The great liberal betrayal

Nick Cohen rips into the Stop the War Coalition in the New Statesman over its fingering of the free Iraqi Trade Unions.

He begins, ‘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’. He draws three conclusions: “1) The people who can be relied on to make a stand in hard times won't be found in the broadsheet opinion pages or on Radio 4 chat shows, but in the boring and perennially unfashionable labour movement. 2) The democratic left should never again allow itself to be led by the supporters of totalitarianism. 3) No one who considers himself a democrat, liberal or socialist can continue to associate with the Stop the War Coalition”.

To read more of the article you will have to buy the New Statesman.

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.

The success of these elections is the key issue for all democrats: smears debase debate

Harry Barnes letter in the Guardian, 28th October

As one who consistently opposed the invasion of Iraq and who has long worked with the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, may I say that Sami Ramadani’s smears and half-truths (Collaboration won't buy Iraq's freedom, October 27, 2004) debase the debate.

Ramadani says that it has “emerged” that the IFTU may accept funds from the British Council. “Emerged” invests a perfectly open fact with sinister mystery. The mundane reality is that the British Council administers funds for civil society projects in Iraq for the Department for International Development. All this was made clear at a TUC reception for IFTU leaders to launch the TUC appeal for funds to rebuild a free and independent trade union movement, and strengthen civil society in Iraq.

The IFTU, like myself, opposed the war and occupation but recognises that the United Nations sanctioned political process provides a chance, in 12 weeks time, for the Iraqi people to elect their own government, decide on the presence of foreign troops and rebuild a democratic, secular and united Iraq. The success of these elections is the key issue for all democrats.

Comment on Tony Woodley’s stance on the IFTU and the Stop the War Coalition

The General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU), Tony Woodley has defended the IFTU Foreign Representative, Abdullah Muhsin who has been vehemently denounced by various far left figures.

Writing in the Morning Star on 26th October, Tony Woodley writes that “At the Labour Party conference, we faced a more complicated situation. There was a choice between a blatantly pro-government resolution, a statement from the Party executive outlining a rather vague and conditional timetable for troop withdrawal and a constituency resolution asking for an early date to be set for troop withdrawal.

In the event most unions helped secure the withdrawal of the first, unacceptable, resolution, voted for the executive statement and against the last resolution after the mover decided not to accept its remission, which would have been our preference.

I will not weary readers with the whole story, because for me our voting decisions were influenced by one factor above all others - the representations made to us by the spokesman for the Iraqi trade unions.

I make no apology for listening to the representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Brighton. 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.

The T&G could only take what we were told at face value, and square up to the question Abdullah posed sharply - "foreigners came into Iraq without asking - why should they now decide they are going to leave without asking?"
Of course, this must be set against the chaos and bloodshed in Iraq at present. Two civilian deaths out of three are, according to the Iraqi government's own figures, caused by US and British troops.

Iraqi trade unionists have a right to be heard on how and when this is ended - including the IFTU, alongside others. Which organisation ultimately represents Iraqi workers is not a matter for us to decide here in Britain.”
Tony Woodley also writes that “It is a time for the tolerant discussion of differences. The anti-war movement must accept that trade unions will always, and rightly, want to offer support to our brothers and sisters abroad, particularly when they are struggling to establish trade unionism in such a difficult environment as Iraq.

Equally, those of us in the trade union movement must give some credit to the Stop the War Coalition for its achievements. It mobilised people when we did not, and it has a right to a different view as to what happened at the Party conference.”

He concludes “Let’s stick together.”

Comment from Gary Kent: Tony Woodley spurns the stupid allegations made against the IFTU and Abdullah Muhsin and this is to be welcomed by all those who feel that parts of the left have behaved treacherously and shamefully in putting the IFTU on show trial. His appeal for unity, however, may only be possible if the Stop the War Coalition leadership examines the behaviour of its officers and issues an apology for what has been said in the name of the peace movement.

Thought of the week

Extract from Defence Questions in the Commons, 25th October

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): Would it not make more sense to have American troops in Iraq under British control rather than British troops under American control? Have we not made a better fist of things than the Americans, whose activities have been disastrous?

