The politically degenerate NUS leadership refuses solidarity with those fighting ISIS

October 11, 2014 at 4:53 pm (apologists and collaborators, Beyond parody, conspiracy theories, fascism, Human rights, iraq, islamism, israel, kurdistan, Middle East, palestine, posted by JD, reactionay "anti-imperialism", students)

By Daniel Cooper

Two motions debated at NUS NEC

The meeting then turned to motions submitted by NEC members. Unfortunately this part of the meeting was no feast of reason. There are two motions I want to focus on: Iraqi solidarity and Israel/PalestineI urge you to read the motions before continuing.

The “Iraqi solidarity” motion had been worked on with Roza Salih, a Strathclyde university student of Kurdish descent (she submitted an almost identical motion to the Scottish equivalent of the executive, the Scottish Executive Council, which I will post later, which, incidentally, did pass! One must ask Scottish executive members why vote for a motion in Scotland, but not in England?!).

The motion was opposed by Malia Bouattia, the NUS Black Students’ Officer, for astonishing and bewildering reasons. Bouattia argued that the motion was “Islamophobic” and “pro USA intervention” – (see Aaron Kiely, a fellow NUS NEC member’s, tweet during the meeting as reflective of the position). The motion then fell as large numbers of NEC members either abstained or voted against (including the bulk of the political Left on NEC). I think this says a lot about the current state of the student movement.

(I must also put on record that after only a single round of speeches, Toni Pearce moved the debate on. This was wrong: there was no opportunity to respond to Bouattia’s allegations. I had my hand up to speak in response, but was not called.)

Let us look at Bouattia’s arguments: is the motion anti-Muslim or pro US intervention?

The motion was partly written by a Kurdish student activist, and presented by the International students’ officer, Shreya Paudel. I have looked again and again at the contents of the motion, yet I cannot track any Islamophobia or racism.

Pro-intervention?

The US occupation, and its aftermath, has been an utter disaster for the people of Iraq. Resulting governments, led by Nouri Al-Maliki, have been authoritarian and carried out virulent Shia sectarianism. A civil war in the mid 2000s killed 34,000 civilians. Today there are 1.6 million refugees.

The dynamics in 2014 are complex. ISIS, who have grown out of Al-Qaeda, have seized huge swathes of the country; there is a new, shaky, shia-sectarian government; and a Kurdish regional government, whose self determination I believe we should support.

The ultra-Islamist group ISIS is a threat to all the people of Iraq. It is repressing and persecuting minorities, including Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and Sunni Muslim Arabs. On the 29th June it declared a “caliphate” (a religious dictatorship). It has carried out rape and other forms of sexual violence are being used as weapons against women in IS-occupied areas.

These developments have been exacerbated and driven by US policy deliberately fostering sectarianism.

The situation is desperate.

In this situation, it is fundamental that the political Left, trade union and student organisations, like NUS, show our solidarity with the Iraqi people, in particular the hard-pressed student, workers and women’s organisations, and those fighting for democracy and equality.

It is unclear whether Western forces (which congregated in Paris the day before the NEC meeting, on the 15th of September, to announce a “game plan” to defeat ISIS) will send boots onto the ground in Iraq. We know already that French aircrafts have begun reconnaissance flights over Iraq; and that US aid has assisted the Kurds and Yazidis. However it is unlikely they will want a re-run of a war that even they believe to have been a colossal failure. It may be more likely that the USA assists established forces from afar to defeat ISIS.

However, the motion cannot be clearer in saying that such forces cannot be relied upon to deliver democratic change in Iraq: “no confidence or trust in the US military intervention.” If one were to believe it is not sufficiently clear or that the motion is not worded strongly enough, fine: make an amendment to the motion; or seek to take parts to remove or strengthen a particular aspect. Instead, the whole motion – which calls for solidarity with oppressed forces in Iraq – was argued as wrong. This is a grave shame!

