Alexander
Palace was built in 1851 as the venue for that year’s
Great Exhibition, a showcase for the industrial
wonders of the Victorian age and the spoils of the
largest empire then known. Last weekend, the glass
halls of the North London venue echoed to the hubbub
a different throng, as over 20,000 activists from
across and beyond Europe participated in the third
European Social Forum. The high grandeur of the
Palace became a backdrop for discussion and debate
on the quandries of the post-industrial world, and
its hyper-power, the Empire of America reborn and
on the march.
This
gathering of trots, anarchists, trade unionists,
pacifists, ecologists, nationalists and interest
groups was quite unlike anything ever seen on the
British political scene. Over 500 meetings, seminars
and workshops on most concerns of the international
left were matched by a similar number of cultural
events, screenings, plays, gigs and readings. Naturally,
it climaxed with a demo against the Iraq war, which
was attended by almost 70,000 people, according
to the organisers.
The
prospect of squeezing 20,000 active or dogmatic
minds in one venue often led to chaos and not a
little confrontation. However, it should be emphasised
that 99% of events went off without much bother,
an amazing statistic when one considers that this
enormous political event was organised by a troupe
of volunteers. When one compares the micro-management
of ‘proper’ political party conferences,
such as Fianna Fail or New Labour, with their platoons
of full-time organisers, the openness and efficiency
of the ESF stands in sharp relief.
The
ethos of the ESF is totally at variance with the
‘control freakery’ of New Labour. Events
are structured so as to ensure that the views of
the lowliest activist are treated with the same
regard as the superstars of ‘the movement of
movements’, as one book describes the process.
Nevertheless, one of the main attractions for many
of the delegates was the appearance of high-profile
international political figures.
Star
speakers included Ahmed Ben Bella, the leader of
the Algerian resistance to French rule, Dr Aleida
Guevara, daughter of Che, George Galloway, the de
facto leader of the UK anti-war movement, and Dr
Mustapha Barghouti, spoken of as the next leader
of Palestine after Arafat’s imminent departure.
Activist writers such as Susan George, Jon Pilger
and George Monbiot were prominent, and Gerry Adams
was one of many Irish figures speaking. Eamonn McCann,
Inez McCormack of the ICTU, Bairbre de Brun MEP,
Andy Storey of AfrI, and Richard Boyd Barrett of
the Irish Anti-War Movement all spoke at sessions
dealing with issues as diverse as the Iraq war,
European citizenship, the EU Constitutional Treaty
and the treatment of prisoners in the ‘War
on Terror’.
Adams
was asked at his 90-minute talk and questions session
(perhaps the only one to feature a single speaker)
about the treatment of suspected Al-Queda internees
at Belmarsh prison, and he moved many by describing
the psychological effects of imprisonment, particularly
under solitary confinement, and urged listeners
to build support groups for the families of detainees.
This
being the ESF though, Adams did not get too much
of an easy ride, and was asked pointed questions
about the value of nationalism in an age of globalisation,
and had to mount a defence of Sinn Fein’s pragmatism
in power, in particular the backing of bin charges
by SF councillors in Sligo, and Martin McGuinness’
use of public/private funding for schools in the
North. Adams was also using the ESF as cover for
talks in Downing Street with Jonathon Powell, Tony
Blair’s Chief of Staff. This was innocently
given away by Dr Mary Hickman who chaired the session,
explaining the delay in proceedings as “Gerry
is trying to get through London traffic from Downing
Street.” It transpires that Martin McGuinness
had slipped into Number 10 as well, past the prying
eyes of the Westminster lobby.
Adams kept his audience happy by talking in the
common language of “another world is possible”,
of the “”importance of practical as well
as symbolic acts of international solidarity.”
Third World debt should be cancelled, the environment
should be protected, private corporations should
be kept out from the public sector, diversity should
be respected and equality defended, the US/UK troops
should be pulled out of Iraq now, and the resistance
should be backed without question or sentiment.