Mr. Hoon: From time to time in Iraq, British troops have been under American control and American troops have been under British control. That is in the nature of coalition operations.

Observations on the state of debate in the Labour Party

The purpose of the Compass Conference on Saturday 23 October was to discuss the agenda for a third term of the Labour Government. One of the workshops focussed on foreign policy after Iraq.

The Foreign Office Minister Dennis MacShane, a former trade union leader, who had taken the lead in 2003 in promoting support for Iraqi trade unions, said that he stood by his support for military action against Iraq and was relieved at the fall of a regime that used mass graves and torture.

At this point, no doubt with unfortunate timing, a member of the audience shouted “shame on you.”

I quoted the immortal lines from Yeats that:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

(WB Yeats “the Second Coming”, 1920.)

Others conceded the need to give solidarity to Grassroots Iraq but cannot let go of their criticism of the Government.

Most LFIQ members actively opposed the war. We have ourselves decided not to keep going round the houses on this issue.

We feel that it would be a gross betrayal of our comrades under threat in Iraq if we remained so fixated by it that we ignored their appeals for support.

We know that many readers will find it difficult to move on but, with only 12 weeks to go before the elections, it is the most important historic task for us all to raise funds and listen to what Grassroots Iraq is saying.

Gary Kent
Director, LFIQ

Response by Alan Johnson to Lindsey German

Lindsey German, Convenor of the Stop the War Coalition claims (Guardian October 25) that "Our position, which is the same as that adopted at the TUC conference, is that an early date be set for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq". But that is not the whole story. The officers of the Stop the War Coalition released a statement condemning the IFTU as collaborators while ominously warning that "The StWC recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary'. The newspaper she supports, Socialist Worker, calls the IFTU a 'fake union'. And her RESPECT running mate in the London Mayoral elections, George Galloway, also a leading figure in the StWC, famously saluted Saddam Hussein but attacks the IFTU Foreign Representative as 'Iraq's very own quisling'. Such attacks - wittingly or unwittingly - surely created a climate conducive to the intimidation and no platforming of the Iraqi unions at the European Social Forum

MPs back trade unionism in Iraq

Labour’s John Mann has tabled the following Commons motion called Trade Unions in Iraq.

That this House notes that free trade unionism is a key ingredient of a move from totalitarianism to democracy; welcomes the renewal of free trade unionism in Iraq; and calls on the Government to give assistance and priority to the strengthening of this movement.

Iraqis on Strike!

"From the blogsite 'Iraq the Model' comes this inspiring tale of Iraqi workers organsing against the kidnappers. The report concludes "it’s a good thing that hundreds of Iraqis performed an organized protest. Such things you could never hear or even dream about before the war."

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Iraqis on Strike!

Employees of “Iraquna” cellular phones company declared a strike in protest for the kidnaping of two of their colleague and they also stated that they want to know what the company is going to do for them (the kidnaped).
From Radio SAWA (Link in Arabic).

This strike surprised the company administration and 400 000 participant (I’m one of them). I had to be a true miser with the last card I had for two days, but thankfully the crises seems to be solved somehow as today I got another card and it seems that there’s no shortage whatever now as I knew from the store owner.

It’s true that the kidnaping were less before the war but I’m sure it’ll get better soon. The government need to be more tough on the criminals and the IP need more training and reform. The good news is that some of the Iraqi tribes have decided not to defend those who commit kidnaping, meaning that the tribes law will not apply to them and no one will be revenged for arresteing them which has been always a huge obstacle to justice in Iraq, and instead they would further charge them with high bills after the law deals with them as a punishment for disgracing the tribe's name. (Al-Sabah. Link in Arabic)

Despite the sad event on which the strike was based and despite that I got personally affected by it, I still feel it’s a good thing that hundreds of Iraqis performed an organized protest. Such things you could never hear or even dream about before the war.

