Far-left treachery over Iraq

Gary Kent examines the far left's record

The core principles of the left have long been solidarity and secularism.

Yet the Leninist rump that runs the once important Stop the War Coalition has thrown all of that into what Trotsky would call the rubbish bin of history.

Most of the left opposed the war against Iraq, although a minority favoured military action. These arguments will be endlessly rehearsed for decades to come.

But even if many would say that they wouldn’t have started from here, a new civil society is struggling to emerge from decades of fascist-style government, war and the aftermath of the invasion and occupation.

A key part of this new Grassroots Iraq is the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). In the last year, they have actively courted the support of British trade unions and are seen as a credible movement trying, in the most desperate circumstances, to rekindle basic trade union concepts.

They face massive obstacles. Trade unions were part of the Baathist state apparatus of terror and many workers have no other experience of unions, although the Iraqi labour movement was once the most important and secular movement in the Middle East.

President Bush may include the need for free labour unions in his vision of democracy in the Middle East but this didn’t stop American soldiers raiding the IFTU headquarters and keeping them closed for months.

In addition, there is unemployment of over 50% and the violence that fills our screens, although it doesn’t exist everywhere in Iraq.

The IFTU opposed the war and the occupation but has decided to give its active support to the UN sanctioned process which has set a deadline for democratic elections in just 12 weeks.

From June onwards, the IFTU was, as is its right as an independent organisation, telling anyone who wished to listen that the early withdrawal of troops would lead to civil war, the balkanisation of Iraq and sectarian rule.

Then came the Labour Party conference in Brighton where it appeared possible that the major unions, which control 40% of the vote, could back a call for the precipitate withdrawal of British troops.

The IFTU again made its position clear and the major unions and the bulk of local parties listened and overwhelmingly rejected the troops out demand.

This enraged the leaders of the Stop the War Coalition. George Galloway denounced the IFTU foreign representative, Abdullah Muhsin, as a “Quisling” and argued that "The British state subverted the trade union leaderships at Brighton and co-opted them into a bloody and catastrophic colonial adventure.” The SWP then denounced the IFTU as a “fake union.”

The officers of the Stop the War Coalition then issued a statement to its supporters. They furiously denounced Muhsin for sharing a platform with Jack Straw. In fact, the platform of the meeting (which I organised) comprised Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell, as well as anti-war union leaders and an MP.

The Coalition leaders trot out codswollop that Muhsin “worked as the direct instrument of the government and the Labour Party apparatus” (he’d been invited to the conference by Unison) in order “to divide the anti-war movement from the trade unions by taking advantage of the goodwill towards it shown by a number of unions.”

The reality that the unions and others simply agreed with the IFTU analysis doesn’t fit in with these overblown conspiracy theories. It’s always easier to damn someone as a spook or stooge than admit they have won the argument.

Having said that they would not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs, the Coalition then argues that it is impossible that “genuinely independent trade unionism in Iraq can develop under a regime of military occupation” although the IFTU had by then recruited 200,000 members in 12 different unions.

The leaders of the peace movement then addressed the issue of the resistance and its officers wrote that “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.”

By the time that the full statement appeared in public, the words “by whatever means they find necessary” had been airbrushed out of history.

Anti-war MP Harry Barnes, who supports the IFTU, confronted the Coalition leadership’s “scurrilous statement” which “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.” He wondered if the leaders had “lost their moral bearings” and insisted that the statement be withdrawn.

This sent the Coalition into a tizzy. The words were firstly denied and then downgraded to a draft, although that is bad enough and had, in any case, been circulated widely and appeared on anti-war web sites.

A rag-bag of Trotskyists and Maoists then prevented IFTU leaders from speaking at the European Social Forum and some even tried to physically assault the General Secretary who was said, wrongly, to be an Iraqi Government Minister.

On the positive side, all this has helped to increase support in the mainstream labour movement for the IFTU. The TUC has increased the profile of its appeal for funds for Iraqi trade unions and we have established Labour Friends of Iraq to try and shift the debate down a new third way – beyond pro-war and anti-war positions to one of solidarity.

The former left-wing leader Aslef, Mick Rix has resigned from the Coalition leadership because “I cannot be associated with remarks that attack decent trade unionists and their unions.” He honourably adds that “Abdullah should receive an apology for some of the stupid and wild accusations made about him.”

All this may strike readers as all too typical of the primitive politics of the far left but the way in which the Stop the War leaders have put Iraqi trade unionists on show trial is shameful and endangers their lives. People who have been exiled by Saddam many now find that they have been exiled again by such statements. As the old SWP slogan puts it, “words are weapons.”

The British far left appears to believe that “American imperialism” can be defeated in Iraq by a “resistance” which they compare to the French Maquis.
They feel that this is a more important task for the left, despite its strong beliefs in the merits of trade unionism and secularism, than giving support to brave Iraqis who are trying to save their country from an assortment of Baathist fascists, jihadists, head-choppers and religious fundamentalists.

It is a supreme irony that this far left has embraced the view that one’s enemy’s enemies are one’s friends at the same time as President Bush has admitted that this was a flawed aspect of US foreign policy of decades during the Cold War.

The far left’s behaviour over Iraq will come to be seen as one of the most shameful in their history. One hopes that it will inspire the majority of democrats in the international labour movement to redouble their efforts to support Grassroots Iraq.

Gary Kent is the Director of Labour Friends of Iraq but writes in a personal capacity.