displaying the Swindon Stop the War banner in the conference hall.
view of deleagtes networking during break in the Journalists Institute
John Reess of Stop the War Colaition speaking in main session
Cairo is really polluted!!
Andy Newman of Swindon StWC listening during final session
“The capture of Saddam Hussein was announced during the conference and it caused uproar, because a minority of the Arab nationalists there supported Hussein, whereas obviously most people know he is a vile butcher. However all the Arabs seemed to resent seeing Saddam publicly humiliated on television. A number of speakers argued that because the invasion of Iraq was illegal then capture of President Hussein is also illegal, and is effectively kidnapping or vigilantism. It is a nonsense fro the Americans to talk of the trial being by Iraqis as the only power in the land is the US, and the only Iraqis they trust are traitors, collaborators and Quislings. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark spoke at the conference and pointed out that even the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg were treated with more respect. It is all about US prime time TV images, and nothing to do with justice for the victims of Halabja or elsewhere.”
The conference was very widely reported in the Arab press and TV, and the government had 500 armed police outside. Someone said the only reason it wasn't banned was because it included every single opposition group in Egypt, and a lot of international attention. People are routinely tortured and imprisoned in Egypt for speaking out, so even holding the conference was a major achievement. The broad range of the conference and the radicalism of its final declaration were also remarkable.
Speakers in the main session included the former Labour MP Tony Benn, the former United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Denis Halliday, George Galloway MP, and John Rees from the Stop the War Coalition and Moslem activist Salma Yaqoob from Birmingham.
THE conference released a declaration, calling for opposition to globalisation and US power, supporting all forms of resistance in Iraq and Palestine, including military resistance. It agreed to establish an international committee to continue the campaign over the coming weeks and months.
There is a picture of the Swindon delagates in the third row in Socilaist Worker:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1882/07.pdf
The following is the text of the paper I presented in the workshops on "popular movements"
Only a Mass Movement Can Succeed: (lessons from the campaign against using a British military base to bomb Iraq)
Andy Newman, delegate from Swindon and Wiltshire GMB Union branch.
I am secretary of the Swindon Stop the War Coalition. Swindon is an industrial town of around 180000 people in a mainly rural part of England. Just ten miles north of Swindon is RAF Fairford, base for the B52 bombers that bombed Iraq.
The full number of bombs dropped on Iraq from Fairford is not yet known, but up until 28th April there were three bombing flights a day and around 4 convoys of bombs per week were taken to the base, and these are known to have included cluster bombs. Use of the base to bomb Iraq was extremely unpopular in the area. In the lead up to war an opinion poll in the local paper (Swindon Evening Advertiser) showed 88% of local people against the war, although this is probably an exaggeration.
Britain plays an important military role for the US in providing airstrips for the USAF heavy bomber fleet. Outside of the United States these heavy bombers can fly from Guam in the Pacific, Fairford in the UK and Diego Garcia in the Indian Oceans. To use either Fairford or Diego Garcia the USAF needs the express permission of the British government. These forward bases outside the US give the USAF heavy bomber coverage of most of the world's populated surface, and with one refuelling they can bomb anywhere on the planet.
The controversial use of Fairford to bomb Iraq therefore posed a strategic and tactical challenge for the British anti-war movement that is of general interest.
The strategy of the Stop the War Coalition, following the 400000 strong London demonstration on 27th September 2002, was to use the size and power of the national demonstration to go back into our local communities to build big local events, and then use these as a springboard for an even larger national demonstration, which we achieved with 2 million on 15th February. This meant consistent local work to prosecute the argument about the war through every forum available to us, in the workplaces, trade unions, schools, colleges, mosques and churches; and by forcing debate with pro-war politicians in the local newspapers and radio. (Anti-war literature was also being distributed in military bases around Swindon). In turn the size of the February 15th protest made it possible to plan civil disobedience, strikes and occupations if war broke out. This happened but unfortunately not on quite a sufficient scale to deter Blair. One small example from the Swindon area is worth reporting. In the village of Market Lavington 300 school students protested on 19th March, led by a 15 year old girl whose father was serving with the British army in the Gulf, many of the pupils involved in the protest have fathers in the armed forces, and this protest symbolizes for me the crisis that the Stop the War campaign had created in the British establishment. We know that we nearly succeeded, that Blair considered resigning, and that the US was prepared to attack Iraq alone.