Karbala Demonstration Against Terrorism

From the blogsite 'An Iraqi's thoughts' (http://iraqithoughts.blogspot.com/) comes this report of a 1000-strong demonstration in Karbala against Terrorism. The demonstrators "gathered around the provincial headquarters and they represented political, religious and tribal groups and they carried many slogans with some of the ones worth mentioning, being ‘defending terrorism is a philosophy for destruction.’ ‘No to terrorism, no to violence and no to killing.’ ‘We will not allow the terrorists to stop Iraq’s path towards democracy and peace.’ "

Today’s news you have probably all read but I came across this article in an Arabic web site and thought it made me smile, so why not translate and show that despite the hardships that Iraq is going there is a distant hope for a good futre. Here is the original article: Karbala Demonstration

Demonstrations in Karabala:

" A demonstration comprising of about 1000 people demonstrated today in the city of Karabala, south of Baghdad asking the Iraqi government to capture the terrorists and especially in the triangle of death that is in the south western parts of Baghdad.

Those present distributed a statement talking about the grave dangers to our people from these terrorist acts that compromise killing, kidnapping, suicide bombs that even target children, and these terrorists trying to create friction between all the groups in Iraq.

They added that after witnessing the escalating violence especially in the areas of Al Yusifiya, Al Latifiyah and al Mahmoudiya that we ask the government to stand firmly against these terrorists and capture them.

The American and Iraqi forces conducted an operation 10 days ago in the north of the Babil province where these areas lie because of the increase in killing and kidnapping in these areas.

The demonstrators gathered around the provincial headquarters and they represented political, religious and tribal groups and they carried many slogans with some of the ones worth mentioning, being ‘defending terrorism is a philosophy for destruction.’ ‘No to terrorism, no to violence and no to killing.’ ‘We will not allow the terrorists to stop Iraq’s path towards democracy and peace.’ "

I mention this even the though the number is small, because to me this is a positive development. I wish more and more Iraqis would come out and do the same but you have to understand it is very difficult and I can understand why most stay at home because of all the violence taking place. All it takes is a few criminal thugs to attend such demonstrations and target those who attend, hence I view all these people as heroes because they put their lives on the line in order to get their voices heard. Granted not all Iraqis would agree with my assessment of this situation but it’s good to see that there are Iraqis demanding the government to be firm.

The people of Karabla are nearly all from the Shi’ite sect of Islam and the stance of these protesters is to be admired. One can only speculate on how many people feel this way, but this reminds me of other demonstrations promoting peace occurring in Najaf about a month ago. The violent minority is trying so hard to intimidate the majority into silence the same way Saddam used to. They want people to praise the ‘resistance’ and the heroes the same way Saddam used to force the people into praising him. You are still afraid of who might hear you and this is what saddens me. I was one of those gullible Iraqis who believed the fall of Saddam will see a return of freedoms but instead you are faced with so many more faceless enemies. In Saddam’s time most people knew who to be careful of but now nobody knows the enemy and their motives. The general consensus is these barbaric acts are the work of a foreign force with Iraqis who for some reason or another are opposed to seeing a peaceful Iraq. I can not generalise and say they are all former regime members but I truly believe that most of it is financially motivated. In Third World countries you can do a lot by paying people large amounts of money. These are my opinions and maybe I believe this because deep down I really hope it’s true. I hope that most Iraqis feel the same way I feel. The next few months will see if I am wrong or right.

Occasional feature on parties and people in Iraq: Number 1 - the Iraq Pro-Democracy Party

LFIQ will occasionally post features such as this in order to widen debate about how Iraqis are making use of the UN process to rebuild and democratise Iraq. LFIQ does not necessarily endorse any groups featured. Readers are invited to send us details of other such groups.

Two brothers, Ali Fadhil and Mohammed Fadhil, have been writing their popular weblog www.IraqTheModel.com since November of 2003. Now they have established the Iraq Pro-Democracy Party and are leading a slate of 12 candidates in the January elections in Iraq.

The brothers said, “We believe that we represent an important segment of the Iraqi people that was never organized before under any category as a result of the oppression of the past regime. Now this segment has come to see the necessity to contribute to the building of a new Iraq in a way that is entirely different from the old ways that are still dominant in the Middle East and that are governed by religious fanaticism and pan-Arab nationalism”. Ali added, "We see that remaining silent is not an option in our battle towards democracy and freedom and that everyone who seeks a better future should take part in this battle".

