The Stop the War Coalition took an important step forward at its 27 October conference by agreeing to step up its campaigning against the increasingly likely catastrophe of a British supported US/ Israeli attack on Iran. The conference passed a resolution proposed by the Campaign Against Sanction and Military Intervention in Iran which begins:
"Given the high probability of an illegal pre-emptive US/Israeli military attack against Iran, on false pretexts similar to those used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and the prospect of political and logistical support from the British government for such an attack, Stop the War Coalition conscious of the catastrophic consequences for the people of Iran and of the region, and the unforeseeable global ramifications of such an attack, will allocate resources to lobby MPs, challenge media distortions on Iran and mobilise support for the following resolutions in the trade unions and students unions."
The useful debate was gave speakers a chance to highlight the increasing danger that there will be a military strike on Iran before George Bush leaves office.
It also gave people a chanc to become familiar with som of the arguments that will be needed to convince people of our arguments.
The debate was quite sharp at times. Perhaps usefully, Hands off the Iranian People, a CB associated campaign, put a rival resolution, which
ertainly ensured that the question of the anti-war movement's attitude to the Iranian regime and to the many types of oppression and present in Iran was examined in detail.
John Rees made it clear that STW will not shrink from criticising the Iranian regime, but suggested that the prime job of the antiwar movement here is to expose and politically defeat Britain's role in these imperialist wars, leaving settling of accounts with the Iranian regime to the people of Iran.
Jamshid Ahmadi from the Committee for Defence of the Iranian People's Rights explained that the pressure from the United States gives the Iranian regime the opportunity to step up repression of trade unionists, student activists etc.
He emphasised that the antiwar movement must maintain a critical stance towards the Iranian regime as well as opposing military attacks on Iran.
The strong statement that STW will not shrink from criticising the Iranian regime was welcome.
But the debate also demonstrated that though our main focus should be on Britain's role we must also able to competently address the arguments around the regime's repression.
Some contributions were extremely clumsy, and SW needs not to repeat such mistakes. For example, one speaker, listing the lies used against Iran, cited "Iran not being a democratic society" as a lie - to some derision from the floor.
She went on to say that "everyone knows about Ahmadinajad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran, but how many people know that they allow sex change operations and indeed do a large number of them?"
She did not condemn the brutal repression of LGBT people by the regime giving the impression to some that she thought the regime is not so bad if it treats one group fairly, even if it mistreats another.
If the antiwar movement wants to build a big movement against an attack on Iran, it has to get this right.
It is no good just targeting Britain's role, if large numbers are inoculated against our arguments because they constantly see that the anti-war movement is wrong or dishonest about suffering caused to the people of Iran by the regime.
One speaker supported concentrating exclusively on the slogan "Don't attack Iran" because he said the public would be confused if the antiwar movement combined it with telling them that the Iranian regime is dreadful!
But the US is devoting $200 million dollars to tell people how dreadful the Iranian regime is, so the public cannot escape this message.
Our job is to attack Britain's role, and in addition to be able to separate facts about Iranian society from lies, not to act as an apologist for the Iranian regime.
We need to explain why repression there does not justify the West bombing the country, and that we support the struggles of people in Iran to change their society.
The balance of our arguments has to be worked out very carefully.
page 6 of the scan
Secretary Alan
Johnson
should be
forced to sit
down and
watch Sicko