Hands Off the People of Iran Conference Report
Between 70-80 people filled the Somers Town Community Centre in Camden for the launch of Hands Off the People of Iran. It was clear from the outset that a number of groups were present and not simply the CPGB as the leadership of the StWC might have some believe.
Overall the discussion was very democratic with numerous points in the afternoon containing debate on not only the wording of the founding statement but the politics which it contained.
Yassamine Mather from Workers Left Unity Iran began the proceedings with an encouragement to discuss social movements in Iran, and most specifically the recent student demonstrations that had been taking place there. It was reported that 4 of Iran’s student groups had picked up the slogans of HOPI (from the internet) and began using them at demonstrations in Tehran and elsewhere.
Iranian socialist and member of WLU Iran, Torab Saleh, spoke briefly on those who had been persecuted by the regime and all comrades rose and held a minute’s silence for the more than 40,000 people who have been executed, many of them political activists, since 1979.
Mike McNair from the CPGB gave a report on the economic and political situation which spoke to a briefing paper in which he seemed to be arguing that imperialism was not simply an economic imperialism as Marxist such as Ellen Meiksins Wood claims in her excellent book “Empire of Capital” but that imperialist countries “destroyed nations” to maintain economic dominance. This is something I wholly disagreed with, but in the grand scheme of things it was rather a minor theoretical point. It’s clear that the crass domination of Empire where countries were taken over in order to ensure capital flow has disappeared and that the situation in Iraq, Iran and the Middle East generally is far more complicated than a simple need for oil.
David Mather then spoke to the second briefing paper which looked specifically at Iranian workers. He noted that political Islam was not a part of the “anti-globalisation movement” nor was the Iranian regime against privatisation but rather had embarked on a project to oppress workers within Iran. He noted the increasing casualisation of Iranian workers as a part of Tehran’s privatisation drive.
Mark Fischer from the CPGB spoke next and had a number of interesting things to say. He specifically addressed why solidarity with Iranian workers and support for independent working class politics was incredibly important. He claimed “There must be no subordination of the working class, democratic and secular movement” and that this should be a given on the Left. He spoke of the debate within the StWC and answered the claim that HOPI was a “political rival”. He claimed that “In a sense, this is true. HOPI currently presents a political challenge to their rotten method”. He further noted that the StWC have “utterly failed” with their practice of just going on march after march.
In a refreshing contrast to the self-congratulatory SWP claims that they themselves got a 1-2 million Britons on the street, Mark pointed out that we need to be realistic about the nature of that mass movement – that it included left, right, centre, religious and so forth but that there was no unity beyond an opposition to invasion. He pointed out that there was no reason that Charles Kennedy should feel welcome in the StWC while Iranian socialists were barred from affiliating and that this represented a move to the right.
Mark summed up by pointing out that we needed “Unity against imperialist war, but unity with principles”.
Israeli socialist Moshe Machover spoke next and was a lively participant in the discussion that was to follow. He made a very interesting observation that the recent revelations by the intelligence agency about Iran’s nuclear programme could be an indication that an attack was on its way due to the attempt by the CIA and others not wanting to be the fall guys for any invasion of Iran. He spoke against the foolish logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” that seems to have been adopted by the StWC and that is was “wrong and simplistic” and that is was a “betrayal of the Iranian people, working class and leftists” to play down the nature of the regime.
He used the example of Iraqis who supported the US war drive using this same logic and became friends of US imperialism and its puppets in Baghdad.
The discussion then began and involved some very informative contributions. Andrew Coates spoke on the StWC in his areas saying that it has “not just drifted to the right, but it has drifted everywhere”. He used the example of previously active members dropping out while those defending 9-11 conspiracies and the North Korean regime remained.
I spoke on the importance of highlighting LGBT issues and raised my thoughts on Mike’s talk as well as related my experience of working with StW folks at my uni – stating that the onus is on them to exclude HOPI activists as most independents can readily see the logic in opposing the regime and imperialist war.
Other contributions from the floor came from the Workers Communist Party of Iran and the Workers Communist Party of Iraq – both in the form of female comrades from various women’s organisations. Charlie Pottins, Tony Greenstein and other activists spoke from the floor in the discussion.
Resolutions and Motions were put forward by Permanent Revolution, Communist Party of Great Britain, Workers Left Unity Iran, Communist Students and the Workers Communist Party of Iran. Lively debates were had on whether or not HOPI should take a definitive line on having a “nuclear free Middle East”. This was debated from PR comrades who argued that calling for this may imply that Iran did not have the right to acquire nuclear weapons. Most at the conference opposed this – but to be fair PR was not asking HOPI to take a line, but to simply not include it in their founding statement. Stuart King from PR said this didn’t have to be decided but was a “debate to be had amongst socialists”.
