The STWC meeting took place in the context of a wave of occupations in educational institutions across the UK, triggered by opposition to the Israeli state’s attacks on the people of Gaza. The first occupation started at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) on January 13 and others rapidly followed across the country, until students at over 20 establishments across the UK had occupied offices and lecture theatres at their university.

The event provided an opportunity for activists to “share experiences and plan actions for the future”, through reports from some of the occupations and discussions on the “role of the anti-war movement on campus”. Most of those present were, of course, Socialist Workers Party comrades, with a smattering of Workers Power/Revolution supporters, Communist Students and unattached comrades.

The first session, titled ‘Solidarity with Gaza: end the war on terror’, started with an introductory opening by Jeremy Corbyn MP, who noted a sea-change in student activism – the occupations, he said, marked a “turning point”. This was followed by a contribution from LSE student Mira Hammad, who spoke about the relationship between the STWC and the National Union of Students. The NUS is a topic of renewed debate among the left recently following the successful passing of a ‘governance review’ that has further reduced democracy and increased the powers of the existing bureaucracy within the organisation.

Comrade Hammad suggested that STWC activists should largely bypass the official leadership, as the majority remained largely focused on furthering their own careers. Most students just ignore (or simply do not know about) the existing structures in any case. Hammad argued instead for the creation of a new organisation at university level, which would be able to coordinate actions like the occupations in conjunction with the STWC.

STWC convenor and SWP ‘loyal oppositionist’ Lindsey German stressed the continued relevance of the STWC, although she believed that, while the NUS should not be our starting point, it will remain an arena of political struggle. She claimed that the recent wave of student occupations had shown that 2009 could be the new 1968.

During the discussion that followed the contentious role of the NUS immediately emerged as a polarising issue – the implications of the changes following the passing of the governance review have clearly divided the existing far-left student organisations. Activists from Revolution (Workers Power’s youth front) had publicised the meeting as a way in which students could “fight for a new national student organisation which can stand up for our rights”. Revolution member Simon Hardy said that the occupations had shown students that the NUS was “not the only road” and the focus of the activists must now be on “building a new fighting student movement”.

Leading SWP student and NUS executive committee member Rob Owen has called on Socialist Worker Student Society members to “continue to try and build a left inside NUS” (www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/robowen/276027.aspx), although the general assumption seems to be that from now on this will be less rewarding.

However, representatives from neither the SWP nor WP clarified during the day’s discussion exactly what kind of politics should be taken to the mass of students in response to the crisis within NUS. Revolution comrades circulated an unsigned open letter, appealing for “a radical coordination of the student struggles in Britain”, while the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty student front, Education Not for Sale (whose comrades were not present), has called for a meeting of “left student unions” and activists in March. Comrade Owen talked vaguely about pressure from below being able to create a “new student movement”, but stressed the continual important role of full-time NUS sabbaticals in supporting actions such as the recent occupations. Unlike the AWL, the SWP still has representation in the NUS bureaucracy, which may partially explain the SWP position, as opposed to the AWL’s talk of a “qualitative break”.

The one group unable to put forward its viewpoint was Communist Students. CPGB member Ben Lewis’s request to speak was constantly ignored by SWP chair Clare Solomon, despite the fact he was among the first to indicate. At one point he was the only one with his hand up, but comrade Solomon insisted that she was “looking for female speakers”.

During the second session students provided feedback from individual occupations, outlining the key demands that had been decided upon and the response of the university management.

Many highlighted basic issues of accountability. When students at Cambridge were challenged by the university’s ‘negotiation team’ during the discussions surrounding their demands, they were asked who they claimed to represent within the student population at large. The students responded by challenging the university’s own structure, from the individual bureaucrat at the bottom right up to the unelected, and largely unaccountable, vice-chancellor.

Sussex comrades raised the importance of internationalism for the anti-war movement, noting that the occupations had received messages of solidarity from across the world and that this must remain one of its strengths. To illustrate this point, news came in during the day that the University of Rochester in New York had been occupied in solidarity with UK students.

Whilst it was interesting to gain an insight into the increase in militancy across campuses, following the reports there was little time to discuss the politics that the student movement needs to cohere around if it is to organise, deepen and broaden the militant mood.

Galloway

In the final session George Galloway joined Rob Owen and Chris Nineham (like comrade German an STWC officer and former member of the SWP central committee) on a platform to discuss ‘The future of the anti-war movement’.

The assembled activists tried their best to ignore the elephant in the room: the internal conflicts within the leadership of the STWC and the SWP. Casual observers would not have guessed that two of the SWP’s most prominent members in the room had recently stood down from the SWP CC.

Opening the discussion, comrade Nineham stressed the need to rally people around the aims and objectives of the coalition. He said that the STWC message to Obama should be to withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and not attack Iran: “You said, ‘Yes, we can’. We have to make sure that you do.”

Comrade Galloway conceded that the STWC had experienced a “dip” in popularity following the huge demonstrations of 2003, but argued that this had now changed, as thousands had been drawn into the anti-war movement through revulsion at Israel’s attacks on Gaza, including those too young to remember the STWC marches of six years ago.

The meeting was then opened to contributions from the floor and I was the first to speak. Highlighting the role of Hands Off the People of Iran, I argued for a principled anti-imperialist position not just for Iran, but for the whole region. Leading Hopi comrade Moshé Machover, an anti-Zionist Israeli socialist, had addressed the Kings College occupation, and I suggested that this was an example of debating a wide range of anti-war opinion.

I noted that one of Hopi’s central demands is opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression, yet in October 2007 its application to affiliate to the STWC was rejected, as it was considered an “entirely hostile” organisation that could play no positive role in the movement. Since then Hopi has had an impressive record of work, winning affiliations from the civil servants union, PCS, and the important rail union, Aslef. I argued that if the STWC is really committed to breadth and plurality in building the biggest movement of opposition to war then it should reverse the 2007 decision.

Following my contribution there was very limited time and only a handful more speakers were heard. One noted that many of those at her college did not want to be affiliated to the STWC because of the perception that it was “SWP-run and controlled”. A subject particularly close to the heart of those on the top table presumably.

In replying to the discussion George Galloway stressed the importance of “maintaining unity” within the STWC. It seems he has made up his mind on Hopi and will be sticking to his guns. The STWC would “disintegrate” if it was not united, and Hopi would only divert the “streams of radicalism” which need to be channelled into a “mighty river”.

Very poetic, George, but somewhat bizarre. Hopi, after all, has been excluded. What is more, last year’s Respect conference passed a resolution which agreed to “support initiatives” of Hopi and other such campaigns. Does that not mean anything for Respect’s sole MP? Either way, comrade Galloway did not explain why our fight against imperialist intervention in Iran and in support of the  workers’, women’s and students’ movements is divisive, whereas those that act as apologists for the Tehran regime are perfectly acceptable.

Galloway responded to the comment on the SWP by informing us, to much laughter, that he was “not in the SWP” but that some of the SWP members in its leadership were among the “hardest fighters” he knew. I do not know if he was referring to his “good friends” German, Nineham and John Rees.

Despite the brief surfacing of controversial points, there was very little by way of genuine debate during the day. Questions such as the link between war and the system of capital itself were hardly touched upon. In other words, it was pretty much business as usual. It is good that many have been drawn into anti-imperialist demonstrations and occupations, but in the absence of any sort of political strategy, there is a real danger that the movement against Zionist aggression and in solidarity with the Palestinians could dissipate as quickly as that against the invasion of Iraq.