Of the 12 candidates 7 are Health Professionals and 3 are teachers. To read about the policies of the Iraq Pro-Democracy Party, click here.

Information taken from the website of the Iraq Pro-Democracy Party - http://english.iraqdemparty.org/

Security

Although most parts of the country are enjoying relative peace and security, there are sections where this is not the case. Ba'athist, foreign terrorist and other anti-democracy forces need to be dealt with in a firm, forceful, and consistent manner. When dealing with anti-government forces the I.P.D.P. supports the following policies:

No one is above the law.

Anyone committing a crime is subject to arrest.

Never negotiate with terrorist, kidnappers and other criminals.

Continue and expand existing security operations to find and arrest those responsible for kidnappings, murders, and suicide bombers and other high crimes against the people.

Make it clear to Iraq's neighbours that attempts to destabilize Iraq will have serious consequences.

Economy & Jobs

Public service wages have increased as much as ten fold and in some cases one hundred times their previous levels. Private sector wages are also rising and the Iraqi dinar to US dollar exchange rate is trading at 30% above pre-war levels. While the economy is growing at its fastest rate in over 25 years it's important this rapid expansion continue. Obviously oil is our most important natural resource and managing this asset responsibly is critical to continuing economic growth. The I.P.D.P. supports the following economic policies:

Oil revenue accounting must be made public so that all Iraqis can observe how the money is being used.

The government shall work on recovering the oil money that was stolen by Saddam Hussein's regime and others under the United Nations Oil-For-Food program through the courts and international organizations.

Debt incurred during Saddam Hussein's regime should be deemed odious debt. The government should work with the United Nations and other world organizations to apply diplomatic pressure on Paris, Berlin, Moscow, and Arab nations have this debt forgiven.

Foreign investment should be encouraged with proper controls to ensure that jobs go to Iraqis whenever possible.

Education

The lack of education creates fanaticism making better education at all levels one of the most important long-term goals. The I.P.D.P. supports the following educational policies:

Provide a truthful and scientific curriculum for all schools.

Ensure the schools are properly funded and the accounting records made available to the public.

Healthcare

We can feel a considerable improvement in the health care situation in Iraq but its still far from what we are looking for. This will not happen without a full plan that studies the health care situation and evaluates the needs and how it can be promoted. The I.P.D.P. supports the following healthcare policies:

Ridding the health institutions from bureaucracy and the central control of the Healthcare Ministry. This inefficient bureaucratic structure has always hindered the progress of work as a result of the incapability of the executive directors of health to make even simple decisions without going back to the ministry.

Work with medically advanced countries around the world to provide health care scholarships. Iraqi students and health workers would be encouraged to go aboard and learn about advanced health policies and technologies and how to apply them in Iraq.

Raising the scientific knowledge and pay of healthcare workers.

Supporting and promoting health insurance to cover both minor cases and expensive procedures.

Federalism

The governorates of Iraq have suffered a lot of oppression and neglect at the hands of the successive central governments which lead to the loss of trust between Iraqis living in the governorates and any central government, and also led to a mass immigration from different governorates to Baghdad. Thus we see that federalism is the best solution to Iraq and that this should be based on geographical basis. A united federal Iraq will serve both the governorates as well as Baghdad and will strengthen Iraq's unity instead of weakening it.

Women's Rights

Women are playing a greater role in politics and other areas than ever before. Women were part of the Governing Council and there are currently five female Ministers which is a first for Iraq. The election rules for the National Assembly ensure that at least 25% of all delegates will be women. The I.P.D.P. supports the following policies for promoting Women's Rights:

Men and Women are to be treated equally under the law.

The participation of Women at all levels of government and business is to be unrestricted and encouraged by the government.

Elections 2005 in Iraq: The Timetable and the Rules

The following information about the timetable and rules for the Iraqi elections of 2005 is taken from the website of the Iraqi Pro-Democracy Party.

Elections Timeline...