Another important debate was due to an amendment proposed by the comrades from HOPI North West. They proposed adding the statement “The main enemy is imperialism” followed by “The Iranian regime is not consistently anti-imperialist” (not sure of the exact wording on this one). This was passed in the end but with a pretty close vote. I believe a number of people thought it could’ve been formulated better and thus abstained.
Stroppy was there and we were a bit dismayed to see the LGBT was nowhere to be found in either the founding statement nor the constitution. Stroppy proposed the amendments to the founding statement and I to the constitution but it was a rather large oversight on the part of comrades who had called the conference to leave such a large issue in relation to Iran entirely out of the founding documents. Hopefully HOPI can be more conscious of this going forward.
In the section on the constitution, I proposed that we should aim to have at least 50% representation by women on the steering committee as a matter of course. Disappointingly this was voted down with the only person besides myself speaking in favour – and noting it was a norm in the labour movement – being Stuart from PR. Stroppy and I both heard a male comrade in the back saying that the labour movement was patriarchal and thus needed this, but the left didn’t because it wasn’t. We found this rather humorous and frankly far from the truth but I was glad that at least the question of women’s representation was discussed for a change. In the end the steering committee was formed of 16 comrades, myself included of which 7 were women – so not bad going. This was due to the impressive fact that most of the prominent female activists from Iran and Iraq are women.
Ben Lewis gave a very good report on the student movement in Iran. Over 700 students participated in very radical protests in Iran last week and there was a photo display of the events. A number have been arrested and HOPI voted to campaign for their immediate release.
Overall I thought it was very successful and it was refreshing to have a real and lively debate on a number of issues. I was disappointed to not see the AWL there. I think their contributions could have been both enlightening and important to HOPI and I would hope that if their absence was intentional that they will reconsider and even affiliate to HOPI as a part of building an anti-war movement that is in solidarity with Iranian activists.
It was a promising development for the far left in Britain and contained a culture of comradely debate and international solidarity that I have felt missing in the past. I encourage anyone who wants to get involved to join us by visiting www.hopoi.org
voltaires_priest said,
December 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm
The AWL didn’t go? That surprises me. Would have thought it was the sort of thing they’d be chewing people’s arms off to support. Anyone from the AWL care to comment?
Cheers for the report though, very interesting and thorough – I might well sign up myself!
Jim Denham said,
December 9, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Foe what it’s worth,
Jim Denham said,
December 9, 2007 at 12:57 pm
What happened there? I was about to say:
For what it’s worth, I personally think the AWL *should* have attended the HOPI launch. And I know that the AWL has supported HOPI within the STWC…however, a number of HOPI’s ambiguous demands (particularly “Imperialism out of the Middle East”), seem to have been designed (Ipresume by the CPGB) to exclude us. So, while we’ll support HOPI against the clerical fascist-supporters of the STWC leadership, we cannot actually sign up.
paddygarcia said,
December 9, 2007 at 1:32 pm
So why does the AWL have a problem with “imperialism out of the middle east” as a demand?
Hardly ambiguous is it?
voltairespriest said,
December 9, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Which imperialism, is the question that springs to mind. It’s a bit like saying “down with bad stuff” – it’s true, but it’s not a specific demand.
Jim Denham said,
December 9, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Yes it is: it can imply all sorts of things about Israel, for instance. But surely you know that already, Paddy?
voltairespriest said,
December 9, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Nevertheless, I’d echo Jim’s point – the AWL should have attended even if they didn’t feel able to sign up.
twp77 said,
December 9, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Well I don’t think the demand “Imperialism out of the Middle East” was desinged to exclude the AWL for what it is worth – I think it’s a pretty basic working class demand that socialists should support. We’re not for imperialism in the Middle East anymore than we are for it in Europe. Regardless though, the demands voted on at the founding conference yesterday (with some minor amendments) are as follows:
# No to imperialist war!
# No to the theocratic regime!
# The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from the Gulf region!
# Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression!
# Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
# Support for socialism, democracy and workers’ control in Iran!
# For a nuclear-free Middle East as a step towards a nuclear-free world!
The only thing I see there which directly relates to Israel is a demand I believe the AWL would support and I don’t see the formulation that Jim uses listed anywhere. Perhaps it is point number 3 which the AWL disagrees with – by that I mean the “immediate and unconditional” part?
