Building support for the new Iraq
Home Who we are What we do How you can be involved |
March 29, 2005LFIQ Toolkit on Solidarity with Grassroots Iraq
The Toolkit for Solidarity has been sent to all Constituency Labour Parties and Labour MPs. It is a useful resource pack for local parties, full of facts, ideas and arguments. Very kindly, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (Usdaw) did the design and printing. Introduction This pack of information outlines who we are and the nature of the new Iraqi trade union movement and wider civil society, which we are urging party members and others to support. The new unions that have replaced Saddam's state-run fronts, are beacons of hope. But they face huge obstacles. Unemployment stands at over 50%. Attempts to rebuild the shattered economy are being literally sabotaged by a rag-bag alliance of former Saddam supporters, foreign jihadists and disgruntled men who were drummed out of the Iraqi army and police by the US. Iraqi unions, like all unions, campaign for improved wages and conditions as well as for progressive labour legislation. But they also provide a non-sectarian bulwark against the nihilistic terror of private armies. We are supportive of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), whose web site is www.iraqitradeunions.org and which contains a mine of information on the IFTU and the emerging labour movement. We have established Labour Friends of Iraq (LFIQ) to bring together people who opposed the war and those who supported it, but now see that circumstances have changed, not least given the superb turnout for the recent elections and the Iraqi people's thirst for democracy, and can agree that the priority is now to support democracy, secularism and human rights in Iraq. This new unity of people who disagreed over the war is symbolised by our choice of Presidents. One is Rt Hon Ann Clwyd MP, an outspoken critic of Saddam since the 1980's, the Special Envoy to the Prime Minister on Human Rights in Iraq and a long-standing friend and supporter of Iraqi democrats. Our other President is the North East Derbyshire MP Harry Barnes who did his national service in Basra in the 1950's and who also has always opposed Saddam. Harry opposed the war and joined anti-war marches and platforms. He has no regrets about this, but is also a supporter of the new Iraqi trade union movement and a friend to Iraqi democrats. These two have united in Labour Friends of Iraq to build a movement that goes beyond the increasingly sterile arguments for and against the war. Instead they want to build solidarity with progressive forces in Iraq. It's not that we don't mention the war or won't criticise the actions of the US or our own government, when necessary, but that the priority is now to unite the British labour movement in support of our comrades in Iraq. Iraq has strong labour movement traditions. Before the Ba'athists came to power, a million people joined the May Day march in Baghdad in 1959. Iraq also has a proud tradition of secularism and tolerance. Iraq is the cradle of civilisation and its oil wealth could give a decent life to all its people. But today peace and progress is threatened by the terrorist "resistance" and by foreign asset-strippers. The stakes are very high. Join with us to help Iraqi democrats rebuild their country. Yours in comradeship, Jane Ashworth, Chair LFIQ
Section 1: A campaign pack with model resolutions, leaflet and ideas for making solidarity with Grassroots Iraq and details of the emerging trade union movement in Iraq. Section 1 The Iraqi trade union movement: building solidarity “Independence, transparency and the importance of not being part of the state”.(IFTU slogan) After three decades of repression, wars and sanctions that most hurt working people, Iraqi society has been devastated. One of the very few causes for hope in the present situation is the emergence of genuine, independent trade unions, women’s groups and political parties bringing Iraqi workers together, regardless of religious, ethnic or national origins. There are several new union movements which have emerged since the fall of Saddam but the largest trade union organisation in Iraq is the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), which organises workers across a range of occupations and whose affiliated unions have taken successful strike action in several industries. Some case studies are included in this briefing. The IFTU stands for: The IFTU has forged strong links with British trade unions. The 2004 TUC Congress passed a resolution to “maintain and strengthen contact with Iraqi trade unions, in particular the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), by: (Excerpt from Motion 82, moved by NATFHE and carried overwhelmingly) Since then, many British trade unions have demonstrated their solidarity. The RMT has sent a delegation to Iraq and set up its own support fund for the IFTU. The FBU has made contact with Iraqi fire fighters and sent over much needed fire-fighting equipment. UNISON has brought over a group of Iraqi trade unionists to take part in its education and organising programme. There is no reason why Labour Parties shouldn’t do similar things, though their budgets may be smaller. Later on in this briefing, we suggest ways in which you can make contact with the Iraqi trade union movement, and show practical solidarity. Our Iraqi comrades have the right to expect us to do all we can. The IFTU in action: a suitable case for solidarity 1/ The Baghdad Teachers’ Union The union held its first open conference on 29th July 2003. The conference elected a leadership of 15 and adopted a rulebook. 350 delegates representing 20 union committees attended the conference. At the conference, the 20 committees merged to form two committees. Two Presidents were elected, one for Al Rasafa and one for Al Krah (districts of Baghdad). In Al Rasafa there are 25,500 members out of a total of 32,000 teachers. In Al Krah there are 29,000 out of 32,000 teachers. This is without any form of closed shop or compulsion. Membership costs one thousand dinars per year. On 23rd August 2003 the Baghdad teachers attended a conference of 400 delegates from teachers unions in 15 regions. The unions came together and elected a 16 strong national committee. The united union campaigns for: 2/ Interview with Abdul Aalye Awlawe Al Rekeabye, President of the Agricultural Union. Q: tell us something about your union. When was it established? How were you elected and what have you achieved since election? A: On 5th June 2004 a conference was held at the Ministry of Agriculture in Baghdad. 119 delegates representing 28 committees attended. This was from Baghdad only. 24 individuals put themselves forward for election to the leading committee and 15, including me, were elected. I was then elected President at the first committee meeting. We have warm comradeship with all regional union committees, such as those in Al Umara and Dyala Kut al Basra. We organised a strike on 4th and 5th September 2004 at the A1 Kandy Company, demanding a pay increase. All the 170 workers at the company took part in the action and after two days we won a minimum wage agreement for unskilled workers and an increase in the monthly rate from 30 thousand to 70 thousand dinars. We have organised several seminars on trade union rights. We campaigned for reinstatement and compensation for workers who were sacked for their political views by the old regime. The union has succeeded in obtaining the reinstatement of many workers. We are affiliated to the IFTU and consider our union as one of the main pillars of the federation – we were at the conference that established the IFTU on 16 May 2003. We are presently campaigning for a labour code in line with ILO principles on rights at work, and demanding the repeal of Saddam’s 1987 anti-union law, which is still in place. At our conference on 5th June 2004, it was agreed to form a Food Staff Workers Union, as a section of the Agricultural Union. The new Food Staff Union has already achieved success in wage struggles, notably in the Baghdad Tobacco factory. It has also prevented the forced transfer of one of its officials from one company to another: the state management backed down in the face of a threatened strike. The union now has branches organising in the following sectors: Food Oil, Tobacco, Sweets, Yoghourt, Food Products, Soft Drinks. 3/ Report from Khalud Jasim Muthana, President of the Construction and Wood Workers’ union. After the fall of the Saddam regime, we began to organise in the construction industry. I was appointed as the President of the preparatory committee, which by 28th June 2004 comprised 42 workplace committees. Our first conference was held at Baghdad central railway station and was attended by 250 workers – men and women. The main theme of the conference was to build a new trade union centre. The second theme was for the reinstatement of workers victimised by Saddam’s regime because of union activity. Conference then elected a leadership of 15. Since the conference we have managed to form another 18 union committees. We have demanded that the Oil Ministry ensures that oil supplies are maintained to the factories where we organise. We have organised to protect from sabotage, the electricity supplies to workplaces where our members work. We organise in both the public and private sectors. We now have about 54 workplace committees, elected by rank and file members. These committees include about 25 women and our policy is to maintain good relations with all Iraqis, whatever their background. 