Three Iraq Meetings
This afternoon I attended the Stop the War Coalition meeting in Friends Meeting House in Euston Road (300 odd people); this evening I went near to the boundary of the ESF to the home of some Solidarity Village events and went to a 'civil society' meeting about Iraq at the LSE (about 80 people).
I think the most powerful moment of the whole ESF will probably be the tumultuous standing ovation that the hall gave to Rose Gentle, who lost her son Gordon in Iraq, and who has launched a personal campaign to bring back the troops. It was an incredibly moving moment. Rose Gentle then gave a short, powerful speech, saying that Tony Blair was a 'disgrace', the war was illegal, and we should not be there.
Four ESFs
Someone said to me in the LSE that there was the 'liberal, SWP-dominated ESF'; then the Solidarity Village (first known as LETS Cooperate (LETS is an alternative currency/trading system for community sustainability/development)); then there is Beyond ESF; then beyond that is Schnews, the direct action conference tomorrow at the Camden Centre in Kings Cross, and the Indymedia gathering.
I'm not sure I agree with this description (it's daft to just write off the ESF as 'liberal', and no single party can dominate it, however much they may be trying), but it is certainly true that the Solidarity Village, based in Conway Hall, the bastion of free speech in Holborn, has cooperative relations with the ESF, while the other autonomous events do not.
One of the vertical/horizontal tensions is about making events participatory, and not simply unidirectional, ;speaker-spoken to', panel-dominated events. Well, along that axis there was little to choose between the STWC event and the civil society event. Both left half an hour for question and answer/comment at the end.
I don't think this is the limit of making meetings more participatory...
Missing from the Agenda
One of the central questions for the anti-war movement is why it is in the state it is in - why, for example, as Hilary Wainwright asked at the LSE event, are there not massive protests at the daily assaults on Fallujah?
The plain fact is that much of the movement which mobilized last year is paralyzed and demoralized. This was denied by several leading figures in the STWC at their meeting, but a couple of speakers alluded to the problem. The union speaker, from the Communication Workers Union, said bluntly that the movement is not in a good state and needs to be rebuilt.
Another speaker at the STWC meeting said that the general public was concerned with 'what happens after withdrawal', and this was an issue that needs to be addressed. I think this is the central issue confronting us.
It was not dealt with at either meeting. It was avoided, or assertions were made about the state of Iraq, and the likely peaceful course of events post-occupation, which just cannot be made so categorically.
Withdrawal - How?
There are two questions for those people who believe that the war was wrong and the occupation is appalling. Firstly, what each of us thinks is the best way forward for Iraq - the best way to carry out withdrawal. Secondly, assuming that rapid withdrawal is needed, what proposal will win the overwhelming majority of British people over to rapid withdrawal in the shortest possible time.
At the STWC meeting, several speakers, including an Iraqi exile who is a leading figure in the Muslim Association of Britain (who pointed out that today is the first day of Ramadan) called for Troops Out Now - Today.
Whether or not you agree with that, it is clear that this is not the feeling of the British people (or, I believe, the US public).
Majority feeling
At the LSE event, I asked for a show of hands choosing between three options: troops out tomorrow, that's it; set a date for withdrawal in a few months, bring in replacement UN peacekeeping forces (or some other third party), have UN transitional political support leading up to elections; or, continue with occupation indefinitely. Option 1 got half a dozen votes; Option 2 got over thirty votes; Option 3 got a couple of hands in the air.
I've done this same straw poll all over the UK, across the US, even at the STWC rally at the Labour Party Conference last year, and it has always shown massive majorities in favour of Option 2, staged withdrawal with replacement.
One question is: if this is the view of a majority of people in the movement, why is it not even mentioned as a possibility on the major platforms of the anti-war movement?
The Third MeetingOh, the third Iraq meeting? I heard tonight that an Iraq plenary at Alexandra Palace was disrupted by protestors angry at the presence on the platform of (it seemed) a representative from the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, which argued for a continuation of the occupation at the Labour Party conference and helped to swing the vote in favour of the leadership. The whole plenary was wrecked by the protest, according to a friend of mine who popped in and out of the meeting to see how it was going.