In any case, I would’ve preferred for the AWL to come along and debate their ideas with HOPI and contribute instead of not attend. I hope your organisation will seriously reconsider its absence.
voltairespriest said,
December 9, 2007 at 2:58 pm
In a shocking turn-up, Lenny Lenin’s chums disapprove of Hopi… obviously far too political, too critical of the Islamist government in Iran, and therefore “sectarian”… (rolls eyes)
Jim Denham said,
December 9, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The AWL staement on HOPI is here:
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7527
…As I said before, I think we should have had a presence and it was a mistake to have given the impression (if that’s what we did), that we were boycotting the event.
voltairespriest said,
December 9, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Statement seems a bit post-facto to me… could just have turned up and put all the objections forward as amendments.
Sunny said,
December 9, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Thanks for this. I couldn’t make it, but am a signatory.
voltairespriest said,
December 9, 2007 at 11:54 pm
HOPI now added to the Shiraz links list, under “Campaigns”.
twp77 said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:15 am
Cheers Volty – reminds me I need to do the same on my blog!
In addition, for anoyone who is interested, there is a positive report of the conference by Stuart King at Permanent Revolution:
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1819
And one from Stroppy here:
http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/hands-off-people-of-iran-conference.html
sachai said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Hi comrades,
It was both the AWL National Committee and the climate change march that day, so we were a bit stretched. Otherwise we would certainly have sent people along.
For why the AWL is not supporting HOPI (as a small part of a much longer resolution on Iran passed by our NC on Saturday), see here
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9731
Sacha
a very public sociologist said,
December 10, 2007 at 8:45 pm
The NC’s resolution on HOPI does read like a litany of excuses *not* to get involved.
Speaking as an individual, I think HOPI is a timely initiative that could inject a dose of much-needed commonsense into the anti-war movement.
Tami, do you know if a facility to allow for trade union affiliations was voted through?
twp77 said,
December 11, 2007 at 10:05 am
Thanks for that Sacha. I don’t honestly think that the reasons you list are enough to keep you out of HOPI. For example, I know AWL comrades participate in the Labour Left and presumably similar criticisms could be made about the size of the Labour Left and so forth but it does not stop your comrades from participating (I recognise that the issue of class is much more prominent in discussions around the LP).
In addition, I really think you are incorrect in your contention that HOPI is a CPGB propaganda group. It is clearly larger than that and now involves members from the Green Party, Labour Party (Left), Permanent Revolution, WCP Iran and WCP Iraq, and various British TUs in addition to WLU Iran and the CPGB.
I am glad to hear that you would have attended but couldn’t due to resources – which is what I had assumed as I know a lot of folks were on the Climate Change demo that day (and I did pity them from our warm hall in Camden!) I hope that you will re-consider your position and at the very least attend meetings in the future to argue your points. I am sure I am not alone in saying I would welcome the debate as I believe the AWL has important contributions to make.
AVPS – We voted to have affiliations from organisations which would then be given a slot on the Steering Committee. Were a trade union to affiliate we would use this – but I don’t think there is any separate facility. We also passed support for a model TU motion to be taken to branches. In addition George B from PR asked the incoming SC to provide literature for trade unionists on the current cases within Iran such as Osanloo and others which was agreed.
Shabnam said,
December 16, 2007 at 2:44 pm
HOPI thinks, Islamic movement is a threat to world peace not the Zionism since they are only talking about “Israeli Aggression” and ignore the enemy of humanity Zionism, all together. That’s why Noam Chomsky, a hidden Zionist, supports them. Chomsky does not support ‘Stop the war’ which emphasize on Zionism and has supporters such as George Galloway who criticizing Israel without obfuscation.
That’s why the Zionist and HOPI have identical policy and worldview on Islam and Islamic liberation movement such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hammas in Palestine.
In an interview Yassamine Mather, an “Iranian exile” who speaks Persian with an accent, with Khoshdel condemned the British left who supports human rights of Hezbollah against Israeli aggression which killed more than 1100 innocent people; many were children, in Lebanon last summer. They look at these forces as
“reactionary” not liberation movement. Samir Amin, a socialist, in an article “Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism” believes that: “….[I]ran is not by nature incompatible with integration of the country into the globalize capitalist system such as it is, since the regime is based on liberal principles for managing the economy. The second is that the Iranian nation as such is a “strong nation,” one whose major components, if not all, of both popular classes and ruling classes, do not accept the integration of their country into the globalize system in a dominated position.”
He continues:
“It is Iranian nationalism—powerful and, in my opinion, altogether historically positive—that explains the success of the modernization of scientific, industrial, technological, and military capabilities undertaken by the Shah’s regime and the Khomeinist regime that followed. Iran is one of the few states of the South (with China, India, Korea, Brazil, and maybe a few others, but not many!) to have a national bourgeois project.”