4/ Report from Torki Abd nor al-Lehaby, President of the Transport and Communication Union I was a delegate to the conference on 16th May 2003 that formed the IFTU. I was then given responsibility for the transport and communications sector. We established a sector committee of 15 and elected a President (me), a Vice President and a Secretary. We then formed the Transport and Communications Union in both the public and private sectors, including telecommunications and the post office. We have several thousand members in the Post Office, including women. We also organise in haulage and public transport. We organise and co-ordinate in 14 provinces and as well as Baghdad, we have strong membership in Najaf and Babal. Perhaps our proudest achievement, apart from achieving pay increases, was to force the reopening of our Baghdad office, closed and ransacked by American troops on 6 December 2003. Why not make contact with one of the unions described above? Twin with them and discuss specific fund-raising activities with their particular requirements in mind. We can help you do this. For instance, a mobile phone for a union organiser costs the $400 per year. A manual worker earns around $120 per month, a teacher or lecturer around $180 per month and even a senior professor earns only $ 400 per month. Membership of the teachers’ union (like most Iraqi unions) therefore has to be very cheap: just one US dollar per month. So sponsoring a union organiser’s mobile phone would be a massive contribution to the work of the union. Support the TUC’s Aid Iraq Appeal, raising money for all genuine trade unions (not just the IFTU) Iraq. The fund was launched in October 2004, by Brendan Barber (TUC General Secretary) and Hashimia Muhsin Hussein, President of the Electricity and Energy union in Basra - the first woman trade union leader in the history of Iraq. All money raised will go to funding trade union organisation in Iraq. The TUC makes no deduction for administration. Money will be used for union organising, education and IT/office equipment. Details (including an online donation facility) can be found on www.tuc.org.uk/iraqappeal Contact the IFTU direct, via their British representative Abdullah Muhsin. Abdullah is happy to speak at labour movement meetings. The IFTU is also raising money for the ‘Khalil Shawqi Appeal’, named after a former railworker and trade unionist who became a well known playwright and actor and a prominent opponent of Saddam Hussein. The IFTU explains “It is our modest aim with the assistance of the international labour movement …to take travelling theatre companies to every workplace in Iraq to explain (trade unionism) through the medium of theatre, poetry and exhibitions. Theatre is a great popular tradition amongst the Iraqi people. Our initiative will take back the tradition of trade unionism from the discredited state-run trade unionism of the Ba’ath regime. Education is a massive task and we are commencing this project by equipping a bus as a travelling theatre to tour Iraqi workplaces and communities”. To support this project or to contact the IFTU for a speaker, e-mail abdullahmuhsin@iraqitradeunions.org Get together with other local Labour Parties to organise a meeting with a speaker from the IFTU or one of the other progressive Iraqi organisations that we can put you in contact with. You might want to make it an open meeting and invite local trade unionists along as well. Suggested Model Resolution This CLP resolves to do all it can to help the Iraqis build a free, stable and democratic future. We wish to see the occupation forces withdrawn as soon as possible once elections have been held and democracy and stability have a reasonable prospect of survival. We condemn all acts of terrorism, including the holding of innocent people as hostages. We note that the vast majority of victims of these attacks are Iraqis. We also note that far from ending the occupation, the terrorism is prolonging it. We acknowledge that those who supported and those who opposed military action in Iraq have united in support of the efforts of the emerging civil society in Iraq, including various parties, women’s groups and the new secular and independent trade union movement. We therefore support the TUC’s appeal to raise funds to help rebuild the Iraqi trade union movement and/or resolve to twin with an Iraqi union and raise funds for it and/or invite a speaker from the Iraqi trade union movement to address our next meeting in order to launch our solidarity campaign. (delete as appropriate). Updated model motions are available at www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk Section 2. Details of the campaign of political assassinations of Iraqi trade unionists by the ‘resistance.’ (see Questions and Answers for detailed assessments of these insurgents.) Having been organising underground and subject to jail and torture under Saddam, the trade union leadership now face more death squads. The ‘resistance’ is waging war against the unions and murdering militants who campaign for a secular, sovereign and democratic Iraq. Here we focus on the assassination in January 2005 of Hadi Saleh and the threats to the life of Nozad Ismail. 1 Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions statement on the murder of Hadi Saleh The IFTU mourns the loss of comrade Hadi Saleh who was assassinated last night (4 January 2005) at his family home in Baghdad in a cowardly act carried out by elements loyal to the fascist type dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. This is a sad tragedy for Saleh’s family, the IFTU and the Iraqi working people. Hadi Saleh was a key activist in the clandestine Workers Democratic Trade Union Movement (WDTUM) which was established in 1980 to keep alive an independent labour movement. He was hunted by the regime for his trade union activities and forced into exile. Hadi Saleh opposed Bush’s illegal war against Iraq. He returned home to Iraq after the ignominious collapse of the disgraced Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Hadi worked tirelessly to end the occupation and set about the task of re-building independent trade unions in Iraq resulting in the formation of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) of which he was a founder member (May 2003). The IFTU denounces this act of cowardice act which follows a well orchestrated programme of intimidation against workers and trade unionists and indicates a well established pattern of targeted campaigns of assassination and terror waged by Saddam’s loyalists. The IFTU therefore is calling on the international labour movement, the ILO and peace movements across the globe to deplore and denounce this heinous crime. We ask for messages of condolence to be sent to comrade Hadi Saleh’s wife and family and for statements of support to be sent to the IFTU and the working people of Iraq for whom Hadi Saleh worked tirelessly. Furthermore we ask the international labour movement to demand that Iraq’s interim government provide adequate protection for workers and their legitimate trade union representatives as they carry out their jobs. 2 Urgent Global Labour Alert issued by Labour Friends of Iraq We are appealing to the international labour movement to help avert the assassination of a trade union leader, 40 year old Nozad Ismail who is the President of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Kirkuk. Nozad has already survived two assassination attempts this year at the hands of the so-called 'resistance'. He receives daily death threats. The only weapon we have to help Nozad is publicity. We aim to make the cost of murdering him too high by publicising his case and demanding the resistance stop intimidating him and threatening his life. There is no single authority upon which we can place demands or focus pressure. The people who wish to kill Nozad don't organise openly. This appeal is, therefore, different from cases where someone has been imprisoned but is no less urgent. Pass this motion in your party or union branch and tell the local newspapers. This (union branch/party branch/CLP) notes that Nozad Ismail, the President of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Kirkuk has twice survived assassination attempts by the so-called resistance and is subject to daily death threats. We call upon the international labour movement to extend solidarity to Nozad in the hope that these acts of solidarity and resulting publicity may make the cost of murdering him too high. We believe that increased solidarity with Iraqi democrats like Nozad will also contribute to the success of the forthcoming elections which can secure a sovereign and democratic Iraqi government, which can best tackle the so-called resistance, from which these threats emanate. Tell us that you support this initiative by emailinginfo@labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk and we will collate the lists and use it to focus maximum international attention. We will pass all motions and expressions of support to Nozad Section 3. 