Milan Rai
Brixton
I think the most powerful moment of the whole ESF will probably be the tumultuous standing ovation that the hall gave to Rose Gentle, who lost her son Gordon in Iraq, and who has launched a personal campaign to bring back the troops. It was an incredibly moving moment. Rose Gentle then gave a short, powerful speech, saying that Tony Blair was a 'disgrace', the war was illegal, and we should not be there.
Four ESFs
Someone said to me in the LSE that there was the 'liberal, SWP-dominated ESF'; then the Solidarity Village (first known as LETS Cooperate (LETS is an alternative currency/trading system for community sustainability/development)); then there is Beyond ESF; then beyond that is Schnews, the direct action conference tomorrow at the Camden Centre in Kings Cross, and the Indymedia gathering.
I'm not sure I agree with this description (it's daft to just write off the ESF as 'liberal', and no single party can dominate it, however much they may be trying), but it is certainly true that the Solidarity Village, based in Conway Hall, the bastion of free speech in Holborn, has cooperative relations with the ESF, while the other autonomous events do not.
One of the vertical/horizontal tensions is about making events participatory, and not simply unidirectional, ;speaker-spoken to', panel-dominated events. Well, along that axis there was little to choose between the STWC event and the civil society event. Both left half an hour for question and answer/comment at the end.
I don't think this is the limit of making meetings more participatory...
Missing from the Agenda
One of the central questions for the anti-war movement is why it is in the state it is in - why, for example, as Hilary Wainwright asked at the LSE event, are there not massive protests at the daily assaults on Fallujah?
The plain fact is that much of the movement which mobilized last year is paralyzed and demoralized. This was denied by several leading figures in the STWC at their meeting, but a couple of speakers alluded to the problem. The union speaker, from the Communication Workers Union, said bluntly that the movement is not in a good state and needs to be rebuilt.
Another speaker at the STWC meeting said that the general public was concerned with 'what happens after withdrawal', and this was an issue that needs to be addressed. I think this is the central issue confronting us.
It was not dealt with at either meeting. It was avoided, or assertions were made about the state of Iraq, and the likely peaceful course of events post-occupation, which just cannot be made so categorically.
Withdrawal - How?
There are two questions for those people who believe that the war was wrong and the occupation is appalling. Firstly, what each of us thinks is the best way forward for Iraq - the best way to carry out withdrawal. Secondly, assuming that rapid withdrawal is needed, what proposal will win the overwhelming majority of British people over to rapid withdrawal in the shortest possible time.
At the STWC meeting, several speakers, including an Iraqi exile who is a leading figure in the Muslim Association of Britain (who pointed out that today is the first day of Ramadan) called for Troops Out Now - Today.
Whether or not you agree with that, it is clear that this is not the feeling of the British people (or, I believe, the US public).
Majority feeling
At the LSE event, I asked for a show of hands choosing between three options: troops out tomorrow, that's it; set a date for withdrawal in a few months, bring in replacement UN peacekeeping forces (or some other third party), have UN transitional political support leading up to elections; or, continue with occupation indefinitely. Option 1 got half a dozen votes; Option 2 got over thirty votes; Option 3 got a couple of hands in the air.
I've done this same straw poll all over the UK, across the US, even at the STWC rally at the Labour Party Conference last year, and it has always shown massive majorities in favour of Option 2, staged withdrawal with replacement.
One question is: if this is the view of a majority of people in the movement, why is it not even mentioned as a possibility on the major platforms of the anti-war movement?
The Third MeetingOh, the third Iraq meeting? I heard tonight that an Iraq plenary at Alexandra Palace was disrupted by protestors angry at the presence on the platform of (it seemed) a representative from the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, which argued for a continuation of the occupation at the Labour Party conference and helped to swing the vote in favour of the leadership. The whole plenary was wrecked by the protest, according to a friend of mine who popped in and out of the meeting to see how it was going.
Milan Rai
Brixton
posted by Milan Rai at 11:03 PM
<< Home