|
|
Response to Socialist Unity
Johann Hari
https://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=549
An organisation called Socialist Unity
has responded similarly, in another libellous article entitled 'Johann
Hari's struggle with truth' by somebody called Andy Newman.
He writes [with my comments in square brackets]:
"The tragic murder of Hadi Salih, the
international secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU),
has been exploited by pro-war columnist Johann Hari to sow divisions in
the peace and Labour movements. Writing in the Independent on 7th
January Hari asks where are the voices of condemnation of this murder by
the international left?
https://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=544
The date of Hari's article is revealing, as Hadi Salih was murdered
during the night of 4th January and news did not break until the 5th,
and indeed the significance of the event was only slowly spreading
around. Given that most left publications are weekly or monthly it was
of course easy for Johann Hari to find little response only two days
after the atrocity. [Many
left-wing sites update every day, as he well knows.]
Many on the left may be surprised at
Johann Hari's sudden interest in trade unionists being murdered. He has
consistently advocated Western military intervention as a force for
good, human rights and democracy. He castigates the left for being tardy
in our response to the murder of Salih, but we could counter that he has
never commented on Columbia, a country where US military intervention is
directly linked to the death squads, and the murder of trade unionists.
[This is simply factually wrong.
Please look in my archive. I have written about the horrors unfolding in
Colombia repeatedly. I have also defended trade union issues repeatedly;
browse through the 'British Politics' section and you'll find that I
have consistently supported the British trade union movement. One of my
first articles for the New Statesman was about supporting trade union
campaigns to bankrupt the World Bank and I have been rock-solid in
defending trade unions ever since. To suggest that I have suddenly
become interested in trade unions now - as Newman clearly implies - is a
statement that can only be made out of ignorance or worse.]
He now expresses concern over our response
to the murder of Hadi Salih, when he has advocated and praised the
invasion of Iraq that led to 100000 other deaths.
However, the question that Johann Hari asks has also been echoed by
figures in the labour movement whose integrity and motives are not in
question.
In order to address these concerns it is necessary to firstly dispose of
a number of falsehoods and sleights of hand that Johann Hari indulges
himself with.
The most important inaccuracy by Hari is the claim that the Stop the War
Coalition issued a statement supporting struggle against the occupation
be "any means necessary", this claim was repeated in an Observer article
on 9th January by another pro-war "liberal", Nick Cohen. And the
allegation appears yet again in the "Open Letter to the leaders of the
Stop the war Coalition" being circulated by Labour Friends of Iraq.
No such statement was issued.
[This is untrue. It was e-mailed
out in October 2004, with the note, "The attached statement is to be
issued on Monday by the Coalition in response to the pressing political
questions for the anti-war movement which have arisen from the Labour
Party conference. It has been endorsed by the officers and will of
course be on the agenda for discussion at the Steering Committee meeting
to be held later this month. Kind regards, Andrew Murray and Lindsey
German." It was due to be discussed after it was issued - as indeed it
was. This gives us some idea of its status, and the fact that it was
indeed openly distributed.]
I understand that these words were in the
original draft of a statement from the StWC about the IFTU's
intervention in Labour conference. However these words were apparently
removed at the request of Ken Smith the Socialist party representative
on the steering committee during an e-mail consultation before it was
formally issued.
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=111004
[This is wrong. It was withdrawn after
there was a great deal of fuss, a resignation and articles in the news
sections of the Indie and the Guardian.]
In any event, "by any means necessary" is
not that objectionable a phrase is it? [The actually phrase StWC used
was a commitment to support the resistance "by whatever means they find
necessary" - a fact which renders much of what follows nonsensical].
Malcolm X pointed out that "by any Means Necessary" does not mean doing
anything you want: it means doing just as much as is necessary. It would
surely be ridiculous to support the insurgency but call on them to
refrain from doing what was necessary to win? Indeed supporting the
right of the insurgency to use any means necessary also involves an
implied limitation that there is no support for violence that is
unnecessary or counterproductive.
[Er, they in fact said they
would support whatever means the resistance found necessary, which is a
very different matter. If I say to Charles Manson he can use "whatever
means he finds necessary" to deal with people, I am obviously lending
support to him should he kill people. As Peter Tatchell has pointed out,
the StWC statement plainly means support for the targeting of innocent
civilians.]