1. Understanding the Iraqi elections: the power of the purple finger Abdullah Muhsin, Foreign Representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, spoke for all democrats when he said “Elections certainly offer the best hope of a secure Iraq and will legitimise the current UN-sanctioned political process, which is aimed at producing a national sovereign transitional assembly and a government mandated by the people. This view rests its legitimacy on international law - UN resolutions 1483, 1511 and 1546 - and the engagement of the majority of Iraqis and their key political parties across Iraq. Surely Iraqis, after all their struggles and sacrifices, have won the right to hold elections. Democracy is not given freely, but won, and to achieve it we shall walk, with heads held high, looking straight into the eyes of the enemies of democracy”. The Iraqi people spoke clearly and decisively on 30 January for freedom and against tyranny. Here are a few comments from the growing number of Iraqi blogs about the election and their part in it. “I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? Iraq will be O.K. with so many brave people, it will certainly O.K.; I can say no more just now; I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words.” The Mesopotamian “The turnout in Iraq was really like nothing that I had expected. I was glued in front of tv for most of the day. My mother was in tears watching the scenes from all over the country. Iraqis had voted for peace and for a better future, despite the surrounding madness. I sincerely hope this small step would be the start of much bolder ones, and that the minority which insists on enslaving the majority of Iraqis would soon realise that all that they have accomplished till now is in vain.” Healing Iraq “I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that. From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turn out was higher by the way. And by 11 am the boxes where I live were almost full! Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants. I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn. Yes brothers, proceed and fill the box! These are stories that will be written on the brightest pages of history.” Iraq the Model “All these fingers are up for you terrorist, anti-democracy, pro-beheading, suicide-bombers, Baathist, Saddamist and anti-peace people. In Kurdistan and Iraq now, people check each others index finger, " Oh you have a normal finger ?!! How come it is not blue ?! You are NOT democratic at all" Ironically, Al-Zarqawi, the head of the terrorists and co, means "The Blue", and the finger of every voter participated in this great event, is blue! The FINGER of PRIDE!” Kurdos World “Entered on the booths and people checked my name and I colored my finger with this great voting color and I got my ballot which was very big (in the size of a poster) all I had to do is to put a sign beside my chosen party, to be honest I was very slow when putting the sign because I wanted to enjoy the moment, putting the ballot in the box was the most difficult emotional time, when I finished Iraqis (which I don’t know) came to congratulating me and shaking my hands.” Baghdad Dweller. “Even now, I have no idea who is going to win, but it really isn't important. It is enough for me to know that our new government won't be the result of a sham election, that it will be the will of the people.” Democracy in Iraq (Is Here!) “It was my way to scream in the face of all tyrants, not just Saddam and his Ba'athists and tell them, "I don't want to be your, or anyone's slave. You have kept me in your jail all my life but you never owned my soul". It was my way of finally facing my fears and finding my courage and my humanity again.” Free Iraq. 2 The battle for democracy Gary Kent, Director of Labour Friends of Iraq, Yorkshire Post, November 2004. (abridged) All the Iraqis I know were exiled by Saddam Hussein, as were four million people. They detested Saddam’s murderous regime, which was modelled on Stalin and Hitler. The victims ran into the millions. My Iraqi friends also opposed the war because they feared the impact on their loved ones and country. They thought that Iraqis should overthrow Saddam. But now that Saddam has gone, they are enthusiastic to rebuild their country. And the United Nations has endorsed a process which aims to give Iraq its first democratically elected government in the new year. It will decide whether foreign troops stay or go. Withdrawing the troops before the elections would create a security vacuum which would murder democracy and probably balkanise Iraq. And it would betray Iraqi democrats because a whole new Grassroots Iraq has emerged. out of the ruins of a one-party state. Hundreds of new newspapers and dozens of mainly new parties are campaigning around the elections. There are many active women’s groups. Workers have set up free unions to replace the state-run fronts which were part of Saddam’s terror apparatus. The key union formation is the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), which has soared from a tiny clandestine outfit to 12 affiliates with 200,000 members.(This figure is certified by the ICFTU) They face huge obstacles. Unemployment stands at over 50%. The shattered economy is slowly being rebuilt after decades of being ripped off by Saddam and his sons plus the effects of UN sanctions and the recent military action. And there is terrible violence, by a rag-bag alliance of former Saddam supporters, foreign jihadists and disgruntled men who were all too quickly drummed out of the Iraqi army and police forces. For so long as the reconstruction is delayed, more people will be tempted to join the resistance. And the more people that are drawn into terrorism, the more the reconstruction will be delayed. But this is the dynamic in the “Sunni Triangle,” not the whole of the country. One way out of the vicious circle is to develop the organisations which are needed in any healthy democracy and even more in Iraq. Democracy is more than just the right to vote: it is about the right to organise and make decisions that affect our lives. Iraqi unions are like all unions and argue for better wages and conditions as well as progressive labour laws. But they also provide a non-sectarian forum for discussion and an outlet for political frustrations. The unions are a bulwark against nihilistic terror. Parts of the “resistance” use terror to strengthen their hand in the elections. Others oppose elections and are doing their utmost to prevent them. This is why they have slaughtered hundreds of Iraqi civilians. From new Iraqi army recruits to children celebrating the opening of a new water treatment plant. Unfortunately, parts of the British Left think that the key enemy is America and have made a pact with the insurgent devil because their enemy’s enemy is their friend. Some ultra-leftists even tried to attack the IFTU General Secretary at a meeting in London, presumably ignorant of the fact that he was jailed for ten years and tortured under Saddam. It was entirely honourable to oppose the war and everyone should mourn the continuing loss of life but it is a disgrace to side with those who want to destroy democracy in Iraq. We have established Labour Friends of Iraq to bring together people who opposed or supported the war but now see that circumstances have changed. The new unity of pro-war and anti-war forces is symbolised by the choice of our Presidents. The two have united to try to fashion a new “third way” – going beyond increasingly sterile arguments for and against war in favour of solidarity with Grassroots Iraq. It’s not that we don’t mention the war but that the priority is to unite the labour movement here in support of the labour movement in Iraq. British trade unions, which opposed the invasion, have led the way in aiding brave Iraqi trade unionists. The Fire Brigades Union, for instance, provided much needed fire-fighting equipment to the Iraqi fire brigade. The TUC has launched an Aid Iraq Appeal, raising money for Iraqi trade unionists to rebuild a free and independent trade union movement, and strengthen civil society in Iraq. All the money raised goes to funding trade union organisation in Iraq, without deductions for administration. The money will help Iraqi unions develop their organising and education programmes and buy computers and office equipment. (www.tuc.org.uk) 3 The left’s retreat from universal human rights by Peter Tatchell (Abridged) Liberal humanitarian values are under threat. Much of this threat comes not from the far right but from the left's moral equivocation and compromises. Sections of progressive opinion are wavering in their defence of universal human rights. In this era of post-modernism and live-and-let-live multiculturalism, moral relativism is gaining ground. The Stop The War Coalition was right to oppose the US – UK led invasion, but utterly wrong to ignore Saddam’s terrorization of the Kurds and Shias, and of socialists, democrats and trade unionists. The STWC’s failure to support the democratic and left opposition to Saddam ranks as one of the great moral failures of our era. It’s “do nothing” and “take no sides” policy failed to challenge Saddam’s tyranny. Proposals for a campaign of international solidarity to help the Iraqi people topple the dictatorship and liberate themselves were decisively rejected by the STWC. Motivated more by hatred of the US and British governments than by love for the Iraqi people, many so-called leftists support a “resistance” that, if victorious, would bring to power Baathists, Islamic fundamentalists and pro-al-Qaeda militants. Is that what the left now stands for? Neo-fascism, so long as it is anti-western? 