Date Event

June 2004 Start of Registration Of Political Parties & Entities

July 2004 Selection Of National Council by the National Conference

September 2004 Voter registration begins

December 31, 2004 National Elections

Spring 2005 Constitutional Convention

October 15, 2005 Referendum on ratification of proposed constitution

December 15, 2005 Elections to select constitutionally based government

2004 June - Start of Registration of Political Parties & Entities
CPA Order 97 governs the certification and decertification of political parties and entities and is consistent with U.N. Resolution 1483 (2003), and Resolution 1511 (2003). Article 31 of the Law Of Administration of the State Of Iraq (TAL) specifies the requirements for individual candidates. The basic requirements for a party and candidate are as follows:

A party must register at least 500 eligible voters as members of the party

A party must field a minimum of 12 candidates and no more than 275

A candidate must be at least 30 years of age

The party must rank all candidates on the list in the order they will be allocated a seat in the National Assembly

At least every third candidate on the ranked list must be a woman

A candidate shall have at least a secondary school diploma, or equivalent

A candidate shall not be a member of the armed forces at the time of his nomination

A candidate shall not have been a member of the dissolved Ba'ath Party with the rank of Division Member or higher

If a candidate was once a member of the dissolved Ba'ath Party with the rank of Full Member, he shall be required to sign a document renouncing the Ba'ath Party and disavowing all of his past links with it before becoming eligible to be a candidate, and shall be required to swear that he no longer has any dealings or connections with Ba'ath Party organizations

There are special rules for someone to declare himself or herself a certified individual person. Persons who have been so certified by the Independent Electoral Commission can run for office as individuals and do not need to be on a political party's candidate list.

2004 July - Selection of National Council by the National Conference

A group of prominent Iraqis selected by the interim government, to be known as the National Conference, shall begin meeting in July of 2004. The primary duty of the National Conference will be to appoint a National Council that will serve until national elections are held, which is to be no later than January 31st of 2005. The National Council will have the following powers:
Approve a budget
Legislative veto
Right to compel government ministries to answer questions on policy

2004 September - Voter registration begins

To register to vote a person must meet the following qualifications:
Be deemed an Iraq Citizen, or entitled to reclaim Iraqi citizenship, or be eligible for Iraqi citizenship
Born before December 31st, 1986

Eligibility for voting is detailed in CPA Order 96 and is consistent with U.N. Resolution 1483 (2003), and Resolution 1511 (2003).

In addition, Article 11 of the TAL states any Iraqi whose Iraqi citizenship was withdrawn for political, religious, racial, or sectarian reasons has the right to reclaim his Iraqi citizenship. Persons whose citizenship was withdrawn under decision Number 666 (1980) of the dissolved Revolutionary Command Council shall be deemed an Iraqi citizen.

2004 December - National Elections for the National Assembly

National elections are to be held by December 31st, 2004 if possible and absolutely no later than January 31st, 2005. Elections can be called earlier by the Prime Minister with the consent of the National Council and cabinet. ( Note: This is a real possibility as Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has stated he would like to move the elections up to coincide with the United States' national elections to be held November 2nd, 2004.)

The elections for the National Assembly will be:
By a direct and universal vote that will use a secret ballot
Choosing 275 members
A single electoral constituency across the whole of Iraq
Seats in the National Assembly will be allocated among Political Entities through a system of proportional representation. Basically, for every 1/275 (0.36%) of the popular vote a party receives one candidate from the ranked candidate list will be awarded a seat in the National Assembly (see CPA Order 96 Section 3.4 for exact formulas and other details).

2005 Spring - Constitutional Convention

The primary duties of the National Assembly will be to serve as Iraq's legislative branch and to complete a draft the new Constitution no later than August 15th, 2005.

2005 October 15 - Referendum on ratification of proposed constitution
Iraqi citizens who have registered to vote will decide whether to ratify the new Constitution.

In the event the Constitution is not approved, the National Assembly will be dissolved and Elections for a new National Assembly shall be held no later than December 15th 2005. The new National Assembly and new Iraqi Transitional Government shall then assume office no later than December 31st, 2005 and shall continue to operate under the TAL until such time as a Constitution is approved.