It is also true – and Left-wingers should think this over – that the Kurds and Yazidi’s thus far would not have been able to survive if it had not been for aid from the Americans. Calling simply for an end to this intervention is the same as calling for the defeat of the Peshmerga forces by ISIS. The policy is based on a negative criteria – opposing the US and UK – instead of positive critera – solidarity with the oppressed.

Perhaps this is what Bouattia meant when saying that the motion is pro-intervention? Such a suggestion is arrived at only when one’s “analysis” becomes an issue of principle: that even within limited parameters, that to suggest that imperialism is not the only problem is somehow to “support” imperialism. This is the basis of “Stalinist” politics on international questions: that one considers forces that oppose the US as either progressive or, at worst, not the real issue -no matter how barbaric and reactionary and fascistic that force is. This is not a useful or effective way of looking at the world.

The debate

Two interrelated issues struck me about this debate.

Firstly, there is a stranglehold of “identity politics” on the student movement. This is an issue which needs to be discussed in more depth, but essentially the idea is widespread that if a Liberation Officer opposes something, it must be bad. Of course this idea is not applied consistently (and could not possibly be) – eg the majority of the NEC has not accepted current and former Black Students’ Officers’ defence of Julian Assange or the SWP. But I think it was a factor here, perhaps because people see or claim to see debate on the Middle East as something that the BSO should somehow have veto power over, regardless of the issues and the arguments made.

Combined with this, there seems to be a low level of political education and even engagement and interest in the NEC. Some appear not to research issues, work out what they think, engage and take ideas forward. Instead, some are not very interested and vote on basis of who they want to ally with on NEC. In other words, many people who voted against didn’t seem to care about is happening in Iraq.

Positive Solidarity 

Another motion I believe deserves some discussion was on solidarity with an organisation, Workers’ Advice Centre/WAC-Ma’an, that organises Jewish and Arab workers in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This was voted down by both the Left and Right on NEC, for different reasons.

At the last NEC policy was passed favouring Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions policy (BDS) – which I voted against. Policy was also passed favouring a two states settlement for the region, which I proposed.

For the Right on NEC (the “Right” on NEC are not Conservative party members but are certainly on the “Right” of debates on the NEC), the possibility of giving a tiny sum of our national union’s money to anyone – whether that is a student attacked by the police on a demonstration, or striking college workers, is unthinkable. We must challenge this! According to NUS estimates at national conference, there is a cumulative £4 million expenditure for 2014/15. Offering our resources to those that share our morals is important and potentially highly useful.

Unfortunately, this argument was also pursued by the Left-winger opposing the motion. Left-wingers: this is not something we should be in the business of doing. If left-wingers disagree with a motion, they should argue it on those grounds, not on the basis the right-wing argument that NUS “doesn’t have enough money”.

WAC Maan was established in the 1990s. It is one of the rays of hope in a bleak situation in Israel/Palestine. It’s an independent, grassroots trade union centre which organises in sectors and industries often neglected by the mainstream trade unions.

It shows that organisation and politics that unite Jewish and Arab workers on the basis of internationalism, anti-racism, opposition to the occupation, and basic class solidarity, are possible.

Currently WAC Maan are set to enforce the first collective agreement against bosses in the West Bank, in the industrial zone of Mishor Adumim, at the Zafarty Garage. This is precedent setting. It is also important as it is forcing the courts to look at how Israeli employers manipulate entry permits as a way of getting rid of militants.

If workers across the occupied territories were organised, they would be able to exert considerable influence over the Israeli government, and over the future of the occupied territories.

To conclude: there are clearly disagreements amongst the NEC, and political Left, about international politics. I hope we can continue to have those discussions openly and frankly. I would certainly encourage those on the NEC to write down their opinions on the subject, particularly if they disagree.

I will continue to write reports of NUS NEC activities, and can be contacted on: dancooper13@hotmail.com

7 Comments

  1. Dark Avenger said,

    Just another example of the absolute idiocy of the NUS. The decision to vote against the motion expressing solidarity with the Iraqis is a stain on their leadership, their reputation and themselves as individuals.

