Far left has hijacked peace group, says CND veteran

UK anti-war movement eating each other! Make of this what you will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1096872,00.html

The peace movement could be destroyed by the takeover of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Stop the War coalition by Trotskyist groups and the Communist party, according to allegations circulated by a leading campaigner.

The claims have been made by Jimmy Barnes, the veteran leftwing secretary of the trade union CND movement. He has warned in a paper sent to the campaign's national council and the trade union CND executive that "CND itself is now a small divided group with little future, unless there is a change".

It has been well known that the anti-war groups have always been heavily influenced by the far left, but the internal divisions have reached a startling degree of animosity.

Mr Barnes claims that the last CND annual conference saw a bitter fight for the chairmanship, ending with officer positions being captured by the Communist party and Socialist Action faction. He adds that the way CND was taken over in the autumn will "lead to a long-running faction struggle which could neutralise, or possibly destroy the peace movement at a time when it is most needed".

Heard it all before. Evil communists!

to derail the momentum of anti-war activists. And it fucking worked--based alone on the wailing on this site about how the peace movement was infilitrated by commies.

the thing is, with the blatantly unjust invasion of Iraq in the offing, hundreds of thousands of moderates such as myself started taking part in anti-war activities. However, with the fall of Saddam the debate changed from how to stop the war to how to win the peace, something which the neo-cons are failing to do.

The Stop The War Coalition want to see the troops out of Iraq plain and simple, but such moderates such as myself tend to want to see the UN takeover. This split has left the Stop The War Coalition even more in the hands of the likes of the Socialist Workers Party and moderate influence within the movement dwindling. Something which I don't think was hard to predict.

If the PNAC starts gearing up for another war anytime soon then the moderates will come back to the anti-war movement, but not as long as it's all about troops out!

That is a rather arbitrary, one sided dispute. There is only one thing that can stand against tyranny, and that is SOLIDARITY. Those who would wander off for invalid reasons are foolishly treacherous and hypocritical to the extreme. The racket being made by post-modern uber-patriots against the most successful organizers is reminiscent of McCarthyism at its WORST!

The protests at the moment are to call for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and if I cannot support that then I can see scant reason to join in the protests. I don't have anything against the anti-war movement, but if I disagree with them on such a key point then I am not inclined to join in with them.

Withdrawal of troops will more likely than not lead to major instability and even civil war. Iraq needs to be made safe and it needs to be rebuilt. To that end I am in favour of a UN takeover. It may not be perfect but it does seem like the least worst option at present.

The STWC was right in the run-up to the Iraq war, but now the main question has changed I have moved on.

could you please describe the current situation?

...if the foreign troops left? I am well aware that Bush & Blair have f**ked things up but withdrawing the troops would only make things worse. I did describe a UN takeover as the least worst option because no option offers an easy solution.

I'm not happy about what is going on in the slightest but doesn't mean that I'm going to start joining forces with groups whom I don't agree with, be it "new" labour, the tories or the Socialist Workers party.

The "it's our mess, we fix it" argument plays right into Bush's hands and betrays a certain paternalism. Do you really trust him to "fix" Iraq? Do you really distrust Iraqis' ability to put their own country back together?

The troops simply shouldn't be there, and nothing can be put right until they leave.

I say that a UN 'solution' begins with pulling our troops out... so i don't really see the two 'sides' being that far apart.

will the UN ultimately be successful in our wake? who knows, but it is certainly better than just us running the show and that is where the real problem lies... we don't want to give up control.

peace

Not a question of how can we avoid stepping in the shit altogether. To have avoided stepping into this mess we should never have invaded, we tried our dammedest to prevent this from happening but sadly, our leaders are arrogant beyond measure. Like I have said before on here, it is a matter of the least worst option. :shrug:

Immediate withdrawal of troops would create a massive power vacumm that would destabilize Iraq still further and probbably lead to civil war or another Saddam or another Milocevic type leader in Bahgdad. That means that we still need troops there, but a UN force would have the experience and the altruism that the US/UK force does not. It would aslmost certainly place more value on rebuilding and humanitarian aid than the current mob do. A UN takeover would not mean an immediate withdrawal of troops, but it would eventually lead to that hopefully.

Sadly the UN option is not one that Bush and Blair will go for as it would involve ceding power to a body which many chickenhawks view with the utmost contempt. Therefore it is quite fair to argue that in order to acheve successful regime change in Iraq we must have regime change at home.

It really won't. The Iraqi's are educated people and have all the engineers they need. Give them money, get the troops out and let the chips fall where they may. The UN is unwanted and unneeded there.

whether they want UN assistance or not?

Could the world be any worse off than it is today?

The British far left :eyes:

i think it is a good sign that so much fresh blood is getting politically active.

the establishment will have to adapt or be swept away.

peace

What the hell is he talking about?

Everyone knows CND is full of old-fashioned marxists and the like. The Labour parties adoption of the CNDer Michael Foot as leader in the early 1980's, the manifesto pledge of unilateral nuclear disarmerment and the 1983 landslide loss that resulted from that policy are probbably the biggest symbols of what "new" labour was created to lead the party away from.

When you join CND, that you know full well that you are joining a group that tends towards the pacifist left, and the far left.

What's wrong with socialists in a united front group? I have no problem with it at all. Those who exercise the best leadership will gain influence. If "moderates" want credibility, they better "get their hands dirty" among the activists and do some real work instead of gesticulating from the sidelines pissing and moaning about "radicals."

So it doesn't shock me at all that the anti-war movement might be fueled by much communist/socialist thought. Is that a really bad thing, since it is entirely true that our modern warfare is driven by markets and the enrichment of a very few?

I think some need to get rid of their kneejerk fear of socialist or militant socialist presence in the resistance to things like never ending war, antiWTO and other related isses. They are not the boogeyman.