2005 December 15 - Elections to select constitutionally based government
If the permanent constitution is approved in the referendum, elections for a permanent government shall be held no later than December 15th, 2005 and the new government shall assume office no later than December 31st, 2005.

IFTU Representative debunks myths about the “resistance” and calls for solidarity

We are nobody's pawns
Iraqis need international solidarity, not support for violence
Abdullah Muhsin

Saturday October 23, 2004
The Guardian

Some in the west have argued wrongly that the chaos in Iraq represents a national liberation struggle. They risk perpetuating a historical myth about our country. There is always a risk of cultural imperialism when people speak for others in the name of national liberation.

When I talked to students at Baghdad University in October 2003, six months after the fall of Saddam's regime, they told me: "We were against Saddam, we were against the war, and we are against the occupation."

Today, those young people have endured a further 12 months of deteriorating security, a downward spiral of violence, an epidemic of kidnappings of Iraqi (not to mention Arab and foreign) nationals, and the grotesque emergence for the first time in Iraq's history of the suicide bomb. The deployment by US forces of helicopter gunships and F16s against civilians reminds Iraqis of the brutality of state-sponsored violence.

Ordinary Iraqi workers want to build a united, democratic and federal nation where they can enjoy human rights and political freedoms available to those living in Europe, not be used as pawns in a clash of ideological fundamentalisms.

I was forced to flee Iraq in 1978 as an elected officer of the student union that Saddam banned. In Rome that year, five thugs from Saddam's Mukhabarat attacked me and stabbed my friend while we handed out leaflets in a student canteen.

With other Iraqis, both in exile and clandestinely within the country, I worked in the 1980s and 90s to preserve a labour and student movement independent of the state-controlled unions. In February 2003 we marched in London and other cities against the war, conscious its first victims would inevitably be the same Iraqi civilians it claimed to liberate. Our first act after the fall of Saddam's regime was to establish an open, democratic independent trade union, the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions.

Today Iraq is on fire. Those in Britain who love human rights and freedoms have two options: to add petrol to the flames and fuel the violence, which will certainly lead to the end of Iraq's territorial integrity, to its dismemberment and Balkanisation; or to offer solidarity and support to Iraqi democrats, socialists and trade unionists.

The emerging signs of vibrant civil society, such as organisations of women, trade unionists and students, present a real political opportunity to end the occupation and isolate the forces promoting sectarian, communal and religious violence. In this context the recent attacks on the IFTU by the Stop the War Coalition, George Galloway and others - in particular, their claims that we lobbied trade unions at the Labour conference to support the government's position in the Iraq debate - must be answered.

We have received enormous support from the TUC and British trade unions. I was invited to the Labour party conference as a guest of Unison. Addressing a fringe meeting, I was joined by speakers who supported the IFTU line against the war and the occupation. My speech called for the removal of foreign troops and a genuine transfer of power to the Iraqi people. I explained the IFTU's policy of support for UN resolution 1546. I did not offer voting advice to trade unions on Labour's Iraq motions and confined my remarks to urging solidarity with Iraqi workers.

The IFTU is opposed to the occupation of our country, remains opposed to the illegal war on Iraq and to the horrendous decision of the occupying powers effectively to dissolve the functions of the Iraqi state rather than cleanse it of Saddam's henchmen.

They are trying to introduce free-market and privatisation policies carried out by incompetent corporate plunderers whose aim is the economic occupation of our country. Our trade unions are the main impediment to such policies.
Some present a false dichotomy between the Jordanian terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and a mainstream Iraqi national resistance.

Iraq is not another Vietnam; the so-called resistance are no maquis. The resistance offers at best another dictatorship modelled on Saddam's regime, at worst an al-Zarqawi-inspired mediaeval theocracy using Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, as a base for its war against the US and Arab regimes. These forces offer only hell to Iraqis and harbour some of the world's most dangerous ideas. They have no open social or political programme and no popular base, and are feared by most Iraqis.

Widespread, popular sentiment against the foreign occupation of our country does not translate into legitimation of these forces. With the support of the British and international labour movement, and others, we have a duty to ensure that the voice of Iraqi civil society is heard.