As part of this strategy of building the movement in the local communities there were a couple of demonstrations at Fairford, mainly involving people from the most local towns. 300 protested in December, and around 500 in February. A small number of mainly local people also started camping outside the base as a “peace camp”
However, across the UK a tiny number of activists became obsessed with trying to disrupt the operation of RAF Fairford. They were emboldened by a slight success of pulling the gates open with ropes during the protest in February, and at the same time a handful managed to get onto the runway (The base was unmanned at the time, except by British police, the USAF planes only arrived a couple of weeks later).
One problem with this strategy of disruption and sabotage was that it was direct challenge to the power and prestige of the British state by a very small number of peace activists. The government would be prepared to do anything to stop them succeeding. A number of protesters were arrested under anti-terrorist and other legislation by the police, and inside the perimeter fence the US army and British Ghurka soldiers (mercenaries from Nepal incorporated into the British army) were authorized to use lethal force. The local chiefs of police (Chief constables for Wiltshire and Gloucestershire) were recently awarded The “US Air Forces in Europe Medal of Distinction” for preventing protesters disrupting the use of the base, in a police operation costing over £7.3 million.
The second problem was that the proponents of sabotage counterpoised this to the strategy of the Stop the War Coalition. Through e-mail lists and discussion groups, and at meetings within the anti-war movement they argued that the StWC strategy of mass demonstrations and winning the argument with the wider population was not succeeding, and the only alternative was for the small number of the most committed activists to undergo special training for “direct action” to stop the war. Because these activists were unable to win a democratic majority for their views within the movement various slanders were circulated including red-baiting attacks on organisations and individuals in the movement.
The issue came to a head on 22nd March. On the Saturday following war breaking out the Stop the War Coalition organized a massive demonstration in London. Those activists obsessed with Fairford declined to cancel a demonstration that had been organized for the same day at Fairford. E-mail lists boasted that there would be serious and not just symbolic action to stop the use of the base.
In the event the 22nd March demonstration in London attracted 500000, making it the largest ever wartime demonstration in Britain. It was reported around the world and was a major blow to Tony Blair’s credibility. In contrast, barely 3000 attended the Fairford protest, and the police intercepted and stopped activists from London. There were nearly as many police as protesters, and the demonstration was therefore herded safely along a country lane. Of the 3000, a majority were from local towns, some of whom would have preferred to go to London but felt it necessary to support a demonstration on their own doorstep.
To conclude, one reason for the strength of the antiwar movement in Britain is that we have built where we are strong. We want direct action, but to be effective that must involve the masses and not just a self-selected elite of activists. Activists engaging in sabotage must necessarily cut themselves off from democratic debate, and once isolated they are an easy target for state repression. Strikes, occupations and mass demonstrations hurt the government – these are built by activists well rooted in their workplaces and communities, who are therefore much stronger.
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
Q!
03.01.2004 11:03
Toby
doing more with the majority
03.01.2004 11:37
Instead, the StWC decided to go for another A-to-B march thru London resulting in no less destruction in Irak followed by exactly the carve-up of resources among western companies we all predicted.
I'm not saying that closing one airbase for a day or so would have halted the war machine, but several hundred thousand people could have been more empowered by being part of actually spannering the works than they were by going for a walk and trying to listen to speeches on a distant PA system. Surely Mr Rees could see the merits of liberating the base's own PA system for the people and using it to address the crowd.
That said, well done Swindon StWC for getting it together to go to the conference and make real links with people, even if I don't like everything you told them.
bobby
replies to Toby and Bobby
09.01.2004 14:22
Firstly, in response to Toby.
I was in Cairo for only a few days, so I don’t pretend to be an authority on the Arab political scene! But there is a genuine and strongly held grievance in the Arab world, that the countries in the region have no legitimacy. The borders and often the rulers have been imposed upon them from outside. Pan-Arabism, the idea of a united Arab country where the Arab people control the oil wealth is a common political aspiration. It has expression through the followers of former Egyptian leader, Nasser. In a bastardised form the Ba’athist also pretend to stand for Arab unity. Also nowadays many people in the region fight against imperialism and foreign occupation under the banner of Islam.
There is also a reviving left in the Middle East, including as you say Stalinists, but also people whose politics are anti-authoritarian.
The point is here that there are things we can agree on, and things we need to argue about. There are some issues we can unite over, and some issues we will be on different sides. An Egyptian group called the Revolutionary Socialists spoke in the first main session, and caused uproar by saying Mubarak needed to be overthrown as he is an obstacle to opposing the Americans. Half the audience cheered, the other half looked at their shoes.
Some individuals may be anti-Semitic. The point here is not to idealise someone just because we are working alongside them. If someone makes an anti-Semitic comment here or in the Middle East it is a duty to challenge it. But there is much more chance we will be listened to in opposing anti-Semitism if we have shown that over the issue of Zionism and imperialism we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Arabs. Certainly Israel is a racist state and the ideology of Zionism is racial supremacism. It is therefore possible to oppose Zionism and Israel without in any way being anti-Jewish. This is a debate that is happening in the Arab world right now.
What was great about Cairo, is there is such genuine debate. Nobody is saying they have all the answers – we can all learn from each other.
This brings me to Bobby’s point. I thought when I posted this paper that it might be controversial! This is a tactical question that we can and should debate as friends. I still think that the London demo was the one to go for on 22nd March (I went to Fairford by the way, which was the collective decision of Swindon Stop the War Colaition – except we got stopped by the cops before we got there, and visited our pro-war MP’s house instead!).
The reason I spoke on this in Cairo was to explain that in Britain we have disagreements and arguments. Just as they do in the Middle East.
By the way, there is expected to be another Cairo conference next year – try and go. If you book well in advance flights are only about £200, and when you are in Egypt it is really cheap.
Andy Newman
Dishonest Mr. Newman
11.01.2004 14:38
I find your reading of the chronology of the Fairford protests to be entirely spurious.
The most telling omission if your omission of the 'Iraq War On Trial' proceedings, which although now delayed, are still set to test both the domestic and international legality of the Iraq war. This is no small omission, but a chronic piece of manipulation on your behalf, which is needed for your presentation of the Fairford Protests as being without useful conseqeunce to stand up.
http://www.fairfordpeacewatch.com/iraqwarontrial.html
"Because these activists were unable to win a democratic majority for their views within the movement various slanders were circulated including red-baiting attacks on organisations and individuals in the movement."
This is also shameful, Mr. Newman, this was never the position held, or the situation in effect. As well as originally calling the 22nd March Fairford Demo, Bristol-Stop-The-War fully mobilised for the 22nd March National Demonstrations in both London and Bristol, as a means of granting all our activists in Bristol the democratic freedom to decide for themselves which demonstration to support.
We also fully publicised the Menwith Hill National Demonstration on 22nd March, an additional National Demonstration, which you have also failed to mention. But again, it is necessary for you to make this omission for your presentation of this as a split between STW and a tiny minority of activists to stand up. It was in fact Stop-The-War which called both the Demonstrations in Fairford & London, with Bristol-Stop-The-War then giving its full support to all 3 demos, & London STW refusing to engage in a dialogue.
You also know full well, Mr Newman, attempts were made to sabotage the 22nd March Fairford Demo, with STW groups across the country contacted by telephone and email and told the the Fairford Demonstration had been cancelled. While it remains unclear whether London STW were involved in this sabotage, it is an undeniable fact that they declined to use their networks to refute this sabotage, despite the damage being done.