However, Johann Hari goes further and
misrepresents the reason why Mick Rix resigned from the StWC steering
committee. Hari says: "The Stop the War Coalition passed a resolution
recently saying the resistance should use "any means necessary" - which
prompted Mick Rix, a decent trade unionist, to resign from the STWC on
the grounds that this clearly constituted support for the murder of
civilians. "
In actual fact the reason given by Mick Rix was:
"I wish to resign my position on the steering committee. There are two
reasons, one I am not able to make the meetings due to work pressures,
secondly I do not agree with assertions made over the conduct of union
delegations at the Labour party in the recent statement, and indeed the
attacks made on Abdullah. I think in these difficult times, the recent
outbursts that have been made, and the personalisation has vastly
reduced our influence and support, in the movement. I thought it would
have been better and more democratic, before these statements were made,
they should have been discussed, and wider views sought."
https://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/archives/000063.html
[Actually, he has spoken on the radio
more than once offering a more expansive reason for why he quit. He made
it clear he found the statement abhorrent. Newman seems to be assuming -
bizarrely - that this one statement is all Rix has ever said on the
matter.]
Now, I personally thought it was
unnecessary for the StWC to issue a statement on the IFTU at all, and
moved a motion at the next national council saying it was a mistake and
calling on Mick Rix to be invited to rejoin the steering committee. Tony
Woodley's article in the Morning Star was in my view more appropriate.
After all if we are to have a united anti-war movement then it has to
embrace the differing views within the Labour movement over the IFTU,
and indeed over the ICP's limited involvement in the Allawi government.
Nevertheless, this is a legitimate debate amongst comrades, and Johann
Hari seems to be deliberately seeking to exploit nuances of disagreement
to undermine the anti-war movement.
[In fact, I have explained my
motives above. It is strange that they assume the most base and
conspiratorial motives are at play. I don't assume that about them; I
assume they mean what they say, even when they do so sloppily.]
At the November National Council meeting
of the Stop the War Coalition 50 delegates from local Stop the War
groups broadly approved the handling of the situation by the steering
committee and the officers of the coalition after an informed debate.
It is also surely inaccurate for Hari to claim that the left has made no
condemnation of the murder, for example US Labour Against War issued a
fine statement. (https://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=7428)
"The ultimate source of violence in Iraq is the US occupation. The Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions calls for the end of the occupation and the
US war. Salih's murder does not bring this end one step closer. " And
there have been condemnations from unions around the world, including
the British TUC, NATFHE and RMT.
[Again, Newman is blatantly
misrepresenting my position. Far from saying that "the left has made no
condemnation of the murder", my exact words were, "Some of the most
honourable and consistent left-wing opponents of the war have already
spoken out about this [murder]." Go look at it. His statement is
precisely the opposite of the truth. I would include the US Labour
Against the War statement in this latter category - and I gave two
lengthy quotes from opponents of the war who condemned the murder. Has
Newman actually read what I said?]
I also think there is a sleight of hand by
Hari in quoting George Galloway speaking before the murder, and
describing the IFTU as Quislings, and thereby implying some affinity
with the assassins. [I don't
accept this; go and look at the context. It's easy to infer Galloway was
speaking before the death, although I concede I could have made that
even clearer and said, 'Speaking last week...'.]
The context of Galloway's remarks was the
unprecedented intervention of an IFTU representative, Abdullah Muhsin,
to sway the vote on Iraq at the 2004 Labour Party Conference. Galloway
is renowned for his colourful turns of phrase [like 'Sir, I salute your
courage, your strength an your indefatigability'], and he did indeed
write a controversial article in response for the Morning Star, but in
the traditions of the left and of that paper, there was debate about it;
and indeed the Morning Star also published an interview with IFTU
activists, (expanded version at
https://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/news/iftureps.htm)
and an interview with Salam Ali of the Iraqi Communist party describing
why the ICP feels it is tactically advantageous to participate in Iraq's
interim government. There is an on-going debate in the peace and labour
movements about the IFTU, and it is quite possible to hold very
different views on this matter and still unconditionally oppose the
occupation of Iraq. [Precisely
my point. I state this myself in the article. How does that rebut my
argument?]
In any event, George Galloway's views are
simply the views of one individual member of the Stop the War Coalition,
and being a coalition it is recognised he does not speak for everyone. [Where do I imply otherwise?]
Johann Hari also seeks to link by
implication the murder of Hadi Salih to the treatment of Subdhi al-Mashadani
at the ESF, where the IFTU representative was heckled off the stage. Of
course there is no causal link: the armed insurgents in Iraq do not take
their lead from ultra-leftist protesters in Britain. [Where do I allege there is a causal link?
It's an absurd allegation; nobody reading my piece could possibly have
thought that assassins in Iraq take their cue from the ESF. I was
commenting on a much wider question about solidarity - I defy any
intelligent person to read my piece fail to see this.]
Hari also makes a sleight of hand by implying that a majority of the ESF
audience jeered al-Mashadani, when surely ['surely'? I spoke to three people who
were there; Newman has clearly spoken to nobody]
it was only a tiny minority, and the only organised current in the
British left who supported the disruption of that meeting was the
minuscule sect, Workers Power.
Unfortunately Johann Hari's article is being widely circulated, it is
therefore certainly worth noting that Andrew Murray, the chair of the
Stop the war Coalition wrote the following response in a letter to the
Independent: "Johann Hari falsifies the position of the Stop the War
Coalition [this libel is not
backed up with any facts at all]
in relation to the recent brutal murder of Hadi Salih. We condemn this
killing and its perpetrators, whoever they are. The Coalition has never
adopted a resolution or issued a statement as outlined by Mr Hari, and
we have repeatedly denounced the murder of civilians. Also, we did our
best to ensure that the Iraqi trade union speaker invited to the
European Social Forum was able to be heard, and publicly criticised
those who disrupted his meeting. We differ from Hari in two respects.
Firstly, we condemn all civilian deaths in Iraq, including those tens of
thousands which are the responsibility of the occupying forces he
supports. And we recognise the right of Iraqis to resist that unlawful
occupation, which is at the root of violence in Iraq and is the
consequence of the war which Hari promoted."
However, even once the slurs
[what slurs?] by Johann Hari
have been disposed of, it is necessary to recognise that the differences
of opinion that he is seeking to antagonise are real ones. There are two
strands of disagreement, firstly as to the nature of the resistance, and
secondly the nature of the IFTU, and those other parts of the Iraqi
labour movement who do not support the armed insurgency.
There clearly is a huge wave of insurgency in Iraq that has widespread
popular support, but it is a very multi stranded phenomenon [as I have said in, oh, about ten
different columns; I explained why I was pretty sympathetic to the Shia
uprising], and not only do some
of those fighting have Ba'athist or Theocratic aspirations, more
importantly the tactics being adopted by some parts of the insurgency
are to disrupt reconstruction, murder workers and increase the misery of
the Iraqi people, and are therefore an obstacle towards any favourable
outcome. There was an interesting article in "al Ahram" (Egypt) that
said the Iraqi resistance had directly killed around 3000 civilians at a
time where Iraq Body Count had the number killed by occupation forces as
8000 - Both estimates were using the same method of reporting recorded
deaths in the press. The Lancet article quoting 100000 dead (plausible,
but inconclusive) makes no distinction between deaths directly resulting
from the occupation forces, those caused by the insurgents, and those
caused by the breakdown of the security situation (primarily the
responsibility of the occupation forces, but murdering the police is a
deliberate tactic by insurgents to increase the security vacuum).
Therefore although the resistance is broadly popular, at this stage it
still seems to be inchoate and instinctive, rather than a directed
military campaign with clear objectives. [Yes. I have made precisely the same
points; how is this a rebuttal of me?]
Certainly there have been deplorable
murders of ordinary workers and trade unionists. According to US Labor
Against War: "IFTU members and rank-and-file workers have been murdered
and kidnapped as they tried to carry out normal union activity, or
simply do their jobs. On November 3, four railroad workers were killed,
and their bodies mutilated. On December 25, two other train drivers were
kidnapped, and five other workers beaten. On the night of December 26,
the building of the Transport and Communications Workers in central
Baghdad was shelled." However, it must be recognised that there is no
collective strategy behind the insurgency, and these murders are not
necessarily endorsed by all, or even a majority, of those who take up
arms against the occupation forces. The strategy of that part of the
insurgency who seek to disrupt Iraqi civil society in order to prevent
the occupation from normalising its rule inevitably but incidentally
targets workers. The importance of this is that although some parts of
the resistance may be hostile to trade unionism, it would be a mistake
to characterise the insurgency as animated by a systematic opposition to
the Labour movement. The insurgency is not fascist [having said the
insurgency is complex and multifaceted, he now blithely generalises
about it as if it was a cohesive movement. Newman is guilty of precisely
the sin he falsely accuses me of], even if there are elements within it
historically associated with the suppression of trade unions. [historically associated? Like, a
year-and-a-half ago...]
Boston University Professor. Assaf Khoury,
a member of the editorial team at Occupation Watch has remarked on this
as follows: "...It is most unlikely that Salih was killed by 'fascist
Saddam loyalists' as the IFTU is claiming. Much of the armed resistance
is carried out by an assortment of unemployed city and small town
people, politically marginalized groups, often using religion to find an
ideological context, some of them disabused ICP people who had been
suppressed by the Baathists.... I think we should condemn the targeting
of all trade unionists, many of whom are not in the IFTU or have broken
with it (I can't give you statistics or firm evidence on this, but there
are many anecdotal stories that point to this)."
So although Salih was an IFTU official it is probable, according to Sami
Ramadani, that he was murdered not for his trade unionism but rather
because of his association with the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP), who are
regarded as targets by some due to their participation in the Allawi
government. "Mr Salih's murder, and that of another ICP leader few weeks
ago, were widely reported in Iraq and seen as part of a campaign against
"collaborationists." Hardly any in the Iraqi media, both pro and anti
occupation, paid much attention to his role as an organiser of the Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU)."
As Professor Khoury writes: "I think the ICP lost its bearings
completely since the early 1990's. ... The ICP is now riven with
dissent, factionalism, and debilitating internal struggles. The official
leadership of the ICP has two ministerial posts in the Allawi
government, one very minor and one of average importance, while the big
posts (defense, foreign affairs, interior) are occupied by
representatives of the pre-occupation exile groups or the two pro-US
Kurdish parties. The ICP people inside the Allawi government are targets
of the resistance, just as much as other members of the government. But
there are ICP factions against the government, one of them called the "ICP-cadre
wing (or faction)" which is vociferously attacking the US, Allawi and
the rest. To confuse things even more, the ICP-cadre faction refuses to
split and considers itself the "'legitimate' ICP. There are other
communist/leftist groups around, such as the Workers Communist Party of
Iraq. Because the ICP has been historically rooted in the labor unions
of the large cities (Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, etc.), with really dominant
positions in them at one time, they still have a very strong presence
among labor organizers (not much heard of in the US corporate media) who
are of course paralyzed by the internal factionalism or utterly
confused. "
Now it is clear, that despite the politics of some of the leading
figures in the IFTU, this is a genuine trade union body, although
admittedly not the only genuine trade union body in Iraq. [I pointed
this out too. I said the IFTU is "one of 12 trade union organisations
formed in Iraq over the past two years". Again, he's not contradicting
me, although he seems to think he is. I an only assume he simply can't
remember what he has just read.] As RMT activist Alex Gordon has
written: "It would be difficult to imagine how a 'perfect' democratic
trade union movement could possibly emerge overnight from three and a
half decades of dictatorship, war and now foreign occupation and fascist
[sic] terror. The critical demand that has to be made on any Iraqi
government is whether they will ratify International Labour Organisation
Conventions concerning the right of workers to form and join trade
unions of their choice and the right to take strike .... The IFTU has
consistently made this demand and has pursued it consistently in
discussions with the ILO and the Iraqi Interim Government."
What is more, many Iraqi socialists express the concern that an
immediate victory for the insurgency (as it is currently constituted)
would, in the words of Salam Ali of the ICP see "the return to power of
those who are supporters of the previous regime and also extremist
groups, Islamic or otherwise, who have other agendas - either the return
of dictatorship or religious dictatorship - and have nothing to do with
the real liberation of Iraq."
The position of the ICP, and therefore of the IFTU that the occupation
should be ended under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1546
(elections in January 2005, troops out by June 2005 unless authorised to
stay by an elected Iraqi government), is not irrational, and is a
legitimate opinion to pursue within the labour movement. However it is
wrong and dangerous.
It is wrong because it sows illusions that the election process will be
allowed any sort of independence from the aims and objectives of the US
government. What is more, there will be no simple outcome in Iraq, and
the occupation forces are not going to just leave. The process of
driving them out is at an early stage, and the insurgency will change
its character in the course of the struggle, which makes the task of the
Iraqi labour movement of raising their own demands all the more
important.
It is dangerous because although the ICP nominally supports military
actions against the occupation forces, as Salam Ali describes: "when
attacks are targeted against US forces specifically, people have no
problem with that - no political organisation, including those who have
been accused as collaborators, condemns attacks on the occupying
military forces.", the murder of Hadi Salih 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. To build independent trade unions it is necessary to distance
workers' organisations from the US occupation. [Surely that is for individual trade
unionists on the ground in Iraq to decide for themselves? If they want
to work within the structure of the new elections, great. If they don't,
great. It's not for Westerners top tell them what to do; it's for us to
show solidarity with them as they make decisions in a horrific
situation.]
It is quite correct that the anti war
movement stays focused on its main aim of opposing the occupation and
calling for the withdrawal from Iraq by US and UK troops. We must
recognise that there is a diversity of opinion within our movement, and
we should beware those like Johann Hari who seek to turn diversity into
division."
That's where it ends. So where
is the evidence of my 'struggle with truth'? Is there a single error
pointed out in this critique?
Instead of writing this contradictory piece, Newman could have been
supporting and fundraising for the Iraqi trade unions. Go to
www.tuc.org.uk/
international for details about what the real left is doing to help the
Iraqis.
January 2005 |
|
|
|