and the Stop the War Coalition at a national level,
and they should be encouraged to rethink some of their positions.
The origin of the
dispute was an e-mail sent to the Campeace discussion list (Cambridge for Peace)
by Christine Titmus asking that people sign an appeal issued by the Labour
Friends of Iraq in support of
Nozad Ismail, the President of the
Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) in Kirkuk, who has apparently twice
escaped assassins and who receives regular death threats. In response to this,
Cambridge Respect issued a controversial statement in the name of Jonathan
Walker (Press Officer);
Tom Woodcock (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate); and Jo Robbins (Chair).
This included the frankly libellous claim that the leadership of the Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) "has
effectively transferred its loyalty from one murderous tyrant to another, from
Saddam Hussein to George W Bush";
an offensive claim given the persecution, torture and murder of Iraqi trade
unionists under Saddam Hussein.
A
subsidiary controversy had emerged at the Cambridge Trades Council where there
was a fractious debate over a motion from an Amicus branch, calling on the
trades council to support Iraqi trades unions.
It must
be said that Labour Friends of Iraq (LFoI) are a pernicious organisation. In the
guise of organising support for the Iraqi labour movement, they seek to subvert
the instinctive and justified solidarity of socialists and trade unionists
towards effectively supporting the US occupation of Iraq. Their web site (https://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/)
is largely devoted to criticising the anti-war movement or the Iraqi insurgency,
and is silent about the atrocity of the American assault on Fallujah and the
daily humiliations and hardships inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the
occupation forces.
Aware
that their own voice may seem rather shrill and irrelevant, Labour Friends of
Iraq seek to promote the interests of the IFTU, pretending an identity of
interests. However, as Steve Bell, the CWU delegate to the recent Stop the War
Coalition national conference said: Labour Friends of Iraq are no friends of the
Iraqi people, they are not true friends of the IFTU and they are not even good
friends of the Labour Party.
In
January this year Labour Friends of Iraq sought to cynically exploit the murder
of Iraqi trade unionist, Hadi Saleh, by circulating an open letter that
inaccurately claimed the Stop the War Coalition had issued a statement saying it
supported the struggle against the occupation "by any means necessary", and
implying that the StWC was silent about the murder of trade unionists. In fact
the national chair of the coalition, Andrew Murray, sent a letter to the
Independent on 7th January that said: "we have repeatedly denounced the murder
of civilians" and a letter to the Observer by Lindsey German on 9th January
said: "we condemn the killing of Iraqi trade unionists".
January's open letter
from LFoI attacking the StWC was signed by the Alliance for Workers Liberty
(AWL) despite the fact it was inaccurate. The AWL has an increasingly ambivalent
attitude to Iraq and occasionally they err towards the same emphasis as the
LFoI. The fact that the motion to the Cambridge Trades Council was moved by a
supporter of the AWL may have contributed to the polarised nature of the
response.
The specifics of these
disputes in Cambridge are not particularly interesting or significant, and I
will touch on them as sparingly as possible. The substantive political issue is
the relationship between the military insurgency in Iraq, and the Iraqi trade
unions, and other institutions of civil society.
The insurgency is both
seemingly chaotic and multi-stranded, and while there is broad popular
participation in attacks on occupation forces in some parts of Iraq, there are
also strands within the resistance who wish to see a Ba'athist restoration, or
to impose a theocratic dictatorship on the Iraqi people. As I have written
before: "tactics being adopted by some
parts of the insurgency ... to disrupt reconstruction, murder workers and
increase the misery of the Iraqi people, and are therefore an obstacle towards
any favourable outcome." It is in this
context that the murder of Hadi Saleh must be seen. Originally, I inclined to
agree with Sami Ramadani that Hadi's murder might be connected with his
membership of the Iraqi Communist party, and the participation of the ICP in the
Allawi government. At the time I argued that "the
murder of Hadi Saleh shows that the ICP participation in the government has
tarred the trade union movement with the implication that they are collaborators
with the US occupation forces." I now
believe that I was mistaken and a much more nuanced argument is put by David
Bacon, writing in Z Magazine:
"Hadi
Saleh's murderers had two objectives. For the Ba'athists among the insurgents,
the growth of unions and organizations of civil society, from women's groups to
political parties, is a dangerous deviation. Their hopes of returning to power
rest on a military defeat for the U.S., without a corresponding development of
popular, progressive organizations that can govern a post-occupation Iraq.
Trying to stop those organizations from using the elections to organize a large
support base is a second objective."
Obviously, we may never
know the truth about this, but there is evidence to support David Bacon's
position because on 16th March a press release was issued by the
Basra based General Union of Oil Employees, a union with only loose links to the
IFTU, unconnected with the ICP, and with no participation in government. "Yesterday
Mr. Samir Yasin Sabbah, head of the Section of the Union in the Fao Sector, was
the object of a bomb that destroyed his car. This aimed to terminate his work
and to further the interests of those poor souls who seek only their own not the
wider good. At the time of this terrible attempt on the life on the unionist,
whom God in his justice saved from death as he practiced his honourable work in
the service of noble Iraq, we call upon all decent persons and friends of the
Union abroad to express their solidarity with us in the hope of preventing the
criminal acts presently directed against the Union in Iraq. Long live the heroic
union organisations, Long live the brave working class, Shame and dishonour to
the cowardly terrorists who do not want stability for this country; may God stay
their hands."