I have no wish to dredge up these dead bodies, & prefer to move on, but your presentation of this, Mr Newman, is a diatribe of slurs, monumental omissions and inaccuracies, which cannot be left standing. I expected better of you, but will now be challenging your manipulative and dishonest presentation of events wherever I find them publicised.
Regards,
James Venables
Bristol-Stop-The-War Communications
James Venables
SUBSCRIBE TO BRISTOL-STOP-THE-WAR NEWS
11.01.2004 16:15
To subscribe to our Bristol Stop-The-War Newsletter send a blank email to:
bristol-stop-the-war-coalition-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To read our latest Newsletter, visit:
http://bristol.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=11290&group=webcast
Bristol-Stop-The-War
Of come off it James!
12.01.2004 16:33
Firstly, the legal cases around Fairford were not mentioned in my article, because that isn’t what it was about! If you look at the Swindon StWC web-page, you will see we have a dedicated page that we try to cover the whole debate about Fairford, from all points of view. http://freespace.virgin.net/swindon.stopwar/fairford.htm
The accusation that the Stop the War Office deliberately spread lies about Fairford demo being cancelled is the type of slander I was referring to in my article. The national StWC office did indeed ring around people arguing that they should go to London instead, which they are of course entitled to do, and which was in line with the decision of the national StWC conference to hold a national London demo the Saturday after war started. You will know that when the 22nd March demo at Fairford was first muted I argued that it should only be provisional, as we should support a London demo if war broke out that week. You and others did not accept my argument, which you are of course entitled. Similarly in the days leading to 22nd March there was an argument about whether to support Fairford or London. People were entitled to hold either view, but I think events proved London to have been correct, which was the point of my article.
There may also have been rumours going round that Fairford demo was actually cancelled. But that is a different question entirely. I know that I was personally told all sort of lies and dissinformation by Gloucester police during that time. If lies were circulating, then they may well have originated from police agents, or whoever.
Andy Newman
one more thing
12.01.2004 16:57
James seems to have decided that by arguing against the proponents of direct action I was also criticising the decision to hold the demo – which would be odd as I was part of the original discussions to hold a demo on 22nd March at Fairford – and supported that decision.
Andy Newman
LINE by LINE
12.01.2004 18:40
"Firstly, the legal cases around Fairford were not mentioned in my article, because that isn’t what it was about!"
You're article refers implicity to the Fairford Trials, through your numerous opinions given of the types of actions which otherwis led up to them.
"...one reason for the strength of the antiwar movement in Britain is that we have built where we are strong. We want direct action, but to be effective that must involve the masses and not just a self-selected elite of activists."
How can your article be about the form of actions taken, and not the consequences of those actions and their effectivness? You had the perfect opportunity to inform the International community of the 'Iraq War On Trial' hearings, and instead you chose to dismiss them as a "self-selected elect of activists."
This is what is so dishonest about what you have done and the way you present those people taking these actions, Andy, and this is the context within which people will see dishonesty. You had a golden opportunity, and instead you chose to slander and deny those activists the air of publicity.
If you can tell me now that you gave a presentation on the Faiford Trials to the Cairo Conference, and ensured that that part of the world now knew of their proceedings, I'll retract that part of what I've said towards you personally, but it is already absent in the text you have provided, as well as confirmed as absent in your reply.
On the issue of the slander you feel I am making. I agree that some may find it unpalatable for people to ask of London whether they took the liberty of thinking they could cancel Fairford, when it was not their place to do so. I also agree that their were a lot of odd things hapening with people's emails at the time, which is why I have said that it remains unclear whether London STW were involved in this sabotage, while still stating that it is "an undeniable fact that they declined to use their networks to refute this sabotage, despite the damage being done."
It also remains the case that London STW have given exactly zero coverage to the 'Iraq War On Trial Hearings', and the general tolerance and patience with which people are responding to this combined effective censorsing of actions and achievements of these brave individuals, and this labelling and slurring of them as elitists, when many of them also do all the same jobs and make the same efforts in every other way, is a further show of character from them.
James Venables
Qualifying Statement
12.01.2004 21:19
Thanks,
James
James Venables