4. The great liberal betrayal by Nick Cohen (Abridged). New Statesman Monday 1st November 2004 The left, in the form of the Stop the War Coalition, has fallen out even with Iraqi comrades who opposed the war. Why? Because those comrades don't see hostage-takers and decapitators as resistance fighters. The British anti-war movement is falling apart, but for a reason that the most cynical observer of the left in the 20th century could never have imagined. The left, or at least that section of it which always manages to get the whip hand, has swerved to the right - to the far right, in fact - and is actively supporting theocrats and fascists: the oppressors of racial minorities, secularists, women, gays and trade unionists. It is the last item on this list that has proved too poisonous for the democrats in the Stop the War Coalition to swallow. Mick Rix, former general secretary of Aslef, the train drivers' union, has resigned from the coalition and condemned its "stupid and wild accusations" against Iraqi trade unionists. The public sector union Unison is threatening to sever all links after Subji al-Mashadani of the IFTU was screamed down at the recent European Social Forum. "The people who harassed the IFTU general secretary and prevented the meeting from taking place have no interest in genuine debate or the peaceful, democratic future of the people of Iraq," Unison said. Pro- and anti-war Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion put down by the (anti-war) Harry Barnes in mid-October, which denounced "a scurrilous statement" that "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". The Stop the War Coalition statement in question reaffirmed its "call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country" and recognised "once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends". The organisers of the march through London on 17 October in the name of peace were now supporting the hostage-takers and decapitators, the jihadis and the Ba'athists, in whatever acts of terror they thought necessary to stop elections taking place. The Stop the War Coalition is dominated by the Socialist Workers Party, the most unscrupulous and unprincipled of the far-left sects. When the SWP takes over a cause, agendas are rigged, meetings are packed, and debate is suffocated. Everyone with experience of the left knows that the SWP is a totalitarian organisation both in theory and in practice, but they rarely say so in public, and nor do the liberal media. Yet the anti-war movement marked a new low, even by the standards of the SWP's grim record. The supposedly Marxist party allied itself with the Muslim Association of Britain, which supports sharia law, with all its difficulties with democracy, women and homosexuals. The unlovely couple then claimed to represent the millions who opposed the war, and those who marched under the slogan "Not in my name" did not go out of their way to contradict them. What has been disorientating from the start has been the ease with which the opponents of Saddam's 22 years in power have been forgotten. They were victims of a state that was authentically fascist, to use that abused word correctly for once. It was fascist not only because the founders of the Ba'ath Party were inspired by Nazi Germany, but because Iraq had the classic fascist programme of the worship of the great leader, the unprovoked wars of aggression, the genocidal campaigns against impure ethnic minorities, and the suppression of every autonomous element in society, including free trade unions. While the blanking out of men and women who shared the liberal left's values was understandable before the war - the good reasons for stopping George Bush and Tony Blair had the regrettable but inevitable effect of crowding out the bad - the persistence of denial afterwards has been inexcusable and truly sinister. If you think the sell-out is just a local problem confined to a few creeps on the far left who believe that anyone who kills Americans is a freedom fighter, consider the case of the Liberal Democrats. Charles Kennedy managed to get through his entire speech to the Liberal Democrat party conference without once mentioning the liberals and democrats in Iraq who face kidnap or murder for fighting for the rights that he takes for granted. I can't remember a single occasion when the Lib Dems have taken up the cause of Iraqi democracy. Nor is denial simply a British phenomenon. Iraqis trying to cope with a criminally incompetent American occupation, and working under threat of assassination by Saddam's supporters or religious fundamentalists, have looked across the liberal west for support - and met indifference. For the past two years, we have had the eerie sight of a left without comrades. On the face of it, the left has not been so strong for decades: millions have marched under its banners, Blair has been wounded, perhaps fatally, and the BBC and the liberal papers are onside for the first time that anyone can remember. But if you ask on whose behalf the left is pouring out its heart - for whom is all this left-wing outrage? - no one can produce a single reputable ally. The Kurdish victims of Saddam's genocidal campaigns were all the rage on the left when Iraq was America's de facto partner. But they became an embarrassment long ago when Saddam invaded Kuwait and became America's enemy, and have been unmentionables ever since they committed the unforgivable crime of supporting the overthrow of a tyrant who sought to exterminate them. The Iraqi Communist Party won't do. It opposed the war, but worked with the Americans once it was over. For a while, a group called the Worker-Communist Party was fashionable. It opposed the war and the occupation. However, the WCP, too, has wised up and decided it wants nothing to do with the British anti-war movement's alliance with the far right. Recently, it dissociated itself from "left groups like the SWP [which] want to see Moqtada al-Sadr winning the current conflict. This stand has nothing to do with the socialist movement." Precisely. The story of how the Iraqi trade unions have rammed this point home offers to British trade unionists and anti-war Labour MPs a small glimmer of hope amid the murk. At any leftish meeting on Iraq, you are likely to meet the IFTU's Abdullah Muhsin, who tactfully points out that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, being on the left isn't simply a pose. You are meant to stick by your comrades, or at least give them a fair hearing. Muhsin describes the history of Iraqi unions, how their members were executed or driven underground by Saddam, while "yellow" unions were established to do the regime's bidding. The federation opposed the war and wants the occupation to end as soon as possible, but has earned the hatred of the anti-war movement because it has the cheek to regard the Ba'athists and the Islamists who want to kill them as the greater enemy, and the IFTU is winning round to its point of view those who are serious about left-wing politics. As Muhsin explained at the Labour Party conference: "There are grave security problems in Iraq, but those causing them are not, as some have wrongly said, 'the resistance'. They are . . . a mixture of [Saddam loyalists] and foreign fighters, who have, for the first time in Iraq's history, imported the terrible weapon of the suicide bomb." Three conclusions can be drawn from the long struggle to get the British left to accept the obvious:
Hadi Saleh was murdered because the work he was involved in was an attempt to give to working people what unions did when they were first created in the early 19th century: a sense of solidarity in labour, and a strength to bargain with employers and the state which otherwise would have too much power over them, if viewed only as individuals. We unreservedly condemn the brutal murder of Hadi Saleh, the international secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, at his home in Baghdad on the night of January 4. He was tied and blindfolded and tortured before being forced to kneel and strangled by electric cord. Hadi was a brave patriot who stood up for workers' rights under Saddam Hussein and was a key activist in the clandestine Workers Democratic Trade Union Movement which was established in 1980 to keep alive an independent labour movement. He was hunted by the regime for his activities and forced into exile where he continued to work as a printer. We agree with the IFTU that Iraqi working people have lost a brave trade union leader who dedicated three decades of his life to fighting Saddam's dictatorship. He fought for a democratic, peaceful and federal Iraq which would unite Iraqis regardless of their background, ethnicity or religion. He championed workers' rights to organise and strike to achieve decent jobs, pay and working conditions. His cowardly murder is part of a pattern of targeted assassinations and terror by Saddam loyalists. Harry Barnes MP, Ann Clwyd MP, Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary, Kevin Curran, General secretary, GMB, Pat Rabbitte TD, Leader, Irish Labour party, Peter Bottomley MP, John Lloyd, Bob Marshall Andrews MP, Baroness May Blood, Northern Ireland, Sunder Katwala, General Secretary Fabian Society (personal capacity), Gary Kent, Director Labour Friends of Iraq, Ian Davidson MP, Meg Munn MP, Mike Gapes MP, Rudi Vis MP, Johann Hari, writer, Rob Marris MP, Ernie Ross MP, John Grogan MP, John Austin MP, Harry Cohen MP, Tony Lloyd MP, John Cryer MP, Wayne David MP, John Mann MP, Dr Lynne Jones MP, Richard Burden MP, Martin Salter MP, Alan Johnson, South Lakeland, Stop the War.
1 The Jubilee Iraq network (www.jubileeiraq.org) is the key body arguing that Saddam’s debts be forgiven: the following is a brief extract from their web site but we urge people to find out more from this independent group, which is not linked to LFIQ. Jubilee Iraq is a network of groups and individuals (business people, lawyers, economists, politicians, aid workers and others) working to ensure that the Iraqi people - emerging from decades of war, oppression and sanctions - are not unjustly forced to pay Saddam's bills. The debts which Saddam owes cannot be legitimately passed on to the Iraqi people without assessment by an arbitration tribunal employing the doctrine of odious debts to assess whether the Iraqi people benefited from these loans. Jubilee Iraq sympathises with the losses of individuals, companies and nations as a result of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. However the Iraqi people (distinct from the regime) were not responsible for these losses. When Saddam Hussein consolidated his control of Iraq on 11 July 1979, the country had cash reserves of $36bn and no long term foreign debt. Just over a year later, in September 1980, Saddam invaded Iran. The war lasted eight years and cost around a million lives. Debt enabled vast unprecedented military spending to constitute up to three quarters of Iraq’s GDP. Between 1981-85 oil revenues were just $48.4bn, while military spending was two and half times higher at $120bn. This huge imbalance between earnings and expenditure was possible precisely because many countries made loans and exported goods, including weapons systems, on credit. Because of the Islamic revolution in Iran both Western and Soviet countries supported Iraq, as did most Arab states. The subsequent events: the occupation of Kuwait, the Gulf War and 13 years of sanctions not only devastated Iraq but also increased the already critical foreign debt overhang. Jubilee Iraq has collated all the figures in the public domain and estimates that the total debt is within the range $95-153bn. This excludes outstanding reparations claims, which will probably settle at around $50bn. If one compares the total of debt and reparations (around $200bn) to Iraq’s GDP ($32bn in 2000) and export earnings ($15bn in 2002) then it becomes clear that Iraq is the world’s most heavily indebted country by a wide margin. 2 Iraq: Questions and Answers for Labour Party members Why is LFIQ backing the Americans in Iraq? We aren’t. We are backing the Iraqi people. The fascistic Saddam regime has been removed. UN-backed democratic elections will be held on January 30 2005. Despite tremendous difficulties a free labour movement, a women’s movement and a civil society, including a free press, are blinking into the light, after decades of repression and war. But we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place! You might be right. Many Labour Party members agree with you. Many believe that questions still need to be asked about the intelligence and the decision to go to war. But we are where we are. Today, almost everyone wants a sovereign democratic Iraq. The last thing the Iraqi people need is for us to cut and run now. Surely Yvonne Ritchie (GMB) was right when she appealed to Party conference: ‘I opposed the war... However we cannot rewrite history... I do not want to leave the Iraqi people defenceless and vulnerable... The consequences of washing our hands of Iraq, if we could, would be heinous. I am an internationalist, a socialist and a trade unionist committed to a world where fairness, justice and freedom are a basic human right. Iraq has a trade union movement, the IFTU. Conference, we in this movement must stand in solidarity with the IFTU and will work with them to realise their dreams. They need our support. We should not walk away when the going gets tough... With elections due in January 2005, we must do everything we can to help the people build a democratic country’. Are the elections for real? Yes! The elections are supported by the United Nations and have widespread support in Iraq across the ethnic groups. The Sunni have now registered as well as the Shia, the Kurds, and the Communists. There are many democratic political parties standing. After the election, the National Assembly will elect a president and two deputies, who will form the Presidency Council, which in turn will nominate the Prime Minister. The National Assembly will also draft a constitution, to be voted on in a referendum planned by October 15, 2005. If adopted, the constitution would form the legal basis for another general election to be held by December 15, 2005, and a new government will take office by Dec. 31, 2005. A fully sovereign Iraqi government will then decide whether it wants the multinational force to stay or go. This democratic process is the best chance of the speedy withdrawal of troops. But what right has the west to impose democracy on a different culture? No one is ‘imposing democracy’. Every opinion poll tells us Iraqis want democracy. The leader of the Iraq Pro-Democracy Party, Ali Fahid, has stated ‘the majority of Iraq is facing the little minority's hatred and terrorism on a daily basis’. The leading Shia religious authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, has told his followers it would be a ‘sin’ not to vote in the January elections. Afghanistan has held successful elections and now three women sit in a democratically elected government. OK, elections are a good thing. But why can’t the troops just get out now and leave the Iraqis to get on with these elections? If the multinational force withdrew tomorrow there will be a bloodbath, civil war, the balkanisation of Iraq and the end of the hopes of all democrats and progressives. None of the main Iraqi parties calls for immediate withdrawal. Why do the Iraqis oppose immediate withdrawal? Most Iraqi civil society groups have decided to use the UN-backed political process to secure labour rights, sovereignty and build an Iraqi democracy. The IFTU, for example, decided the best way to achieve the swift removal of the coalition troops was to make a success of the political process. That does not mean writing a blank cheque to anyone. But it does mean a refusal to shout 'troops out now!' let alone 'victory to the resistance!' which is what some on the wilder shores of the left say. In Iraq they have an expression for well-meaning western leftists who call for troops out now: ‘the people of the slogans’. But don’t the Iraqis want us to get out? Iraqis want the troops out ‘eventually’, even ‘soon’, but the great majority do not want ‘immediate’ withdrawal. In a recent poll, taken in Baghdad, Mosel and Dehok, and published in Iraq on October 25 63% of Iraqis say that the withdrawal of American and allied forces will not be in the best interest of Iraq, it will undermine the work towards security and control of the country. 27% say that it would be in the best interest of Iraq. 9% had no opinion. 58% say that terrorists do the kidnappings and assassination of police and soldiers. 9% say that patriots fighting for Iraq carry them out. 32% say ignorant Iraqis who have been brain washed & misled carry them out. 89% said that the terrorism, kidnapping, beheadings and assassination of police and security forces do not help the freeing of Iraq and the building of a stable country. 6% said that it would help free Iraq and build stability. 4% had no opinion. But what about Abu Ghraib and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners? The US interrogators’ treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was a disgrace and the culprits must be prosecuted. Wrong in principle, flouting the rule of law also gives ammunition to terrorists. The author Michael Ignatieff argues that to beat terror we must show that we respect the rule of law and human rights. ‘Actions which violate foundational commitments to justice and dignity – torture, illegal detention, unlawful assassination – should be beyond the pale’. Ann Clwyd MP, the Prime Minister’s Special Human Rights Envoy to Iraq and Joint President of Labour Friends of Iraq, has called repeatedly for every prisoner to receive the treatment to which they are entitled. The ‘war on terror’ is a myth, Bush’s invention to get his own way around the world, isn’t it? 9/11 happened. Bali happened. Madrid happened. The Metropolitan Chief Constable says that a Madrid type incident has been prevented in Britain but that it is inevitable that such an attack will occur. Terrorism is no less real if you put the word in inverted commas and call it 'terrorism'. In the real world there is the gravest terrorist threat. And more often than not that threat is aimed at moderate Muslims. The only question is how the war on terror should be waged and won, not whether it should be waged and won. John Kerry differed from Bush on the ‘how’ question not the ‘whether’ question. Security is not a ‘right wing’ issue. Socialists will never have any credibility with those they seek to represent if they ignore these threats and a society in danger will find it much more difficult to increase opportunity for all. But isn’t Blair just Bush’s poodle? No. Tony Blair has opposed President Bush on the Kyoto Treaty and has pushed the US on the Middle East Peace Process. But more than that, Tony Blair’s Chicago speech in 1999 , set out an alternative foreign policy vision of an ‘international community’ that chimes with the very latest strategic thinking of the United Nations issued in December 2004. The former Labour Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, praised Tony Blair’s doctrine of an ‘international community’ as a forerunner of the latest UN thinking. We might both agree with Robin Cook that the decision to go to war when we did and on the basis we did was a mistake. But the vision he and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown share of an international community protecting the human rights of the individual and promoting global social justice is different to George Bush’s vision. It’s no coincidence that it is Gordon Brown who has led the way on debt relief and that it has been Hilary Benn’s civil society fund at the DfID that has helped sow the seeds of democratic self-organisation in Iraq. The world has changed. We can’t retreat to the failed doctrines of Henry Kissinger who thought that anyone pro-American dictator would do (‘he may be a bastard but he’s our bastard’). But knee-jerk ‘anti-imperialism’ is no alternative. It is wrong to view every anti-American, even a fascist, as worthy of support. We have to keep developing a foreign policy based on the pursuit of an ‘international community’ through global security, global democratisation, and global development. But we have only made things worse in Iraq! Grave mistakes have been made. Christopher Hitchens, the pro-war writer, argues that the level of incompetence and absence of forward planning by the Bush administration were near-impeachable. Hitchens is right. Not enough troops were sent by Donald Rumsfeld. The US failed to secure Baghdad and the sack of the city was a disaster for the Iraqis. Some de-Ba'athification was necessary but disbanding the army overnight put hundreds of thousands of trained men on the streets, unemployed and alienated. Billions of reconstruction dollars allocated by Congress have not been spent. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were a disgrace. The Coalition Provisional Authority was kept going too long. Elections should have happened a year earlier. Yes, the US has a lot to answer for. But you have to also balance that catalogue with these two points. * The removal of Saddam’s regime and the capture and forthcoming trial of him and his henchmen We could go on and on. And just think what will be achieved if the elections are a success and a democratic Iraqi government takes the reins of power in two hands! But the price is surely too high. Haven’t 100,000 Iraq civilians been killed? The civilian death toll, whatever figure turns out to be accurate, has been appalling. The Americans have not taken sufficient efforts to avoid all possible civilian casualties. Eyewitnesses to the US assault on Faluja in April claim that civilians were targeted. There should be an investigation of such crimes. The US and UK should have been collecting statistics of civilian casualties in order to guide the humanitarian effort. The UN should fund a full-scale research project to find out the true number of civilian deaths. But the 100,000 figure claimed in the Lancet report is not reliable. Independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar group based in England that carefully culls reports of civilian deaths from newspaper and eyewitness accounts, puts the maximum figure at 17,000. The 100,000 figure was "so loose as to be essentially meaningless," wrote Slate's Fred Kaplan. "This isn't an estimate. It's a dartboard," he wrote. Only seven Iraqis hired by the researchers did the actual questioning. The report is based on a 95% confidence interval from 8,000 to 194,000, a Margin of Error of ± 93,000. Leading statisticians have questioned the methods used by The Lancet. Second, as Norman Geras has observed, ‘according to Human Rights Watch, during 23 years of Saddam's rule some 290,000 Iraqis disappeared…the majority of these reckoned to be now dead. Rounding this number down by as much as 60,000 to compensate for the 'thought to be', that is 230,000. It is 10,000 a year. It is 200 people every week’. On December 14 2004 Iraqi labourers, while building the foundations for a new hospital, found yet another mass grave believed to contain some 500 bodies in Debashan, north of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. Workers building a new hospital in the new Iraq discovered a mass grave of the old Iraq. What about Fallujah? Before the recent assault by the US on Fallujah Labour Friends of Iraq circulated this model resolution: November 05, 2004. LABOUR FRIENDS OF IRAQ MODEL MOTION ON MILITARY ACTION AND FALLUJA This CLP is alarmed that military action against the terrorists in Faluja and other towns will result in large scale loss of civilian life. The aerial bombardment of a built-up civilian area will drive ordinary Iraqis towards the men of violence. We implore the Labour government to exercise all its influence to prevent these casualties and to pursue all political and humanitarian channels to resolve the crisis. We urge the Labour Government to do all it can to support the UN process that envisages a democratic sovereign Iraq and to support all democratic forces within Iraq, including the newly emerging trade union movement. This CLP recognises that a flourishing democracy and civil society in Iraq will powerfully undermine the terrorists. Look, I opposed the war so I would look daft if I now supported the UN-backed political process and the reconstruction effort! Of course you wouldn’t! You’d be joining hands with thousands of Labour Party members and trade unionists who have done just that, as well as all Iraqi democrats and socialists. Decide to work for the democrats in Iraq and help the transition to peace and democracy. The Iraqi democrats need you in their hour of need. By committing yourself to grassroots Iraq you are not changing your position on the war. Listen to these appeals to you and make the decision to support the Iraqi democrats: Hilary Benn MP (Secretary of State for International Development) Tony Blair, The Prime Minister "What I am trying to say to people in the western world is, whatever you thought about getting rid of Saddam, there is only one side to be on, and that is the side of democracy and liberty." (…)We have a process, blessed by the United Nations, to get Iraq towards democracy and elections coming up in January. There is no doubt at all the former regime elements and the outside terrorists are trying to stop that happening and are killing people in a completely indiscriminate manner who try to help the country get better. So I am simply saying in that struggle there is only one side to be on, and it is not that I am making very optimistic or wildly optimistic noises about it all, there is a real fight going on, there is no doubt about that. My purpose is simply to say to people, the terrorists and others stopping, or trying to stop democracy in Iraq, they know what they are doing and why they are doing it, because they know that if we succeed and Iraq becomes a stable democracy, that is a huge defeat for them. So I am simply saying to people whatever your views about the wisdom of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, in this struggle there is only one side to be on. Harry Barnes MP I support the progressive democratic forces in Iraq and give full backing for people such as Abdullah Muhsin, the British representative of the IFTU and whom I am proud to be associated with and to be working with... Whether we supported or opposed the invasion... one thing is clear: we support a viable democratic peaceful Iraq. And who is it that struggles for that? The women in their organisations, the youth groups, community groups, national bodies in culture and bodies such as the IFTU... We can never force people to be free but we can help comrades on the ground struggle for rights, recognition and influence. The TUC has recognised this. Individual unions have recognised this... so let us help our brothers and sisters to achieve their dreams. Tony Woodley, General Secretary, TGWU I make no apology for listening to the representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Brighton [at the Labour Party Conference, 2004]. Our traditions of solidarity and internationalism could not let us do otherwise. And let me make it clear that, as far as the T&G was concerned, it was clear advice from Abdullah Muhsin which tipped the balance. He made a compelling case about the disasters which might follow if troops withdrew before the Iraqi trade union movement felt their country was secure. So I am happy with how the T&G voted, and I am confident that we deserted neither our proud traditions nor our conference policy in so doing. Hashimia Muhsin Hussein (Woman President of the Basra Electricity and Energy Union, Iraq) Thank you all, and a special thank you to the TUC for its support, not only for the trade union movement in Iraq and the IFTU, but also for its support for the people of Iraq as they struggle now in its most difficult time, to reconstruct and to build a new politics. We have to tell you that we are passing through a critical and difficult time now, though this is nothing new to us as we have lived through the brutal dictatorship that governed Iraq for 35 years, the war and the occupation. In addition to our role as trade unionists, campaigning for the welfare of working people through decent working conditions, we are also active participants in building a new politics, and working towards the elections that will take place on 30th January to elect a new democratic government that will represent the views of Iraqis. The warm reception that I have had from you and from UK trade unionists that I have met, has given me a new impulse to return to my country, not only to bring this international solidarity back to Iraqis, but with inspiration for our task of constructing a new and genuinely independent trade union movement. Thank you. But what about the resistance? The leaders of the Stop the War Coalition say we should back the resistance ‘by whatever means they find necessary’. The resistance are killers who want to stop the transition to democracy in Iraq. Yes, the US botched reconstruction and this led some desperate people to join the ‘resistance’. But the core is anything but desperate innocents. There are three components to the ‘resistance’. First, Sunni elements that operate in an area starting from Latifiya south of Baghdad and upwards reaching Mosul, this also includes both the Anbar and the Diyala governorates, west and east of Baghdad, respectively, where insurgent activities are the most intense. This group loosely consists of former regime loyalists, ex-Ba'athists, former army and Mukhabarat (secret police) officers, Iraqi extremist Salafi groups, and militant tribesmen. Second, foreign fighters who continue to pour into Iraq to join small isolated terrorist cells in several Sunni areas, such as the serial killer and psychopath, Al-Zarqawi. Third, Sadr's Al-Mahdi militia (which has now laid down its arms). What are the politics of the resistance? They never declare their politics. Their actions show them to be people who hate democracy, hate trade unions, hate women’s right, hate human rights, hate Shia. They are trying to stop the transition to democracy in Iraq. That’s why they kill election workers. They are trying to foment civil war. That’s why they massacre the Iraqi Shia. For thirty years these people kept the Iraq people in a state of terrible fear. They want their power back. They want to intimidate and brutalise again. They want to fill the mass graves again. We should get on with the real job of extending international solidarity to the democrats in Iraq and making the January elections a success. * The ‘resistance’ bombed the reopened Water Treatment Plant at al-Ummal on 30 September 2004 killing at least 41 people, among them 34 children celebrating alongside the US troops who had rebuilt the plant. * The ‘resistance’ murdered the Iraqi Communist Party leader Wadhah Hassan Abdul Amir (Saadoun), a member of the Interim National Assembly, on 13th November 2004, along with two of his comrades, while travelling from Baghdad to Kirkuk. * The ‘resistance’ attacked the train on the railway line between Mosel and Baghdad murdering, and mutilating, the IFTU members aboard, on 27 October 2004. Harry Barnes, Lynne Jones, David Taylor, Tony Banks, John Austin and Harry Cohen tabled the following Commons motion on the issue. “That this House notes with horror that four members of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) were murdered in cold blood on the night of Wednesday 27th/Thursday 28th October when their train, which was carrying consumer goods, was attacked by mortar fire on the railway line between Mosul and Baghdad and that the bodies of two train drivers, a guard and a security guard working for Iraqi Railways were mutilated and burnt by terrorists; strongly supports the statement issued by the IFTU Executive Committee which condemns this heinous crime against workers employed by Iraqi Railways and shows clearly that these terrorists are the enemies of all the Iraqi people; notes that they are the same criminals who had attacked and killed Iraqi children in Al-Amel district in Baghdad in early October, and also killed women, men and elderly people in previous acts of terror and sabotage; joins with the IFTU in conveying its heartfelt condolences to the families, friends and comrades of these martyrs, Kasim Shahin, train driver, Maithem Shaker Obeid, train driver, Ahmed Ibrahim, train controller and Zeyad Tarig. railway security guard; and endorses the IFTU view that the blood of our martyred workers will not go in vain and their call to the Iraqi Government and security authorities to take legal measures to bring the murderers to justice, and to ensure the safety of Iraqi railway workers and all workers, in defence of their homeland, people and working class.” The leaders of four important British trade unions in the transport sector, joined Andy Gilchrist, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union in sending messages of support and sympathy to the families of the murdered Iraqi railworkers and pledging to support the IFTU in the struggle to rebuild independent trade unionism in Iraq. Kevin Curran, GMB General Secretary, Tony Woodley, T&GWU General Secretary, Keith Norman, ASLEF Acting General Secretary and Bob Crow, RMT General Secretary all wrote to the IFTU with messages of solidarity. Tony Woodley, General Secretary of the TGWU, wrote to Abdullah Muhsin and expressed his condolences in these terms, ‘It is horrifying to learn that four of your members have been killed and mutilated by terrorists while driving and working on a freight train carrying consumer goods’. * The resistance has repeatedly massacred the Shia in an attempt to spark civil war. But don’t the Iraqi people support the resistance? Why don’t we hear this from the Stop the War Coalition? Galloway, Respect and the Stop the War Coalition leaders led vicious attacks on the IFTU as ‘quislings’ and a ‘fake union’. In this climate it was no surprise that the IFTU leaders were intimidated and no-platformed by a mob at the European Social Forum in London this year, an attack condemned by the TUC, Unison, and many other trade unions. But the StWC organised the February 2003 march of over one million? Yes, and many LFIQ supporters participated, and although the speakers at those marchers failed to speak up for the Iraqi people by condemning Saddam’s regime, they did represent the hopes of millions for a peaceful outcome. But since then the StWC has turned into a pro ‘resistance’ organisation. In October 2004 the StWC released a statement that made this clear: “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”. Statement issued by the officers of the StWC, signed by Lindsey German, Convenor, and Andrew Murray, Chair of the StWC. Why have some leading members been leaving the StWC? The truth about the StWC was exposed by Mick Rix, the ex-General Secretary of ASLEF. Rix wrote to Andrew Murray, Chair of StWC, 21 October 2004, to resign from the StWC. Here are just some of the truths that Mick Rix told about the StWC: ‘If you think I am going to sit back and agree with beheadings, kidnappings, torture and brutality, and out right terrorization of ordinary Iraqi and others, then you can forget it’. “I don’t think you also realise the danger that your actions and those of the Respect colleagues in the StWC have placed [the Foreign Representative of the IFTU] against attacks from extremists. Some people talk about life and death situations, some unfortunately have to live it and so do their families in Iraq and I don’t see why you, Respect or the coalition have a right to think you can place them in that situation, when they are living daily with those consequences, because they are not the "new" friends of yourself, George, StWC or Respect such as extreme nationalists, or religious fundamentalists. It is you who have attacked the IFTU and Abdullah”. ‘I will not stand by and say or do nothing, when decent trade unionists, and socialists in the UK, and good committed socialists and trade unionists in Iraq or elsewhere are being attacked, by people who politically have made alliances with and are supporting religious fanatics and people who are basically against everything that our movement really stands for.” For full exchange of correspondence between Rix and Murray go to here and here. What about the Iraqi Kurds? There are some 4 million Kurds in northern Iraq who share the area with smaller populations of Assyrians, (Christians) and Turkomans, (ethnic Turks). In 1991 between a quarter and a half of the total population fled in the face of the onslaught from the Iraqi armed forces in the wake of the first Gulf War, mostly to Turkey and Iran. The response was to intervene to create a safe haven inside Iraq which would allow the Kurds in Turkey at least, to return. Under the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, forces from the UK, the US, Turkey and France entered Iraqi Kurdistan supported by US and British air patrols based at Incerlik in Turkey. The response of the Iraqi armed forces was to withdraw from both the area of the safe haven and effectively all of Iraqi Kurdistan, including the capital, Arbil. The political vacuum left by withdrawal was swiftly filled by the Kurdistan Front, an alliance of seven parties in Iraqi Kurdistan, (The Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan People’s Democratic Party, the Kurdistan Socialist Party (PASOK), the Kurdistan Communist Party (Iraq), the Assyrian Democratic Movement and the Toilers’Party). The Kurdistan Front determined that there would be a democratic election. In July 1992 eight parties contested seats in the 100 seat assembly and a further five seats were reserved for the Christian minority. The observers of the election judged them to be generally fair and free from intimidation, with estimates of up to 90% participation. Iraqi Kurds in the 1990’s During the 1990’s the peoples(s) of Iraqi Kurdistan were subject to a double embargo. They were unable to trade with the outside world because of the UN sanctions. Any trade under UN auspices had to be conducted with the approval of Baghdad. But they were additionally subject to an embargo from Baghdad. At its height this included a limitation of foodstuffs and medicines, cuts in electricity supplies and a ban on heating and fuel oil. It was a period when the two main political parties, the PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) and the KDP, (Kurdistan Democratic Party), took their political differences out of the political arena and into armed conflict. Both parties found themselves under pressure from their large external neighbours, (Iran and Turkey) each of which sought to pursue their own agendas in the region and neither of which had much sympathy with the democratic experiment, nor indeed with the concept of Kurdish autonomy. The region was effectively divided into a north-western area under the auspices of the KDP and a south-eastern area under the control of the PUK. The only way that either administration could raise revenue was by ‘informal’ trade across the borders, which flourished. Despite the breakdown in the consensus and the outbreaks of violence, the Kurds did maintain a working civil administration in which people were fed, in which there was little civil disorder, which had a working education and medical system and in which there was a large amount of political freedom. One of the most telling statistics of the period concerned child mortality, which had been much higher for the Kurds than Arabs in 1990. During the 1990’s they suffered a double embargo, from the UN and Baghdad. Nonetheless, by the end of the decade their figures had not only improved but had outstripped those for Iraq as a whole. This also applies to other indicators of social progress. Iraqi Kurdistan is far better off economically and socially than the rest of the country. The Kurdish Alliance and the Iraqi Elections At the end of January there will be two elections in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurds will have the opportunity to take part in the Iraqi national election and in an election for the Kurdistan Parliament. The two the major Kurdish parties, (the KDP and PUK) have joined forces to form the Kurdistan Alliance, alongside a number of other smaller parties, not unlike the former Kurdistan Front. If the experience of the 1990’s is repeated, he two major parties are likely to split a proportion of the seats in the new Kurdistan Parliament for themselves and give another fixed proportion to the remainder of the smaller parties. By combining together the Kurdish parties will maximise their vote in an election based on PR. They are likely to sit in the Iraqi National Assembly as one bloc and give one voice to the whole Kurdish population. The other major electoral alliances standing in the elections will be the Unified Iraqi Alliance (Shias, with the support of ayatollah Sistani and headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of SCIRI. It includes in its number the secular Shia, Ahmed Chalabi), the Iraqi Independent Democrats Party, (Sunnis led by Adnan Pachachi) People’s Unity (Communists and Left Democrats). It is worth noting that the Kurdish Referendum Movement has collected 1.7 million signatures in support of an independent Kurdistan. There are clearly Kurds who remain anxious about staying in a nation which has shown such long term hostility towards them. As a political demand, however, it is unlikely to be achieved. Neither of the two major Kurdish parties backs the call for a referendum on independence, and for good reason. Iraqi Kurdistan is bordered by Turkey and Iran. Neither have shown themselves to be supportive of any form of self-determination for their own Kurdish populations and both have felt able to enter northern Iraq as and when their security concerns demanded. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan would be the subject of considerable hostility from its two large neighbours and possibly seen as an (oil rich) plum, ripe for the picking, albeit on the pretext of protecting their national security. Footnotes in the hard copy cannot be transferred.
|