chair for voicing an opinion that he disagrees with. I am no longer prepared to be subjected to these unwarranted personal attacks – attacks which no one seems to think are at all out of order – and am
therefore resigning from the committee.
I was elected to this steering committee as a delegate for Sussex Action for Peace, a local anti-war group based in Brighton. I have attended all the meetings of the steering committee. I have never been emailed about these meetings despite frequent requests and assurances that I would be. I was given the wrong time for the last meeting. I get the distinct impression that I am one of the few, if not the only, delegate from a local group outside London, attending these meetings. But let that go.
At the meeting on 29th April John Rees of the Socialist Workers Party said that the coalition needed to "increase its social weight", something that was different from the number of people involved. He said that while Muslims helped and the support of the Daily Mirror helped ,trade unions were key to giving the coalition this "social weight".
John is entitled to his view. I don't agree with it. I kinda thought the point of coalitions was that people from different political viewpoints managed to discuss differences while working together for common aims. It's what my local group, which involves people from a wide range of viewpoints, does. Not this committee.
When I spoke I disagreed with John's view, which I believe idealises the labour movement and offers an inaccurate assessment of the forces that have, and will in the future, oppose the warmongers. I also pointed out - a fact well known to thousands of anti-war activists - that the coalition repeatedly downplayed or ignored demonstrations at RAF Fairford (no one had mentioned the massive
recent demonstration at Fairford until I did, 1½ hours into the meeting). Finally I objected to the fact that the STWC website http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=180303 describes as `anti-war' 57 Labour MPs who did not oppose the government's motion to go to war but omits the names of 68 non-Labour MPs who did oppose the
government's motion.
I have no objection to people disagreeing with me - Lindsey German did, in a reasonable and reasoned way. That's democracy. What isn't acceptable to me is to have a chair who consistently abuses his position to attack me for voicing my opinions by, amongst other things, calling me "sectarian" and "divisive". Sectarian? – on behalf of whom? Divisive? - I have argued with many anti-war activists who believe the coalition is anti-direct action, pro-Labour and entirely dominated by the SWP that they should work with it because we achieve more together than apart.
I'll find it pretty hard to do that anymore. Congratulations on your success against "divisiveness".
Colin Chalmers
Sussex Action for Peace
I resigned a while ago and have had no reply to my letter - I don't expect it will be shown to anyone apart from the SWTC officers. The future strategy of the STWC is mapped out by the SWP's John Rees, a leading member of the STWC at
http://www.swp.org.uk/SR/274/SR1.HTM. The coalition aims to become a social democratic alliance run by the SWP that ignores/fails to understand the growth of the global justice movement as anything other than a nieve, idealistic source of membership for a more mature, union-orientated organisation quickly created and dominated by the SWP (Rees says of the STWC that "Its precursor was the anti-globalisation movement"). The reality of who opposed the war (muslims, schoolkids, people from a variety of backgrounds) is replaced with a fantasy (unions) that
fits the formula. I had thought the SWP and their allies in STWC were serious about working with people involved in anti-capitalist groups that don't accept their dogmas but I didn't find that. You just get abuse with no hope of influencing anything. So I resigned.
I should maybe emphasise that I think the coalition has done an excellent job of organising big marches - but probably mistook riding a wave for being the wave. It's a problem sects have. Anyway...
29th April 2003
Dear officers,
At the last two meetings of the Stop the War Coalition Steering Committee I have been attacked for being "divisive" by the chair for voicing an opinion that he disagrees with. I am no longer prepared to be subjected to these unwarranted personal attacks – attacks which no one seems to think are at all out of order – and am
therefore resigning from the committee.
I was elected to this steering committee as a delegate for Sussex Action for Peace, a local anti-war group based in Brighton. I have attended all the meetings of the steering committee. I have never been emailed about these meetings despite frequent requests and assurances that I would be. I was given the wrong time for the last meeting. I get the distinct impression that I am one of the few, if not the only, delegate from a local group outside London, attending these meetings. But let that go.
At the meeting on 29th April John Rees of the Socialist Workers Party said that the coalition needed to "increase its social weight", something that was different from the number of people involved. He said that while Muslims helped and the support of the Daily Mirror helped ,trade unions were key to giving the coalition this "social weight".
John is entitled to his view. I don't agree with it. I kinda thought the point of coalitions was that people from different political viewpoints managed to discuss differences while working together for common aims. It's what my local group, which involves people from a wide range of viewpoints, does. Not this committee.
When I spoke I disagreed with John's view, which I believe idealises the labour movement and offers an inaccurate assessment of the forces that have, and will in the future, oppose the warmongers. I also pointed out - a fact well known to thousands of anti-war activists - that the coalition repeatedly downplayed or ignored demonstrations at RAF Fairford (no one had mentioned the massive
recent demonstration at Fairford until I did, 1½ hours into the meeting). Finally I objected to the fact that the STWC website
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=180303 describes as `anti-war' 57 Labour MPs who did not oppose the government's motion to go to war but omits the names of 68 non-Labour MPs who did oppose the government's motion.
I have no objection to people disagreeing with me - Lindsey German did, in a reasonable and reasoned way. That's democracy. What isn't acceptable to me is to have a chair who consistently abuses his position to attack me for voicing my opinions by, amongst other things, calling me "sectarian" and "divisive". Sectarian? – on behalf of whom? Divisive? - I have argued with many anti-war activists who believe the coalition is anti-direct action, pro-Labour and entirely dominated by the SWP that they should work with it because we achieve more together than apart.
I'll find it pretty hard to do that anymore. Congratulations on your success against "divisiveness".
Colin Chalmers
Sussex Action for Peace
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 8 comments