freelanceintellectual.com

I spent tonight at a World Against War meeting at Willesden Library Centre, an event got up by the Stop the War Coalition to raise support and funds for a big demonstration in central London on March 15th, not simply in favour of withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan but also against any attack on Iran, and in favour of the Palestinian cause. I may have been the only person in the hall, out of an attendance of perhaps two hundred, to have supported the war and to want British troops to stay at least in Afghanistan. So why was I there? Because I approve generally of public political meetings, and think they should be supported; because I wanted to hear two terrific public speakers, Tony Benn and Mark Steel; because I wanted to find out what's going on; and so I can report report here on what I saw and heard.

Actually, it was a surprisingly cool meeting, not in the sense that the audience wasn't warm towards the speakers - it was. But it wasn't very heated, or tense, or excited, I thought. Perhaps people are saving that for the demonstration. But it was very interesting to observe who the anti-War movement consists of, and to hear what both its leaders and supporters think.

The first thing that struck me, though I wasn't at all surprised by it, was the way a number of issues were all rolled up into one - the emphasis was not so much on Iraq, I suppose because British troops are now being withdrawn, slowly, and the end is in sight. The emphasis was mainly on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, with some talk of Iran. Mark Steel claimed that US accusations that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme are "clearly nonsense", and that had it not been for the anti-War movement, Iran might have been attacked already. No one mentioned the UN agreement to renewed sanctions against Iran. There was also some talk about Gaza. All the speakers called for EU sanctions on Israel, or at least said they wished there were such sanctions; none criticised Hamas at all or seemed to have taken cognisance of the fact that israel withdrew from Gaza some time ago to be rewarded with regular rocket attacks from Gazan soil. Benn expressed surprise that Mahmoud Abbas chooses to talk with Israel but not with Hamas. The unavoidable impression was of a generalised, all-purpose leftist movement, motivated most of all by opposition to American foreign policy, but also by opposition to Israel, and with its mind throroughly made up on every issue.

And all aspects of anti-Americanism came out tonight. Castro got a brief mention, as Mark Steel slated the American attitude to him over decades. I noted he avoided any actual praise of Castro, mind. One questioner expressed support for Castro's spiritual heir, Hugo Chavez, and both Benn and Steel made positive noises about him. Benn said he was "absolutely right" in his domestic priorities, while Steel was again more circumspect, calling him an "extraordinary figure" while accepting there were things "we could debate" about Venezuela. Neither referred at all to the current tension in Latin America or to Chavez's mobilisation of troops on the Colombian border.

And of course two questioners raised the mad, Fayed-like suggestion that 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy, arranged by mysterious forces in order to justify war in Afghanistan. To be fair to the audience, I saw many bored, embarrassed, impatient reactions to this, and I think the great majority of them, reluctant though they might be to give George Bush the benefit of any doubt, are immune to this sort of rubbish. But I'm less forgiving of Tony Benn and Mark Steel, both of whom skirted round the point, avoiding backing conspiracy theories while at the same time managing to give a general dark impression that they might have some degree of sympathy with them. Tony Benn said he's "seen all the 9/11 stuff" but chooses not to speak about it, because it's a distraction. He said - maybe rhetorically - that "perhaps" George Bush did somehow arrange it: but he wanted to speak about what's happening now, and getting troops out of Afghanistan. Mark Steel said he didn't want to talk about who was responsible for 9/11, but "perhaps we could do that afterwards". I thought this was weasly and cowardly of both men. I doubt either of them believes the conspiracy nonsense. But they're clearly aware that there are a fair few conspiracy nuts in their movement and they did not have the courage to disagree with them. Either way - conspiracy-minded or not - I'd have liked to hear each man's position made clear.

I won't be going on the march, as I think you'll guess - but it was well worth attending this meeting. The speakers were terrific, as you'd expect: as well as Benn and Steel, Jane Shallice was an engaging speaker, mainly focusing on Afghanistan. Benn was his usual mix of wise fool, puckish raconteur and stern moralist, and Mark Steel combined satirical humour and polemic in a very effective way, making me wish he shared my world view.

I doubt we'll ever agree on much, though. As I've already suggested, I think these stop-the-warmongers represent, fundamentally, the anti-American, anti-Israel left. I'm never likely to have much in common with them.