George Galloway made the last point as simply as
possible: “It’s not our job to analyse
the resistance – it’s our job to defeat
imperialism. Don’t be seduced into some third
camp – that camp is part of the first camp,
the imperialism of Bush and Blair.” The foes
of the movement, the imperialists, are losing the
war at home as well as the streets of Fallujah,
he assured his cheering followers, being crushed
between “the hammer of the Iraqi resistance
and the anvil of the international solidarity movement.”
Richard
Boyd Barrett asserted his unequivical support. “People
have the right to take up arms and resist”,
he told the same audience. Accusing those who question
the suicide bombing of Iraqi children queueing for
sweets as fostering “anti-Islamic racism”,
Boyd Barrett asserted that “people have the
right to resist in what ever manner they choose”,
bringing in the language of multiculturalism to
real life and death. Despite being specific about
the forces behind the new imperialism – the
Washington neoconservatives and the Project for
a New American Centiry – all speakers were
coy about the specifics of the ‘resistance’.
There was no specific mention of the Shi’ite
cleric Al-Sadr and his Madhi Army, nor Zaquari and
his fellow kidnappers and decapitators, not even
Al-Queda, with their own take on the rights of women
and the existence of gays.
Similarly,
the great bugbear ‘neo-liberalism’ was
oft decried but never defined. Sessions were held
on all the right humanitarian causes (Palestine,
Chechnya, Nepal, Colombia, Northern Ireland), but
Sudan and the ongoing atrocities in Darfur did not
merit a single mention. Perhaps the idea of an Islamist
government raping and murdering an Islamic ethnic
minority did not fit the picture.
The
prospect of simple solutions to every problem is
tempting, but can lead to intolerance for those
with a more nuanced message. One such messenger
was Subhi al Mashadani, the leader of the Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions, set up in April 2003
to help build civil society and protect the rights
of workers and women. He never got to speak. For
an hour he was barracked by a handful of English
and Turkish trots, who surged towards the stage
when he attempted to address the 2,000 strong audience.
After being attacked on his arrival at Alexander
Palace earlier that day, the ESF’s security
took no chances and dragged a furious Mashadani
from the stage for his own protection. The ‘End
the Occupation’ session was stopped, a first
in the history of the ESF.
Mashadani
was being hectored as a ‘scab’ and a ‘collaborator’
for working with the Iraqi interim government, and
a ‘murderer’ for no other reason than
believing that pulling occupying armies out now
would simply open up a power vacuum that would be
filled by the most reactionary Islamist forces of
al-Sadr and Zaquari. Although the other four speakers
on the panel disagreed with his analysis, they all
agreed that he should have been heard. However,
all said he should not have been allowed to speak
in the first place. “Mashadani should not have
been invited”, said Richard Boys Barrett, after
condemning those who stopped the debate. “It
plays into the hands of Tony Blair and Mashadani
and the occupiers.”
That
shambles, and the later occupation of a stage by
anarchists to prevent London Mayor Ken Livingstone
from speaking against fascism, shows the limitations
of the ESF. At its worst, it exlempifies the sort
of easy and irresponsible gesture politics that
made the left so unattractive to voters. Livingstone
donated £400,000 of local taxpayers cash to
host the event, and prised hundreds of thousands
more in donations and help-in-kind from the trade
unions. He turned the Millenium Dome into a giant
hostel for over 5,000 participants. In turn, he
was accused of control freakery.
The
other side of the coin is the genuine sense of altruism
that emanated from the 20,000 participants, the
desire to contribute to politics in an age when
no party can get people like these to join them
or even vote, the willingness to fight for a freer
and fairer world, the complete absence of ethnic
or racial superiority, the sense of real internationalism,
the hunger for knowledge about how the world works
and how it can be changed.
The
immediate consequences of the ESF on European politics
will be minimal. The activists will feel emboldened,
and plans are afoot for another international Day
of Action on Iraq, probably on Febuary 19th 2005.
And one left with the distinct impression that some
twentysomething participant at the Palace will,
in two or three decades, be running things in Italy,
Germany, Britain, Palestine, Poland or Ireland.