  2. Jim Denham said,

    Over at facebook, Comrade Coatesy reports:

    Breaking news, John Rees says Arm the Kurds! Appears on Kurdish demo next to placard saying, “Kurds are Heroes of Fight Against Islamist Fascism.’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IcXiHJaq2w

  3. ofia Tee said,

    There is two things that I really hate in this world.

    1) People on the left that are so political correct that they rather would not arrest or investigate suspected paedophiles for the fear of being called racist as has happened in Rotherham. They support free speech and freedom of choice but will not condemn any organisation or ideology that opposes it, because of PC; then

    2) People on the right that are sometimes so anti science that they will never believe scientist on stuff like climate change, shouting freedom, don’t encroach on my liberty nonsense.

    Also, isn’t condemning Israel anti-semintism, according to the logic showed by NUS.

  4. Aaron Aarons said,

    Was it possible to discuss and vote on amendments before voting on the motion proposed by Daniel Cooper? Richard Seymour says there wasn’t. One thing that should certainly have been amended out of the resolution is point 5:

    “Encourage students to boycott anyone found to be funding the IS or
    supplying them with goods, training, travel or soldiers.”

    Given that the U.K. government has probably already arrested anyone they know of who is even suspected of doing any of these things, including many who have done nothing more than express sympathy with the IS, such a paragraph in a nominally leftist resolution can only contribute to a lynch-mob atmosphere and a witch hunt against such people.

    There are, BTW, other things wrong with the resolution as proposed, including the lack of any condemnation of the murderous Shia sectarian attacks against Sunnis that have pushed many of the latter into an alliance with, or at least a toleration of, IS.

    • Jim Denham said,

      The stuff about calling for a boycott amounting to a “lynch mob atmosphere” against people who express sympathy with IS is a pathetic excuse, never applied, for instance, by people who support a boycott of Israel.

      1/ Calling for a boycott of anyone funding or supplying IS is quite specific and does not include expressing verbal sympathy

      2/ Frankly, anyone who expresses verbal sympathy for IS is, anyway, unworthy of any sympathy or consideration from the left.

      3/ The resolution was about IS, not other murderous thugs, who can no doubt be condemned in other resolutions. The resolution was also silent on such crucial issues as the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the effects of combined and unequal development in the Middle East. Another lame excuse for avoiding taking a clear stand against IS.

      • Aaron Aarons said,

        If one compares the treatment, in the U.K., U.S., and the rest of the anglophone imperialist bloc, of real or suspected supporters of Muslim killers with that of open supporters of Zionist killers, your analogy falls flat. The reason we need condemnation of, and an active, militant boycott of, JS (the Jewish State) is that our governments, and the capitalist world in general, are, with only occasional exceptions, materially and politically supporting the Zionist entity and its crimes. Such condemnation and boycott of the JS and its supporters actually helps weaken the ability of the Zionist entity to sustain and intensify its repression of the Palestinian people.

        OTOH, it’s hard to see how any similar actions against the IS can have much effect, especially considering that it would only be taking weak, private action against those who are already the targets of much more powerful action by the imperialist states themselves. In fact, it would probably weaken support for IS among those Sunnis who see it as a lesser evil than the murderously sectarian Shia army and militias if those who condemn IS were to also condemn those Shia killers.

        In addition, solidarity with the Kurdish defenders of Kobane should also include active protest against the Turkish government’s attacks on their political allies inside Turkey, the PKK, and its interference with the attempts by fighters from the PKK to join the fight to defend Kobane. (That may be changing to some extent, so the need for such protests may have lessened a bit.)

        Overall, people in the West condemning the IS is likely to have zero effect on that group’s actions, and I think the groups promoting that resolution in the NUS must know that, and that their purpose in putting forth that resolution was to enable them to denounce their political opponents for not supporting it. In other words, it was and is a sectarian maneuver.

  5. NUS Officer condemns peace talks; urges violent “resistance” | Stand for Peace said,

    […] October, the NUS’s Malia Bouattia was criticised after she worked to defeat a motion at an NUS conference that expressed condemnation of the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: