Complilation of documents attacking the Iraqi Federation of trade Unions and responses

Questions for the Stop the War Coalition, George Galloway, and the Socialist Workers Party

We bring together below a series of 13 documents relating to the recent attacks on the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions.

DOCUMENT 1

“Al-Quds Al-Arabi” London-based Arabic daily, 30 September 2004

Iraqi Communist Aborts Resolution at Labour Party Conference Calling on
Blair to Specify Date for Withdrawal from Iraq

London – “Al-Quds Al-Arabi”

British anti-war activists complained of being exposed to treachery in
the conference of the ruling Labour Party, regarding a resolution they
had put forward for voting, that called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to
specify a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

The activists had been confident that they would get the necessary votes
to get the resolution adopted in the Conference, if had not been for the
Iraqi Abdullah Muhsin, who is the President of the Iraqi Federation of
Workers Unions, and who attended the Conference as an official guest of
the British Government, putting his signature to a statement [speech]
which is thought that officials in the Government had formulated,
calling on the delegations of British trade unions, who have 50% of
votes in the Conference, not to adopt the resolution.

The Iraqi Communist, accompanied by Government officials, went to meet
the delegations in the Conference, where he shed tears in front of them
about the difficult of life under Saddam Hussein’s rule, and his fear of
the consequences of American-British withdrawal from Iraq at present.
One delegates of British unions federation said that the emotional state
of the Iraqi Communist was so powerful that it he succeeded in exerting
influence on some leaders of the anti-war movement.

George Galloway, the British MP who is opposed to the war, told “Al-Quds
Al-Arabi” that Muhsin’s behaviour is the most recent treachery
[betrayal] of the so-called Iraqi Communist Party which secretly
supported the war and sanctions against the Iraqi people. Galloway
denounced the arrival of the Iraqi Communist in Britain, at the expense
of the British Government which is taking part in occupying his country,
in order to promote this occupation.

DOCUMENT 2

Socialist Worker Editorial, 1 October

Troops must leave to stop hostage taking
by Chris Bambery, editor of Socialist Worker

THE IRAQI resistance is a response to the bitter reality of US and British occupation.

It was a reality which was underlined by the bombing of Fallujah this week which murdered many civilians.

The Iraqi people know at first hand of friends and family members dragged away by occupation troops to indefinite detention.
They know of women and children held as hostages by the US army until a father or son gave himself up in exchange.

As we write, the life of Ken Bigley hangs in the balance. We applaud the courage of his family in pointing the finger of blame for his terrible situation at Tony Blair and George Bush.

The death toll mounts each day in Iraq. The vast majority dying are Iraqi civilians at the hands of occupation forces.

During the Second World War the British and US governments appealed to the people of occupied Europe to take up arms against the Nazi invaders.
They condoned actions such as assassinations, bombs without warnings and the summary execution of informers and traitors.

There has never been a “clean” war of national liberation. (emphasis added).

The simple message every anti-war activist must shout from the rooftops is that there is only one way to stop hostage taking in Iraq—to remove all the US and British troops now.

We should further demand that Iraqis have the right to hold elections immediately, free from any restrictions such as those proposed by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary.

He suggests that any elections should exclude areas of Iraq under resistance control—in other words, the majority of the country and those who oppose the US.

DOCUMENT 3

GEORGE GALLOWAY ATTACKS IFTU FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVE AS A ‘QUISLING’, MORNING STAR, 2 OCTOBER 2004

"The British state subverted the trade union leaderships at Brighton and co-opted them into a bloody and catastrophic colonial adventure. And the state
brought along its very own Iraqi Quisling - Abdullah Muhsin, a trade
unionist for 18 months who is now masquerading as the spokesman of the
working class of Iraq. Muhsin, until recently a pillar of the Iraqi
Communist Party, is a spokesman for the Iraqi Federation of Trade Union.
Brought to Brighton as a guest of the party whose government is
violently occupying his country, Muhsin was touted around the trade
union delegations like a circus act. His party piece was to break down
in tears as he begged the delegates not to vote against Blair on Iraq.
Muhsin broke down and wept at meetings with five different trade unions
in Brighton."

DOCUMENT 4

MORNING STAR LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO GEORGE GALLOWAY

October 09, 2004

Galloway should drop the insults;

GEORGE Galloway (right) sneeringly describes Abdullah Muhsin of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions as a "trade unionist for 18 months" (M Star October 2).

However, this is hardly surprising, given that free trade unions have only been able to operate in Iraq since the fall of Saddam on April 9 2003.

If Galloway had ventured outside the presidential palace during his visits, perhaps he would have noticed this.

Prior to Saddam, Iraq boasted the strongest trade unions in the Middle East, with over half a million workers marching on May Day 1959.

Decades of brutal repression mean that it is now necessary for the IFTU to raise funds to send a travelling theatre bus to educate Iraqis about trade unions, labour and democratic rights, health and safety and other issues.

The challenge is to take back the tradition of trade unionism from the discredited legacy of the Ba'ath movement's "yellow" unions and begin the Herculean task of constructing a new movement.

The political situation in Iraq is complex and requires a nuanced analysis. If Abdullah Muhsin is indeed "masquerading as the spokesman of the working class in Iraq, " as Galloway states, then who is better qualified? Surely not the ex-Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin.

If the anti-war movement is to retain its relevance, it needs to drop the insults and come up with some well-researched arguments. February 15 2003 is starting to seem like a long time ago.

ELEANOR SOPWITH Waterlooville
Morning Star

October 07, 2004

Galloway should take time to learn a little respect;

ITIS a great pity that George Galloway should have used the Morning Star (M Star, October 2) to insult comrade Abdullah Muhsin of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, whom he describes as an "Iraqi quisling."

Filled with self-importance and in love with his own rhetoric, Mr Galloway clearly believes hyperbole and invective to be adequate substitutes for reasoned argument. It would seem that he has little understanding of the word "respect."

By way of contrast, Abdullah Muhsin comes across as sincere and courteous, irrespective of whether we like what he has to say .

Given his background as a consistent and princi - pled opponent both of Saddam's regime and the US invasion, his opinion is worthy of consideration at least.

George Galloway cannot have it both ways.

Either the "big four" trade union leaders were acting out of "cowardice and cynicism" when they voted against composite six or else they were genuinely swayed by Mr Muhsin's representations.

Towards the end of his piece, Mr Galloway describes Iraq as a country which is broken into pieces and infested with "extremism and terrorism, " a diagnosis he shares with the IFTU.

If he disagrees with their conclusions, the onus is on him to describe an alternative route whereby the democratic institutions of civil society may be rebuilt under these circumstances.

Somehow, I think when we hear this, it will be from other lips than his. Unfortunately for left-wing simplists, the time for slogans is over ..

MIKE CHIVERS Waterlooville
Morning Star

October 06, 2004

IN the October 2 edition of the Morning Star, George Galloway made some serious errors of fact in his article.

He accused me, along with other union leaders, of "cowardice and cynicism" on the issue of Iraq.

For the record, at the Labour Party conference this year, the Communication Workers Union voted for the motion calling for an end to the occupation (composite 6), against the motion supporting the government (composite 5) and abstained on the NEC statement.

Morning Star readers are entitled to accurate reporting.

Our opposition to the government has been turned, by George Galloway, into support.

Also untrue is the suggestion of my being unduly influenced by Abdullah Muhsin. I have never met him or any representative from the IFTU. The CWU will work with all progressive forces in rebuilding Iraq.

George Galloway, in his opposition to the war, was libelled by other reporters. I trust then that George will appreciate my disquiet in his not checking his facts before reporting on me. I would therefore appreciate an apology from George. He should rest assured that my personal opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the union's continuing involvement in the Stop the War Coalition remain.

It is crucial that the anti-war movement remains mobilised. Sloppy articles from George Galloway are a good way to demobilise it.

BILLY HAYES General Secretary Communication Workers Union

DOCUMENT 5

SOCIALIST WORKER CALLS IFTU A ‘FAKE’ UNION
Socialist Worker 9 October 2004

Fake unions won’t help Iraqi workers
THE IFTU claims that it speaks on behalf of Iraqi trade unions - This is not true.

A passionate speech by an Iraqi trade unionist helped to sway Labour delegates from voting to withdraw British troops from Iraq at last week’s Labour conference.

Abdullah Muhsin of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) said premature withdrawal would “lead to a bitter civil war”. Muhsin has addressed meetings of British trade unions, many of which are anti-war. The British and US governments are attempting to use the IFTU to divide the trade unions and the anti-war movement.

ANI LAZIM, a member of Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation, told Socialist Worker about the IFTU.

“THE IFTU claims that it speaks on behalf of Iraqi trade unions. This is not true. They are self appointed leaders. (...)
Abdullah Muhsin lives in Britain. He is a political refugee and a leading member of the Iraqi Communist Party, a party that is collaborating with the occupation. The Communist Party has ministers in the interim governing council. "

DOCUMENT 6

ABDULLAH MUHSIN REPLY TO GEORGE GALLOWAY
Morning Star, 12 October 2004

ABDULLAH MUHSIN urges all progressives throughout the world to support
the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU).

I have just returned to England from Amman, Jordan, where I have spent
the last seven days at two major conferences. One was called by the
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the ILO, at which
the IFTU was represented by seven of its affiliates and the other by the
International Transport Federation, with 2 IFTU transport unions
present.

On my return, I was dismayed to read hostile comments about the Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) published under the name of George
Galloway in the Morning Star (Looking left, October 2).

As he should know better than anyone, misrepresentation, exaggeration,
lies and abuse are the enemies of truth and are commonly used by those
who, for whatever reason, wish to avoid rational and lucid debate on
principled issues of difference.

I am grateful, therefore, to the Morning Star for the opportunity to set
the record straight.

First, the highly personal attacks on me must be answered not for my own
gratification, but because the integrity of the IFTU and its support
among British trade unions is at stake.

The charges that Mr Galloway levels against me are entirely without
foundation. He alleges that I was invited to the Labour Party conference
as a guest of the British state. This is untrue - I was there as a guest
of UNISON.

My purpose was to address a fringe meeting sponsored by UNISON, War on
Want and The Observer.

I was joined by speakers who supported the IFTU position against the war
and the occupation, from the TUC, FBU and UNISON, and others who did
not.

My speech at the meeting called for the removal of foreign troops and a
genuine transfer of power to the Iraqi people. In this context, I
explained the IFTU policy of support for UN resolution 1546.

Mr Galloway's assertion that I offered voting advice to trade unions on
the Iraq motions is also untrue. The big four trade unions made their
own decisions and, for my part, if and when asked, I confined my remarks
to urging solidarity with Iraqi workers.

The IFTU has many reasons to be extremely grateful to the TUC and many
of its affiliates for the great support that we have received during the
last 17 months in our historic task of rebuilding the once mighty Iraqi
trade unions. Such solidarity is invaluable at this critical time.

Mr Galloway's sectarian and misleading account of the IFTU political and
organisational developments since its foundation in May 2003 at an open
reunification conference of genuine trade unionists in Baghdad can only
be described as a slander against those who fought and worked patiently
for 25 years, both clandestinely and in exile, to preserve an
independent trade union tradition from Saddam's brutal death squads.

As such, we genuinely wonder in whose interests it is for Mr Galloway to
spread such calumnies about the IFTU.

Our country is bleeding, shattered by a quarter of a century of
fascist-type dictatorship which instigated three wars in less than 20
years - at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives - and waged
internal wars of genocide against the Iraqi people.

Now, we suffer the national humiliation of continuing occupation by
foreign armies and a wave of horrific terrorist attacks on Iraqis - as
well as Arab and foreign nationals - by shadowy sectarian forces
masquerading as a patriotic national resistance.

The IFTU is opposed to the occupation of our country by the military
forces of the US, Britain and other countries.

The IFTU calls for a democratic and federal Iraq, with full civil and
political rights for women, workers and all social and ethnic groups.

The federation calls for freedom of religion, but does not believe that
any religion can be the sole source of legitimacy for the constitution
of a democratic Iraq.

It remains opposed to the illegal war on Iraq and to the horrendous
decision of the occupying powers following the invasion to effectively
dissolve the functions of the state in Iraq, rather than cleansing it of
Saddam's henchmen.

Instead, they are trying to introduce free-market-oriented policies of
privatisation, carried out by incompetent corporate plundering
functionaries whose aim is the economic occupation of our country.

Our trade unions are the main impediment to such policies. UN resolution
1546 will assist us in this fight.

Why does IFTU strongly demand the full implementation of the United
Nations position? First, because it is the only guarantee of fair
elections, followed by removal of foreign troops.

Second, it is our view that the forces of extremism and terrorism
responsible for the daily murder of Iraqis and the barbaric murder of
foreign nationals like Ken Bigley deliberately spread a climate of fear
in order to disrupt the forces of progress.

These secretive and dangerous forces cannot be defeated by F16s and
helicopter gunships attacking Iraqi cities. They can only be overcome by
a democratic process that will allow civil society to develop and rid
our country of foreign troops. At the moment, UN resolution 1546 is the
best means of achieving this.

Our young federation is one of the most important civil society
organisations in Iraq today working to prevent Iraq descending into
civil war.

We oppose the forces of imperialism and sectarianism attempting to break
up Iraq into rival ethnic or religious-based client states of regional
or superpowers and consigning her people to a new era of backward
colonialism.

The IFTU stands on the side of democracy and for the rebuilding of our
civil society. We demand earnestly and respectfully that all those in
the labour movement who love peace and freedom, both in Britain and
internationally come to our aid.

• Abdullah Muhsin is a British-based representative of the Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions. Morning Star

DOCUMENT 7

STOP THE WAR COALITION STATEMENT ‘STOP THE WAR COALITION AND THE IFTU’, AS “ENDORSED BY THE OFFICERS”

“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

STOP THE WAR COALITION AND THE IFTU

Since the bloody and illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by US and British armies, the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) has consistently called for the withdrawal of foreign troops and the ending of the occupation. This position commands the support of the great majority of the British people, and was recently reaffirmed as the unanimous position of the TUC. It also commands the support of the majority of the Iraqi people, as evidenced by opinion polling carried out by the occupation forces themselves.

At the same time StWC has always refrained from taking any position on the internal development of Iraq, since this is solely the preserve of the Iraqi people themselves. Affiliates of the Coalition have, of course, developed their own links with Iraqi organisations, according to their particular policies or spheres of interest.

However, the recent activity of the representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) in Britain compels the StWC to make its position clear. In recent weeks the IFTU representative has:

* Urged that the Labour Party conference welcome the puppet Iraqi premier Allawi, at a time when the entire anti-war movement was demanding that the invitation be withdrawn, which it subsequently was.
* Shared a platform with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and the UK government's "human rights envoy" to Iraq Ann Clwyd, respectively a leading architect of and an indefatigable apologist for the war and the occupation.
* Most shamefully of all, energetically lobbied the trade union affiliates of the Labour Party to oppose a motion, reflecting the union's own agreed policies, calling on Blair to set
an early date for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

In this last undertaking the IFTU representative worked as the direct instrument of the government and the Labour Party apparatus, which prepared and distributed his statements to delegates and ensured him access to union delegations. Indeed, the statement by the
IFTU representative issued by the Party was not merely supportive of the
continued military occupation of his country, but could also be read as
supportive of the original invasion of Iraq.

There is little doubt that this intervention played a significant part in persuading some major trade unions (and perhaps constituency delegates too) to abandon their agreed policy on the occupation (affirmed at the TUC just two weeks earlier).

It is understandable that British trade unions should wish to express their support to the working class of Iraq in its extremely difficult struggles, and the StWC has always encouraged such support insofar as it falls within our political remit. The IFTU is one of a number of trade union and workers' organisations in Iraq, distinguished from others by its support for the Allawi government and, it is now apparent, for the foreign occupation on which that government depends for its existence.

The IFTU has, however, attempted to divide the anti-war movement from the trade unions by taking advantage of the goodwill towards it shown by a number of unions for honourable reasons of solidarity, the lack of understanding of the actual nature of different organisations in Iraq, and the climate of pre-election pressure from the government on trade union delegations.

As a result, several affiliated trade unions at the Labour Party conference voted for a policy of effectively open-ended licence for the occupation and against the early withdrawal of British troops.

The StWC hopes that the leading unions will restate their previous policy of an end to the occupation. The coming weeks and months are likely to see still bloodier battles within Iraq, with a growing number of deaths both of Iraqis and of British and US soldiers. It remains most likely that the war and the occupation will remain the dominant political issues in the months leading up to the next British general election. The trade union movement must find a voice on these developments and cannot remain within the confines of the statement agreed at the Labour Party conference.

With regard to the IFTU, the StWC condemns its political collaboration with the British government, exemplified at the Labour Party conference and its 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.

The StWC reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends. (emphasis added)

Stop the War Coalition
October 2004”

DOCUMENT 8

‘IFTU STATEMENT. REPLYING TO SLANDER AND FALSIFICATION’
October 15, 2004

We are deeply shocked by reports we have received of attacks on the IFTU emanating from the London-based daily “Al-Quds al Arabi” (30 September 2004) and the “Morning Star” (2 October 2004).

In an article published in “Al Quds”, George Galloway made the false and dangerous allegation which he repeated in an article published in the “Morning Star”. Alleging that the IFTU collaborates with British government is a blatant attempt to undermine the process of rebuilding an independent Iraqi trade union movement which only can be in the interest of enemies of the Iraqi people who want to sabotage the its struggle to regain full sovereignty and independence, end the presence of foreign troops and empower our people to decide their destiny in free and democratic elections.

IFTU’s policies have attracted widespread support among workers in Iraq and internationally. That is why we have grown from a founding conference of 400 trade unionists in May 2003 to 12 national unions.
Despite the terrible security situation, IFTU affiliates are organizing on the industrial and legislative fronts. We have organised strikes, marches and we are entering into negotiation with both public and private enterprises in defence of workers rights to just wages and better working conditions. And we are campaigning for a labour code that adheres to the ILO conventions. We oppose privatisation and, to correct one of the slanders against us, we have ALWAYS opposed the war and the occupation.

On this and other issues, our position, and that of our official representative, Abdullah Muhsin, has been entirely falsified. Firstly, we deny absolutely that the IFTU and Mr. Muhsin have received support from the British State. Mr. Muhsin’s presence at the conferences of both the TUC and the Labour Party was at the invitation of the FBU (& the TUC) and UNISON respectively. No voting advice was proffered at either of these conferences. As we understand it, unions make their own decisions based on their own policies. We were very grateful to receive such warm wishes and practical solidarity from the trade unions at both conferences. Mr. Muhsin spoke on our behalf at fringe meetings at both conferences at which he presented the policy of the IFTU in opposing the war and the occupation, calling for the removal of troops and the transfer of power to a democratically elected sovereign government as envisaged in UN resolution 1546. We are amazed that some have thought fit (for reasons best known to themselves) to wilfully misrepresent the IFTU position on these matters. It should also be noted that some of the hostile reports contain factual inaccuracies as well as vicious slanders. Mr. Muhsin is not the President of the IFTU (as claimed in ‘Al-Quds’), he is our foreign representative and has never received assistance from any State or government.

Contrary to the allegations against the IFTU we must state emphatically that we have never voted or campaigned for the current interim Iraqi government.
We are an independent federation supporting a political process to keep Iraq together and to rebuild a civil society in which the rights and freedoms of working people are respected.

The IFTU will continue to work for organizational, political and social progress of Iraqi working people. We will continue to work with all sections of the International Labour movement that support our aims.
IFTU
General Secretary
Subhi Abdullah Hussien

DOCUMENT 9

Harry Barnes MP EARLY DAY MOTION
STOP THE WAR COALITION AND VIOLENCE IN IRAQ October 15 2004

STOP THE WAR COALITION AND VIOLENCE IN IRAQ
An early day motion (EDM) -- number 1744 -- introduced by Harry Barnes MP.
That this House notes that the Stop the War Coalition leaders recently put out a statement by e-mail to its supporters which backed "the legitimacy of the struggle of the Iraqi people, by whatever means they find necessary' to end occupation; believes that this scurrilous statement would strongly imply support for the so-called resistance and thereby acquiesce in the murders of more people such as Ken Bigley, as well as hundreds of ordinary Iraqis; further notes, however, that versions of the statement published in the Morning Star and on the Stop the War website exclude the words "by whatever means they find necessary'; expresses the hope that the Coalition's leadership has disavowed these outrageous words which will only encourage those who use physical force in Iraq; and urges the Stop the War leadership to clarify its position without delay, reassure the public that they have not lost their moral bearings and, if this is a policy statement made internally to their membership, to withdraw it and institute internal action against those who issued this terrible statement to make sure that such highly offensive positions are never taken again.
DOCUMENT 10

‘RESPONSE TO HARRY BARNES’, ANDREW MURRAY, CHAIR OF StWC

RESPONSE TO HARRY BARNES

Dear Mr Barnes

Our attention has been drawn to an early day motion you have put down in the
House of Commons concerning the Stop the War Coalition. It is regrettable
that, as an MP who opposed the invasion of Iraq, you have chosen to attack
the Coalition in this way and did not contact us in advance to raise the
issues that you have now made public.

The facts are these:
No statement concerning the words you complain of has been issued or
published by the Stop the War Coalition either in general, or to our members
and supporters.

n What you describe as the “version” of the statement placed on our
website (and published in the Morning Star) is, in fact, the statement.
There is no other.

n In a previous publicly-issued and freely-available statement, the
Stop the War Coalition urged the release of Kenneth Bigley and made it clear
that we do not support the taking of hostages, still less their execution.
Your inference otherwise is particularly reprehensible.

In the view of these facts, I hope that you will agree that your early day
motion is misguided and I ask you to withdraw it without delay.

Noting the concern you express in your motion over the loss of Iraqi
civilian life, I would also draw your attention to the report issued by the
Iraqi government this week revealing that two-thirds of civilian deaths are
caused by the British and US occupation forces and would invite you to
endorse the position of the Stop the War Coalition and the TUC that these
forces should be withdrawn as speedily as possible.

Yours ,

Andrew Murray

Chair

DOCUMENT 11

Belgian Indymedia Site in receipt of DOCUMENT 1, ‘The Stop the War Coalition and the IFTU’, posts it, and calls for people attending the European Social Forum to be ‘ready for’ Subhi al Mashadani
http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/10/88775.php

Stop the war Coalition UK, will publish this statement on the Iraqi Federation of trade Unions IFTU on monday (see attachment) and Iam sure it will be ciculated widely in the ESF. If Mashhadani still wants to turn up on Friday we should be ready for him. There are a lot of damning information about this group, some of it could be found on their own website.

STOP THE WAR COALITION AND THE IFTU

Since the bloody and illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by US and British armies, the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) has consistently called for the withdrawal of foreign troops and the ending of the occupation. This position commands the support of the great majority of the British people, and was recently reaffirmed as the unanimous position of the TUC. It also commands the support of the majority of the Iraqi people, as evidenced by opinion polling carried out by the occupation forces themselves.

At the same time StWC has always refrained from taking any position on the internal development of Iraq, since this is solely the preserve of the Iraqi people themselves. Affiliates of the Coalition have, of course, developed their own links with Iraqi organisations, according to their particular policies or spheres of interest.

However, the recent activity of the representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) in Britain compels the StWC to make its position clear. In recent weeks the IFTU representative has:

Urged that the Labour Party conference welcome the puppet Iraqi premier Allawi, at a time when the entire anti-war movement was demanding that the invitation be withdrawn, which it subsequently was.
 Shared a platform with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and the UK government’s “human rights envoy” to Iraq Ann Clwyd, respectively a leading architect of and an indefatigable apologist for the war and the occupation.
Most shamefully of all, energetically lobbied the trade union affiliates of the Labour Party to oppose a motion, reflecting the union’s own agreed policies, calling on Blair to set an early date for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

In this last undertaking the IFTU representative worked as the direct instrument of the government and the Labour Party apparatus, which prepared and distributed his statements to delegates and ensured him access to union delegations. Indeed, the statement by the IFTU representative issued by the Party was not merely supportive of the continued military occupation of his country, but could also be read as supportive of the original invasion of Iraq.

There is little doubt that this intervention played a significant part in persuading some major trade unions (and perhaps constituency delegates too) to abandon their agreed policy on the occupation (affirmed at the TUC just two weeks earlier).

It is understandable that British trade unions should wish to express their support to the working class of Iraq in its extremely difficult struggles, and the StWC has always encouraged such support insofar as it falls within our political remit. The IFTU is one of a number of trade union and workers’ organisations in Iraq, distinguished from others by its support for the Allawi government and, it is now apparent, for the foreign occupation on which that government depends for its existence.

The IFTU has, however, attempted to divide the anti-war movement from the trade unions by taking advantage of the goodwill towards it shown by a number of unions for honourable reasons of solidarity, the lack of understanding of the actual nature of different organisations in Iraq, and the climate of pre-election pressure from the government on trade union delegations.

As a result, several affiliated trade unions at the Labour Party conference voted for a policy of effectively open-ended licence for the occupation and against the early withdrawal of British troops.

The StWC hopes that the leading unions will restate their previous policy of an end to the occupation. The coming weeks and months are likely to see still bloodier battles within Iraq, with a growing number of deaths both of Iraqis and of British and US soldiers. It remains most likely that the war and the occupation will remain the dominant political issues in the months leading up to the next British general election. The trade union movement must find a voice on these developments and cannot remain within the confines of the statement agreed at the Labour Party conference.

With regard to the IFTU, the StWC condemns its political collaboration with the British government, exemplified at the Labour Party conference and its 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.

The StWC reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends.

Stop the War Coalition
October 2004

DOCUMENT 12

TUC CONDEMN ASSAULT AGAINST IFTU AT EUROPEAN SOCIAL FORUM
TUC statement 15th October
The TUC, like most participants in the European Social Forum, believes in the fundamental principles of free speech and pluralism.
The TUC is dismayed at this morning’s events that saw a small minority of participants heckling and jostling the leader of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, Subji al Mashadani, forcing him to leave the session.
We condemn the attempts of a few to prevent the views of Iraqi trade unionists from being heard. We call on everyone at the European Social Forum to support the decision of the organisers to allow Subji to speak tonight as originally planned.
The TUC believes that the voice of Iraqi trade unions should be heard. The IFTU is one of several trade union voices in Iraq and the TUC is of the view that all of them should be listened to if we are to help the Iraqi people to rebuild their country.
Our Congress reiterated our view that the war was wrong and that troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible. The only way forward is to allow people of differing opinions to have their say.
The TUC, like most participants in the European Social Forum, believes in the fundamental principles of free speech and pluralism.
The TUC is dismayed at this morning’s events that saw a small minority of participants heckling and jostling the leader of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, Subji al Mashadani, forcing him to leave the session.
We condemn the attempts of a few to prevent the views of Iraqi trade unionists from being heard. We call on everyone at the European Social Forum to support the decision of the organisers to allow Subji to speak tonight as originally planned.
The TUC believes that the voice of Iraqi trade unions should be heard. The IFTU is one of several trade union voices in Iraq and the TUC is of the view that all of them should be listened to if we are to help the Iraqi people to rebuild their country.
Our Congress reiterated our view that the war was wrong and that troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible. The only way forward is to allow people of differing opinions to have their say.
LFIQ note: we understand that the evening session was abandoned due to such intimidation.

DOCUMENT 13

MICK RICKS RESIGNS FROM STOP THE WAR COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE
19 October 2004

*From:* mick rix
*Sent:* Tue 19/10/2004 10:04
*To:* Undisclosed-Recipient:;
*Subject:* Resignation from STW

You may be interested in what has taken place here. I do wish the
coalition every success, but I am afraid for very obvious reasons I
cannot be associated with remarks that attack decent trade unionists and
their unions, and indeed Abdullah himself. Very much in the same way
that George Galloway article did in the morning star. However my
assertion is, whether people agree with what the union delegations did
at the "Party Convention" they did arrive at for the most part, at a
decision, in their own delegations after debate and discussion. I also
know many personally, who are excellant representatives of their unions,
and the movement. Many are committed anti war activists. However these
statements that have supposedly been put out in the name of STW have not
been debated, nor views invited before publication.(they are printed
below). I find that somewhat ironic!!! Although the statement from STW
is a little less personalised than Georges rant in the Morning star the
other staurday, I still feel that this statement is wrong, factually,
and is personalised also. I also think that it has driven many TUs and
their reps away from the position of support for the STW, because of its
clear emerging political allegiance to its dominant political party,
rather than the broad based coalition support, that any movement
organisation needs to achieve success. It is hoped that in future, the
comrades at STW can learn their lessons again, that maturity, respect
and tolerance, which were the hallmarks in the early days, achieved a
unifying stance(despite some in the movements reservations over their
politics), which enabled some of us, to drive that policy through into
the TUC and elsewhere in the movement. I think STW needs encouraging to
come back to that politic, and I am sure comrades, who have more
influence than myself, and are more able to put that view across more
eloquently, may meet with some success again.
Mick Rix

----- Original Message -----
*From:* mick rix
*To:* Stop the War Coalition
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:16 AM
*Subject:* Re: Steering Committee Meeting

Please could you send my apologies, also 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 have 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. There is nothing wrong with
criticism, and people from time to time will have and hold different
views, but there are better ways of making this critic, and there were
better ways of inviting views on this critic, before it was published.
I wish you all future success, but I believe at the moment damage has
been done that is long lasting, I also feel that Abdullah should receive
an apology for some of the stupid and wild accusations made about him. I
also believe that the vast majority of union delegates at the labour
party who hold strong views on the war, and the vast majority are anti
war, should also receive an apology for the vitriol that has been
whipped up against them. At least they debated and discussed the
position before doing what they did, likewise the statements that have
been made, by representatives and close associates of STW, have not been
debated prior to their publication, nor were their views sought as well.
Mick Rix

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Stop the War Coalition
*To:* Stop The War Coalition
*Cc:* Tracy Martin
*Sent:* Monday, October 11, 2004 2:58 PM
*Subject:* Steering Committee Meeting

Dear Friends,
The next Steering Committee Meeting will take place on Tuesday 19th
October at 6:30pm in the Drayton Room (the same room as the last
meeting) at Friends Meeting House, Euston Rd.
Please could you confirm your attendance or send your apologies by
way of an email or by calling the office on PHONE NUMBER REMOVED BY LFIQ
Many thanks,
Francesca
FROM Stop the War Coalition
8th October 2004 12.04PM
Dear Friends,
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
Attachment received

*STOP THE WAR COALITION AND THE IFTU*

Since the bloody and illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of
Iraq by US and British armies, the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) has
consistently called for the withdrawal of foreign troops and the
ending of the occupation. This position commands the support of the
great majority of the British people, and was recently reaffirmed as
the unanimous position of the TUC. It also commands the support of
the majority of the Iraqi people, as evidenced by opinion polling
carried out by the occupation forces themselves.

*At the same time StWC has always refrained from taking any position
on the internal development of Iraq**, since this is solely the
preserve of the Iraqi people themselves*. Affiliates of the
Coalition have, of course, developed their own links with Iraqi
organisations, according to their particular policies or spheres of
interest.

*However, the recent activity of the representative of the Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU*) in Britain *compels the StWC to
make its position clear*. In recent weeks the IFTU representative has:

n *Urged that the Labour Party conference* welcome the puppet Iraqi
premier Allawi, at a time when the entire anti-war movement was
demanding that the invitation be withdrawn, which it subsequently was.

n *Shared a platform* with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and the UK
government’s “human rights envoy” to Iraq Ann Clwyd, respectively a
leading architect of and an indefatigable apologist for the war and
the occupation.

n *Most shamefully of all, energetically lobbied the trade union
affiliates of the Labour Party to oppose a motion, reflecting the
union’s own agreed policies*, calling on Blair to set an early date
for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

*In this last undertaking the IFTU representative worked as the
direct instrument of the government and the Labour Party apparatus*,
which prepared and distributed his statements to delegates and
ensured him access to union delegations. Indeed, the statement by
the IFTU representative issued by the Party was not merely
supportive of the continued military occupation of his country, *but
could also be read as supportive of the original invasion of **Iraq.*

**

*There is little doubt that this intervention played a significant
part in persuading some major trade unions* (and perhaps
constituency delegates too) to abandon their agreed policy on the
occupation (affirmed at the TUC just two weeks earlier).

It is understandable that British trade unions should wish to
express their support to the working class of Iraq in its extremely
difficult struggles, and the StWC has always encouraged such support
insofar as it falls within our political remit. The IFTU is one of a
number of trade union and workers’ organisations in Iraq,
distinguished from others by its support for the Allawi government
and, it is now apparent, for the foreign occupation on which that
government depends for its existence.

*The IFTU has, however, attempted to divide the anti-war movement
from the trade unions* by *taking advantage of the goodwill towards
it shown by a number of unions for honourable reasons of
solidarity,* *the lack of understanding of the actual nature of
different organisations in **Iraq**,* and the climate of
pre-election pressure from the government on trade union delegations.

*As a result, several affiliated trade unions at the Labour Party
conference voted for a policy of effectively open-ended licence for
the occupation and against the early withdrawal of British troops.*

**

The StWC hopes that the leading unions will restate their previous
policy of an end to the occupation. The coming weeks and months are
likely to see still bloodier battles within Iraq, with a growing
number of deaths both of Iraqis and of British and US soldiers. It
remains most likely that the war and the occupation will remain the
dominant political issues in the months leading up to the next
British general election. The trade union movement must find a voice
on these developments and cannot remain within the confines of the
statement agreed at the Labour Party conference.

*With regard to the IFTU, the StWC condemns its political
collaboration with the British government, exemplified at the Labour
Party conference and its 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.*

The StWC reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return
of all British troops in Iraq to this country *and recognises once
more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means
they find necessary, to secure such ends.*

Stop the War Coalition

*October 2004*