Therefore, Mr. Amin separates Iran from those Islamists who have been created and supported by the US imperialism for expansion of its influence, such as Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Ben Laden and his associates.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm
HOPI is seeking “regime change” in Iran, but supports the Zionist regime and thinks the Zionist are little bit aggressive. They never refer to Israel as apartheid state, like Chomsky, and has never exposed “The Zionist plan for the middle east” which first phase has been established, a spy network of Kurdistan as ally of Israel in the region. This is what Chomsky wants.
http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm
HOPI can accept Racist Zionist but with cover of fighting against Imperialism in fact is helping Zionism through elimination of its enemy Iranian regime which has the support of the Zionist such as Chomsky.
HOPI is supported mainly by the westerners and pro Israel’s interest not only does not seek regime change in occupied Palestine, Israel, but also attack the Islamic liberation movements such as Hezbollah and Hammas and is very hostile to Iranian government. Communist student of Iran, one of HOPI’s wings, has been charged, by Iranian political activists such as Raiys Dana, Sahabi, Said Hajarian and even Akbar Ganji, who has received many “awards” from the intelligent services of the West, disguised as “Human rights” organization such NED, with receiving money from Israel.
In the light of NIE release that shows Iran has no nuclear weapon program, Israel does, now the international community must be mobilized more than ever to neutralize any aggression, military or economic sanction, against Iranian people and be united to put pressure on world leaders to lift current sanctions on Iran to save the Iranian children from hunger and economic strangulation of more than 72 million people. Iran did not have a nuclear weapon program as the Zionist/imperialist forces charge. They have lied again when they said “Iran stop its program in 2003.” There was no such a program to begin with.
Shabnam said,
December 18, 2007 at 3:03 am
“Western radical forces struggling against imperialism and its wars in the region have genuine allies in this revolutionary movement of workers and youth inside Iran. It is time the left in the anti-war movement woke up to this reality and took up a principled stance not only against imperialist wars and sanctions, but also against theocratic regimes such as Iran’s Islamic republic. ”
Yassmine Mather said. I want who is Mather who dares to make a decision for Iranian people. Do you see on Zionism in her speeches? Whom do you think you are who ignore the enemy of the humanity, Zionism, and going after Iranian government who supports Palestinian. Have you read the Zionist plan for “greater Israel”? Israel’s plan is to divide the countries of the region into smaller satellite state like Kurdistan to keep its hegemonic rule in the region and continue to push the rest of the Palestinian out and plunder the resources of the region. Do you think Iranians are that stupid to listen to a hoax “Iranian” such as Yassamine Mather who has hidden agenda like Noam Chomsky who seeks the interest of Israel, the Zionist state, first. Read articles by James Petras to find out about Zionist plan where try to fool us all. Don’t be a fool. If there should be elimination of a regime, then first and most it should be the apartheid regime of occupied Palestine.
Israel is seeking to have spy network such as Kurds who are spying for Israel for the
past 50 years.
Isarel also is very active in Africa, Sudan, somalia,……. and using the ethnic card
to divide the countries and set up for disintegration. In sudan through a campaign of lies and deception, “child slavery”, which was directed by Charles Jacobs, who is also directing DAVID PROJECT, spread disinformation about Sudan. John Garang, who became a “leader” trained by US and Israel received money and arms through “humanitarian aides” so to create war and manufactured “crisis” which forced the Sudanese government to establish semi-autonomous in the south.
“save Darfur” is another phoney campaign of lies and decemption by the psy network of Israel including the Holocaust musium which has created phoney “genocide” to create war and crisis to set Sudan for western intervention and regime change so Israel can eliminate another enemy by through proxy. Don’t be a fool. Ask questions and expand your reading materials. Zionism is the enemy of us all and as long as
HOPI does not directly and clearly address and eliminate, then they are nothing but
liars when they are preaching about democracy and freedom.
Would the real Shabnam please stand up said,
December 18, 2007 at 12:47 pm
voltaires_priest said,
December 18, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Shabnam;
Yassmine Mather is an Iranian Socialist, as far as I know. Who are you to speak for Iranians, for that matter?
Antizionists said,
December 28, 2008 at 6:52 am
Where is the condemnation of HOPI against the zionofascists in Israel? or you have
too many zionist Jews in your organization where are afraid to take a position? Or perhaps your trade mark, like the zionist agent Noam Chomsky, is to attack
‘US imperialism’?
Voltaire's Priest said,
December 28, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Mr Anti-Zionists: Bonus Tinfoil Hat for YOU, sirrah!