Ukraine, TEFL and the Politics of War and ‘Extremism’
What can a charity football match teach us about about UK foreign policy and domestic policies like Prevent? Quite a lot it turns out.
In the article below, a member and activist with the TEFL Workers’ Union looks into the unspoken politics of a charity football match being organised between London language schools. Questions are posed: to what extent should we allow our employers to speak on our behalf when it comes to global issues and why are they not being more transparent about where the proceeds of this event are headed?
A poster has appeared on noticeboards in language schools all over London. It advertises a five-aside football tournament. Language school logos – EC, EF, Stafford House, Bayswater College and so on are prominently on display. There is a special place reserved for two further symbolic icons – one in the top right-hand corner, one in the left. One is the English UK logo, the other the Ukrainian flag. All proceeds from the tournament are destined for ‘Ukrainian relief’. It does not make clear via which specific organisations.
Clarity, however, is vitally important.
There are several organisations promoting initiatives over the war in Ukraine with varying emphases and ideological standpoints. United Help Ukraine, for example, does valuable work helping refugees and internally displaced Ukrainians. Taxi for Solidarity does that too. But there are crucial differences between them that workers at these language schools have the right to, at least, know about.
United Help Ukraine works with and promotes the position of the Ukrainian Government. It thus donates medical aid to service members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Territorial Defense Forces. It uses language reflecting the nationalism of the Ukrainian regime. For example, they use the term ‘warrior’ rather than ‘soldier’ or ‘combatant’.
Taxi for Solidarity, on the other hand, works with the record label Fire and Flames which features anti-racist and left-wing bands such as Los Fastidios and Moscow Death Brigade. Moscow Death Brigade recently interviewed in the Prague newspaper ‘Metro’ stated; ‘We also donated children’s products and non-perishable food and supplies to refugees from eastern Ukraine, Donbass, who end up in Russia’, in addition to sending aid to refugees who have ended up in the EU. They explain; ‘We believe that any humane attitude is that all refugees deserve maximum help-no matter where and to which country they are fleeing, without discrimination.’
I like the sound of Taxi for Solidarity; I’ve got serious misgivings about United Help Ukraine.
If the consensus of staff is to endorse United Help Ukraine, then I’ll accept it. But consensus has not been sought. Not even the courtesy of clarification has been provided. Why not? I’ve asked the staff reps at my school to put this question to management though I think I can answer it myself already.
Currently we are subject to an ideological authoritarianism. It is moralistic, simplistic and therefore highly contradictory. It is, however, hegemonic. It is underpinned by government legislation.
The ruling class is incapable of providing a sophisticated explanation for outbursts of anger and opposition to its system. To them, it doesn’t matter if it’s nihilistic misdirected reactionary rage via, for example, terrorist acts or organised activity based on demands and critiques supported by copious academic research and publications. To them, it’s the same and they are hardly in a position anyway to explore issues of exploitation, alienation and imperialist blowback to seriously explain it. So, any holistic or militant challenge is explained away as people being ‘groomed’ to reject ‘core British values’.
Current legislation literally aims to police thought and opinion. To get my current job I had to do Prevent training. This is the demand that we spy on students and colleagues and report them if they exhibit ‘non-violent extremism’ as they could be ‘groomed’ into carrying out terrorism.
One of the fatal flaws in the Prevent programme is that the current economic system our government presides over is dependent on militarised murderous violence itself. Therefore, inevitably a black and white, good vs evil narrative is all such a programme can cope with.
To express criticisms of British violence in Iraq, for example is identified as ‘grievance justification’ and therefore an indicator of vulnerability to ‘extremism’. To express sympathy for those fighting the British state is to be of suspect, problematic character. To criticise the British state fighting against others is to be of suspect, problematic character. Catch 22.
Displaying the Ukrainian flag, indicating support for the Western narrative and objectives in the current war is felt to be uncontroversial and incontestable. Displaying the Palestinan flag could quite easily get you reported to Prevent and accused of creating an ‘antisemitic’ unsafe space. It is assumed that we’ll take the correct ‘side’ in conflicts.
So, when the Executive Chairman and CEO of EC English proclaims to all staff that Zelensky is; ‘A true example to the whole world on what authentic leadership is all about.,’ it is to be perceived as a political declaration that intertwines with the ‘core values’ of all right minded, even psychologically balanced members of staff. But it isn’t. It’s the opinion of an individual, a pro- establishment opinion and that’s all it is. I’m more than happy for him to express it, but the lack of transparency and debate over the display of politically charged symbols and events indicates that the taking of ‘sides’ is mandated. Legislation like Prevent has paved the way for this.
This war, like any other, is far more complex than a command to take one side or another suggests. This is demonstrated by the fierce debates raging on the left at the moment, concerning the nature of the conflict, the nature of the Zelensky government and on questions of where campaigning should focus: relief for refugees, arming Ukraine, who to arm in Ukraine, even on the question on whether or not to temporarily side with NATO.
All staff can probably agree with medical aid and help for refugees. But we were not given the chance to explore this. We were rather presented with a display of virtue signaling that endorses our own government’s standpoint and it has been assumed we’ll all support it. No! The failure to stop Prevent and the promotion of the commandments inscribed upon the list of ‘core British values’ is coming home to haunt us.
This is a critical point for the TEFL Workers’ Union and indeed other unions. PCS members at the British Council took strike action recently received a message from the Chief Executive accusing them of undermining solidarity with the Ukrainian war effort.
It is worth reminding ourselves that we are part of the IWW and are a revolutionary organisation. We could be branded as extreme-one of the stupidly vague and nebulous ‘core British values’ proclaims; ‘I recognise everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it does not promote extremism’. A mindset that has to justify cooperation with, for example Saudi military due to business interests can only do so by not applying the term ‘extremist’ to a British backed regime that has brought death to almost 20 000 civilians in the interests of British and US realpolitik against Iran. ‘Extremism’ is really code for ‘wrong side’.
When UNITE members at EC English in Dublin secured a new contract after a dispute with management, they were told that they could not have a noticeboard as non-union members of staff might feel intimidated. All TEFL Workers’ Union members, whatever their precise position on the Ukrainian war should support our contesting of management’s presumed right to determine the ideological parameters of public space inside the buildings where we all work. Management need to be reminded of who they are in relation to us. They are the bosses, the gaffers, nothing more. They are not our thought police.