Now’s the time, argues Andrew Fisher. No chance, retorts Andrew Murray. Michael Calderbank weighs the arguments.

The debate (I’m tempted to say battle) of the Andrews – Fisher vs Murray over the role being played by Stop the War currently is an important one for the movement. I have friends and comrades on either side  and I’ll probably annoy all of them with this post!

Yesterday, Andrew Fisher, former policy advisor to Jeremy Corbyn, wrote an article for the i newspaper, calling on the  Stop the War Coalition to disband. In an article subtitled, “Stop the War has marginalised itself and alienated the vast majority of the Ukrainian population in the UK”, Fisher wrote:

“This week, the Stop the War Coalition showed how hollowed out that coalition has become. As Trades Union Congress (TUC) delegates met in Liverpool, they were castigated by Stop the War for overwhelmingly backing Composite 21, a motion supporting Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion. It tweeted: ‘If Congress adopts this motion it will be taking a position supportive of the Tory govt’s war policy in Ukraine.’ Portraying TUC delegates as Tory supporters, pro-Nato and apologists for imperialism is laughable.”

Andrew Murray, who also worked part-time for Jeremy Corbyn, and is an officer for Stop the War responded with a piece entitled “Andrew Fisher wants Stop the War to wind itself up, in the middle of a war, because of a vote at the TUC conference. No chance”.

Here’s my view. I think Stop the War (StW) played a very important role in protesting the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and against the War on Terror.  I was involved as a supporter throughout.   There has no doubt been the occasional poor formulation and tactical mistake along the way – especially with the over-reliance on George Galloway and the political spin-off around the Respect party, which I never supported.

I’m not sure that the demand to disband StW now is necessarily one I’d share – but I do have serious criticisms of the position it has taken of Ukraine – which I guess for some makes me a ‘Tory/NATO/Nazi stooge’, but that’s symptomatic of a very simplistic, slapdash and counterproductive level of analysis.  And given that StW isn’t directly accountable to individual members and its leaders have never to my knowledge faced a proper election, I don’t know how StW can be steered back to playing a more positive role.

Andrew Murray says in his article: “We opposed the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the first, have declared our solidarity with anti-war Russians like Boris Kagarlitsky and been unequivocal in our support for Ukrainian refugees in Britain.”

Let’s take this bit by bit. “We opposed the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the first” – this was only after confidently asserting that those warning of the possibility of an imminent Russian invasion were just echoing NATO warmongering.    When the ‘condemnation’ came, it was empty and perfunctory.   The net effect of calling for Ukraine to settle for peace on terms which concede the right of Russia to have invaded and occupied Ukraine and bombed civilians is to reward their actions.

“We… have declared our solidarity with anti-war Russians like Boris Kagarlitsky”

That’s good to an extent, but singling out Kargalitsky is telling. Unlike more consistent anti-war Russian activists, Kagarlitsky has only latterly shifted his position.  After the Maidan of 2014 he was echoing support for the Russian mercenary forces fighting in Donbass and justifying the annexation of Crimea.

“And been unequivocal in our support for Ukrainian refugees in Britain.” Good, but what about the millions of Ukrainians living in Ukraine?  What about the trade unions of Ukraine that are calling for solidarity and support to oppose the Russian invasion and free their country from the occupying forces of their historic oppressor?   Since the days of Imperial Russia under the Tsar, greater Russian chauvinists have long denied the right of Ukraine to exist as an independent nation, something chillingly echoed by Putin’s statements after the invasion. The implicit position of StW is to ask Ukrainians to accept their own re-subordination to Moscow.  Is this solidarity?  Is it socialism?

Simply calling the conflict “NATOs proxy war” strips Ukrainians of any agency. It erases from the picture Putin’s military aggression and its brutal treatment of Ukrainian civilians.

However, as socialists of course we recognise that NATO has strategic interests and ambitions of its own at stake in this conflict and that the Zelensky government is using war powers to further restrict labour rights and impoverish his people.  

I don’t have easy answers and there’s far too much simplistic sloganeering around. I do know that the Ukrainian people – including in Donetsk and Luhansk – have the right to exercise national self-determination in regards to their own future. But this requires Russian forces to leave – with UN peacekeepers to protect civilian minorities on both sides – and an immediate end to the bombing, especially of civilians.

That’s what a broad StW movement would be calling for and could gain popular support around – not the knee-jerk ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ position which the current StW leadership is sometimes guilty of.

Michael Calderbank is Political Education Officer of Tottenham CLP.

Image: Stop the War Coalition protest march on 15 March 2008 in London. Author: Adambro, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.