Nothing about Ukraine, without Ukraine
This post is by Bijan Parsia, NEC Disabled Members Rep (UK) who was a NEC UK wide elected rep during Congress 2023. It is not a UCUCommons document but reflects a strong informal consensus view.
First, this post is not a full an analysis of UCU Congress 2023 motion 5: not the politics or the morality or the practicalities of it. I have posted a number of threads on Twitter (@bparsia) about these and intend to write a detailed post at some point. This post is about one attempt at harm reduction. Others are working in other ways but this is the strand I landed on.
The harms I'm trying to reduce are twofold:
- the offensiveness of the second clause of resolves i ("UCU to call upon Russian to withdraw its troops and for government to stop arming Ukraine") which essentially calls for the disarming of Ukraine;
- the fact that this motion passed without deep involvement of Ukrainian people, especially, but not only, Ukrainian UCU members.
There are other harms from this motion (e.g., consider notes 5), but these two are the ones I'm trying to tackle.
The mechanism is a motion to the National Executive Committee (NEC) which is charged with instructing the General Secretary (GS), and thus UCU staff, how to carry out policy.
Note that the GS did not have any role in motion 5. She was not amongst the proposers, she did not have a say in it being on the agenda, and she had no vote. She cannot do any of these things in virtue of her role. She has limited ability to resist NEC instruction.
However, Congress also passed motion 6 which "recognises Ukraine's right to self determination" and requires UCU " to develop, and widely publicise programmes of practical solidarity work based on this motion and UCU's humanitarian and education policies, including online meetings inviting Ukrainian trade unionists and feminists ". There is a clear tension between these two motions (though, proponents of motion 5 would probably dispute this). Part of NEC's job is work through contradictory policy. We have a meeting on June 16th and motions are due June 9th.
Here is the proposed motion:
Nothing about Ukraine, without Ukraine
NEC notes from Congress 2023:
NEC resolves:
148 words
(150 words is the limit) (in the actual motion the notes are labelled a through d but Wordpress honestly defeated me).
I trust how this motion reduces the two harms is clear.
Questions
These are questions I anticipate. If people want other questions answered leave a comment or otherwise send them to me:
- Does this remove the policy?
No. It is an operational approach. Motion 5 is still set policy. If motion 6 were repealed, this NEC motion would be moot and we'd need to do something else. - Why not propose an NEC motion to repeal motion 5?
No UCU body or person has the right to repeal a legal, within-the-rules policy of a UCU Congress except another Congress. (The trustees have some specific powers which are not applicable here. If Congress decided to spend all of UCU reserves on something, they could override that if, in their judgement, it threatened UCU as a going concern.) - Does this mean we have to wait until Congress 2024 to repeal it?
Theoretically no. UCU can call a special Congress according to rule 16.11:
"16.11 Special meetings of National Congress or the Sector Conferences shall be convened, by giving at least three working weeks’ notice, when it is so resolved by the National Executive Committee or in the case of the Sector Conferences, the relevant Sector Committee, or following receipt of a requisition from quorate general meetings in 20 branches/Local Associations from separate institutions across the Union, or for Sector Conferences, in the Sector, or bearing the identifiable signatures of not less than one tenth of the members of the Union. Such resolution or requisition shall specify the intended business, and only that business may be transacted at the special meeting."
I'm not sure we have the votes on NEC (e.g., UCULeft has quite a few votes on NEC, somewhat fewer on HEC, and motion 5 is their official, actively defended position, though there seem to be dissenters).
A special Congress is a huge lift and one would need to make sure the delegate composition was sufficiently different from the last one to get to repeal. Neither I, nor UCUCommons, have the political influence to make this happen. Plus it wouldn't happen quickly. Thus, my harm reduction attempt. - Why doesn't this motion condemn motion 5 or anyone involved in passing it?
My goal is to reduce harm with the priorities I mention above. I don't see how to work in anything else without reducing the chance of success. There are other venues (e.g., branch motions) which can take on the expressive tasks.
I think it would be best if this passed overwhelmingly, which further limits what it can do. - Does this disregard Congress's policy setting power?
No. Without Congress motion 6, this motion could not work. It is part of the UCU executive role to operationalise Congress policy which necessitates judgement calls of all sorts. It does not require adhering to the maximal interpretation of the proponents of a given motion. Even if so, motion 6 still exists and would deserve a similar maximal interpretation. - What can I do to support this?
Until June 9th, I can consider tweaks. It will be subject to amendments, including so-called "wrecking" amendments.
After June 9th but before the meeting, you can lobby (e.g., pass a branch motion supporting it, email NEC, talk with NEC reps) for it. You can send me points to raise in a moving speech. - Is this factional?
In the sense that UCULeft officially supports motion 5 and currently vocally supports it, yes, there's a factional element. But not all UCULeft delegates voted for it. UCULeft votes were not sufficient Motion 6 was not put forth by any explicit faction. The Leeds amendment to motion 5 was a branch effort. I know several NEC members who are overall much closer to UCULeft than UCUCommons who opposed motion 5 and are working to mitigate it in different ways. I know Independent Broad Left (IBL) people who spoke and voted against it and Campaign for UCU Democracy (CUD) members who voted against it. At least one IBL spoke in favour (and presumably thus voted for it).
Plus, for me, it's a personal thing. I spoke and voted against motion 5 and I have a lot of strong emotions about it. (All UCUCommons delegates voted against, FWIW.) But I am generally deeply committed to harm reduction and I have a strong technocratic bent. This motion is a complimentary approach to try to improve the situation. - What about Ukrainian input?
I'm reaching out to various groups (and to everyone via this post!). The window between Congress and the first NEC is short and it took me a while to come up with this after physically and mentally recovering from Congress. (An ongoing task, unfortunately.) As soon as I hammered it out, I've sought input (startign wit this post). It's not ideal, but nothing about this is.
Final Points
This is a good faith effort on my part to try to navigate a very tricky situation to try to reach a better place for UCU. You may disagree with it from all sorts of angles (it definitely is criticisable!), but I generally won't accept abuse for it. I will be more generous in my understanding of what constitutes abuse from those who are Ukrainian or have Ukrainian connections. You have a right to be upset.
I encourage UCU members (and everyone!) to consider Darya Zorka's Ukraine donation guide. There are plenty of options to support even if you are a pacifist.
I also commend this thread by Nat Kopytko. Even if you don't like the anti-Stop The War framing, it is an education in itself. The linked thread about language in Ukraine is profoundly informative. The history and function of the term "nationalist" in a Ukrainian context is revelatory. So much good stuff there!