Trade unionism plays a
significant role in today's Iraq. David Bacon lists a number of important areas
for trade union activity, including fighting the imposition of Order #30 that
lowered base wages from $60 to $40 per month and eliminated food and housing
subsidies. There are a number of competing trade union federations, one of which
is the IFTU, and all of which have been involved in fighting to defend and
improve pay in opposition to the wild-west deregulation that the
neo-conservatives have imposed on the Iraqi economy.
The struggle by the
Iraqi people to free themselves from foreign occupation is progressive. There
are many strategies being adopted to achieve that end, for example the military
struggle, participation in the political process, and through building civil
institutions under Iraqi control, such as trade unions. It is the task of the
peace movement in the West to support unconditionally all activities of the
Iraqi people to oppose the occupation. We must not presuppose that opposition to
the occupation is necessarily military, nor must we conclude that all terrorist
actions in Iraq are aimed at removing the occupation forces. The assassination
of trade unionists, and the murder of nurses, teachers, rail workers and oil
workers, on the pretext of their alleged collaboration, is part of a struggle
within Iraqi society to secure hegemony for forces seeking Ba'athist restoration
or theocracy, and should be condemned. Our position should be to unconditionally
support all forms of resistance by the Iraqi people, including but not only
military resistance, and at the same time criticise those strategies and tactics
that are counter-productive or would thwart the aspirations of Iraqis for a
humane and democratic society.
Unfortunately some
confusion over the role of the IFTU has been generated. In particular IFTU
representative, Abdullah Muhsin, has acted on a number of occasions within
Britain to advocate support for the policies of the British government in Iraq,
for example, his intervention at the 2004 Labour Party conference. In response
to which intervention the Stop the War Coalition issued a statement that
criticised the activities of the IFTU in
Britain. It is important to note that the
Coalition took no view on the activities of the IFTU
in Iraq. (https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=111004).
The statement from the
Stop the War Coalition included one poorly worded sentence, that the Coalition
condemns the IFTU's "view that
genuinely independent trade unionism in Iraq can develop under a regime of
military occupation (including the daily bombardment of major Iraqi cities) by
the USA and Britain.". This was
clearly intended to mean that the task of constructing genuinely independent
trade unions in Iraq must also address the issue of ending the military
occupation, which for example perpetuates the anti-trade union restriction of
the Hussein era.
However it could also
be misconstrued as meaning that the task of constructing genuinely independent
trade unions in Iraq is impossible until after the occupation is ended. This
seems to have been the view verbally expressed by SWP and Respect members in
Cambridge. In practice, this would mean subordinating workers' organisation to
the military insurgency and postponing the day to day struggles to improve
living conditions until after a military victory has been achieved. Given that
the military insurgency contains forces hostile to democracy, women's' rights
and trade unionism, it would be suicidal not to use every opportunity to build
workers defence organizations in the here and now. To postpone building the
labour movement would mean leaving the working classes powerless to affect
events when the occupation forces leave Iraq.
The motion moved at the
trades council by the Amicus representative was largely uncontentious, and was
in line with the policy of the Stop the war Coalition of encouraging links
between British and Iraqi trade unions. It was however unbalanced by failing to
emphasise that the responsibility for the violence in Iraq lies with the
military occupation, and in its use of the contentious term "so-called
resistance" to refer to the insurgency. However, the correct way to handle this
motion was a sympathetic amendment to correct these deficiencies, and then to
support it. Whereas Cambridge SWP and Respect opposed the motion even when the
contentious bits were removed, as they took the position that it is in principle
wrong to encourage links with Iraqi trade unions.
The submission to the
Campeace list by the Respect officers contains a number of problems. They are
absolutely correct to repudiate Labour Friends of Iraq, and some of the
criticism of Abdullah Muhsin's behaviour is also justified. However some other
parts of their statement are clearly wrong and should be retracted:
i) They do not
address the substance of Christine Titmus's e-mail, which was to draw
attention to the threat to the life of trade unionist
Nozad Ismail.
ii) They conflate
the interests of the LFoI with those of the IFTU - thus unwittingly promoting
the agenda of LFoI.
iii) They claim
that the IFTU is not a genuine trade union. Whilst the political position of
the IFTU leadership may be problematic this by itself does not prove it is not
a genuine trade union - Bacon's article suggests that it is very much engaged
with basic trade union issues, there is also evidence of this gathered by Alex
Gordon in his trip to Iraq in 2003, and, for example, the lay union
representatives that the IFTU have brought from Iraq to attend negotiating
courses in Britain.
iv) They claim
that the IFTU acts as a front organisation for the
Iraqi Governing Council and its
successor the Interim Government. No evidence is presented for this claim.
v) They claim (outrageously) that the IFTU "has
effectively transferred its loyalty from one murderous tyrant to another, from
Saddam Hussein to George W. Bush"