In which the NEC is against terrorism, against racism, against war.

The terrorist atrocities carried out in London the previous Thursday cast a pretty long shadow over my first NEC-proper. In the discussion about how the NUS should respond, some of the live debates surrounding the events were replicated on a smaller scale, as arguments took place on how much emphasis should be placed on the way in which UK and US foreign policy has nurtured terrorism and “made us a target.”

My own view is that it’s a question largely of emphasis. It’s wrong and in fact reactionary to suggest that Blairite foreign policy is solely or mainly to blame for the bombings; this carries with it an implicit suggestion that all those who died are also somehow to blame for not stopping Blair from carrying out his plans or for voting his government back in. It also sees the politics of the terrorists and solely reactive, when in fact they have their own political dynamic and logic. The movement to which they belong has its own ideas and agenda – it doesn’t only exist as a reaction to the crimes of imperialism.

At the same time, it’s obvious that US and UK imperialism have fuelled the fire of terrorism internationally by driving many young workers and urban poor into the hands of political Islamists in the Middle East, thereby nurturing Islamism as a political movement internationally. US/UK support for ultra-reactionary regimes in the Middle East have also fuelled the growth of Islamism; it’s primarily as a reaction to barbaric regimes such as the feudal monarchy in Saudi Arabia that many people are driven towards radical Islamism.

The NEC passed two emergency motions, one from Jamal El-Shayyal (with backing from NUS’ London Region) and another from the NOLS group on the NEC. Both were fairly uncontroversial, being clear in their condemnation of the attacks and in their resolve to organise against any potential anti-Muslim or anti-Asian racist backlash.

They also shared an emphasis on making “working with faith groups” central to NUS’ response, with Jamal’s motion resolving to “work with and consult The Federation of Student Islamic Societies,” and the NOLS motion resolving to “mandate the Anti-Racism/Anti-Fascism team to work with [among others] faith groups to ensure that racial and religious minorities are not victimised and persecuted in ignorant reprisal attacks.”

Defending faith groups from racist attacks is an unquestionable principle, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with working with religious organisation in anti-racist campaigns. But I became a little uncomfortable with some of this at a caucus after the meeting to discuss a practical response, in which it was essentially suggested that the content of the NUS’ statement in response to the attacks should be vetted by religious student organisations. I suggested that the NUS should simply write a statement and call for signatories (and the religious groups in question – primarily UJS, FOSIS and BOSS – could then sign if they wanted.) But the general sentiment was clearly that the support of religious organisations was in fact the key thing and that their support should be secured as a matter of urgency.

For a number of reasons (none of them very good), I didn’t really properly raise my objections to this. But I do think it’s a dangerous logic to slip into – it implies, first of all, that groups who organise on an explicitly religious or communal basis are the legitimate or sole representatives of students from those religious or ethnic backgrounds, regardless of whether or not those students agree with the frequently conservative political perspectives of the organisations in question. Want the voice of Muslim students? Go to FOSIS. Want to know what Jewish students think? Ask UJS. No thanks – I don’t think ethnic groups can be viewed this way.

Implying that ethnic minorities or faith groups in the student movement are politically or socially homogenous isn’t only clearly wrong, it’s also very offensive. The notion, for example, that I as a student from a Jewish background automatically fall into line with the politics of UJS or that they are my “representatives” is pretty nonsensical.

Fortunately, the agreed political content of the NUS statement on the bombings was good, again comprising of a clear condemnation of the attacks and a statement of solidarity with students from a Muslim and Asian background against any racist backlash. “Against terrorism, against racism, against war: students for a peaceful world,” was agreed as the slogan for the NUS’ new banner.

If politico-religious groups inside the student movement want to support all that, that’s fine – but I don’t believe that the NUS, as a secular organisation, should be making religious groups that all represent distinct political tendencies within the movement central any more than it should be making any other political tendency central.

It’s essential that the vital anti-racist work that the NUS must conduct (to organise against any Islamaphobic or anti-Asian backlash) relates to ethnic minorities within our movement as what they are – politically and socially diverse, not homogenous blocs that can be spoken for or represented by one political organisation. At a time when Islamophobia is unfortunately bound to increase massively, it’s all the more important to combat the ultra-reactionary, ultra-racist idea that all Muslim people have the same political views or are all represented by the same organisations.

The great bulk of the meeting was given over to discussing the Priority Campaigns for 2005/2006. Priority Campaigns are the campaigns on which the NUS decides to focus for the year; NEC members can submit proposals for them but Conference motions can also mandate the union to run Priority Campaigns on certain issues. That creates problems straight away; This year, for example, there was no Conference mandate to run a Priority Campaign on education, but the National Union of Students would be doing something quite wrong if it didn’t make education a priority campaigning focus. But under the current system, it’s possible for Conference to mandate a potentially unlimited number of Priority Campaigns which the NUS clearly doesn’t have the resources to run. Obviously, it’s a pretty messy system and the messiness of the system was reflected in an equally messy discussion about…well…the messiness of the system, that saw pretty much everyone gradually wilt in the heat. When a practical conclusion was finally reached, a Priority Campaign on education was decided upon, along with another Campaign that will amalgamate elements from those proposed by VP Welfare Veronica King and National Treasurer Joe Rukin.

The content of all the campaigns is pretty much fine as it goes – the test is whether they can be turned from innocuous grand schemes into living, breathing grassroots campaigns that engage the mass of NUS members. The potential dangers of falling into a top-down approach to campaign were, I felt, highlighted pretty well in a motion from VP FE Ellie Russell that focused entirely on governmental reviews and inquiries such as Tomlinson and Foster. There’s nothing wrong with engaging with such processes, but that engagement can’t be at the expense of grassroots campaigning on the day-to-day struggles of FE (and HE) students.

Anyone interested in getting on with that sort of campaigning should come to the Activists’ Training Day organised by Education Not for Sale and Students Against Sweatshops (the student wing of No Sweat) with the backing of the University of East London Students’ Union. It’s taking place at UEL between 12-6pm on the 3rd of September. For more details, contact me at daniel.randall@nus.org.uk or ring 07961040618.

I suppose I should also nod in the direction of another motion that was passed – one from the NOLSies which generally proposed to give everyone concerned a jolly good pat on the back for bringing the Olympics to London in 2012. I’m not particularly inclined to give strike-breakers like Ken Livingstone or Tory peers like Sebastian Coe pats on the back – ever – but the motion did have a redeeming feature in that it resolved (albeit in a pretty mealy-mouthed way) to campaign against the exploitation of students that will inevitably take place as we fill the thousands of temporary and volunteer jobs that the Olympics will create. Previous Olympics have been veritable orgies of exploitation – in Athens 2004, for example, several construction workers actually died. It’s important that NUS’ attitude isn’t simply one of general congratulation but one of militant campaigning against every case of exploitation the Olympics might throw up. NUS must work with organisations like No Sweat to make sure that 2012 is, off the track, a sweat-free event.

In solidarity –

Daniel Randall
NUS NEC

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/danielrandall/271100.aspx