• Abdullah Muhsin is the foreign representative for the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions
www.iraqitradeunions.org

Guardian report on strains within Stop the War Coalition

Union fury at Stop the War coalition's sectarianism

Patrick Wintour, Kevin Maguire and Michael White
Saturday October 23, 2004
The Guardian

The public sector union Unison has threatened to sever its relations with the Stop the War coalition, whose internal strains have prompted one prominent leftwinger to resign.

It accused the coalition yesterday of seeking to undermine its general secretary, Dave Prentis, and of abusing officials of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions because the federation wants the US-led forces to stay in place at least until the Iraqi elections in January.

Earlier this week the coaltion founding member Mick Rix, former general secretary of the train driver's union Aslef and organiser of the anti-Blair "awkward squad", resigned from its steering committee when the coalition condemned the IFTU British representative Abdullah Mushin, saying he now a supported the occupation, and even the invasion.

At the core of the dispute is disagreement whether British and US troops should withdrawn from Iraq immediately or stay until after the election.

The TUC is trying to raise cash for the federation, and seems to be increasingly supportive of its view that the troops are needed to prevent Iraq breaking up or an Islamic fundamentalist state being formed.

Stop the War's controlling faction dismisses that as a Blairite line tantamount to approving the occupation.

Mr Rix's anger was stirred by a statement that the unions had "broken their mandates" at the Labour party conference in Brighton and licensed the occupation, and that Mr Mushin, who lobbied in Brighton, was a "collaborator" of the British government.

In email exchanges with Andrew Murray, the coalition chairman, Mr Rix complained of statements made without consultation, and of "vitriol" against Mr Mushin and his allies, who deserved an apology.

Yesterday Mr Murray denied undermining Mr Prentis.

He added: "We regret Mick's resignation. He played an important part in winning unions to oppose the war. But it's very sad he should choose to resign in a way apparently designed to cause maximum divisions at a critical time."
Adopting perhaps the campaign's best known slogan, Mr Rix had said the controversial statement was "not issued in my name".

He believes the coalition is being manipulated by the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party to bolster the Respect party, which it formed with the expelled Labour MP George Galloway, who has also attacked the federation.

The slanging match, in which each side accuses the other of betrayal, in the Morning Star and elsewhere, is the most serious to disrupt the coaltion, which organised the biggest demonstration ever seen in Britain but is said by union critics to be lurching into sectarianism.

Some Labour MPs have added fuel to the fire by saying that a draft coalition statement endorses murder and kidnap by condoning the use of "whatever means necessary" to end what it usually calls the "bloody and illegal occupation".

Unison's deputy general secretary, Kenneth Sonnet, is said to have expressed his union's fury forcibly to Mr Murray. Concern has also been expressed in the senior ranks of the T&G and GMB, two other affiliated unions.
Accusing coalition leaders of "atrocious" treatment of the federation, Mr Sonnet said: "It's not for us to tell unions in other countries how to operate. We have to listen to what they want ... We have told the coalition we are considering our position."

Mr Murray said: "British politics is in uproar over the redeployment and impending assault on Falluja. It would be dismaying if any affiliates should choose to disengage now because of secondary differences which could easily be resolved. We hope Unison will take this approach."

UNISON demands end to harrassment of Iraqi trade unionists

(21/10/04) A campaign of vilification against representatives of IFTU, the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, must stop, says the UK's biggest union UNISON.

Some anti-war campaigners have fixated on alleged clandestine sponsorship of the IFTU by the government, questioning its independence and representative claim on behalf of Iraqi members.

The IFTU in Iraq has expressed deep shock and upset at the situation. The international representative of the IFTU, Abdullah Muhsin, had his speech at the recent Labour Party conference disrupted by protestors, unhappy at his warning that premature withdrawal by coalition forces would "lead at best to the Balkanisation of Iraq and or even worse a bitter civil war".

This incident was followed by accusations in print that the IFTU is collaborating with the UK government – which the group rejects as a "false and dangerous allegation".

And at last week's important European Social Forum, the harassment continued.

Around midday on 15 October, IFTU general secretary Subhi Al Mashadani and two Iraqi women members, were verbally harassed and jostled by a small group of ESF participants.

The hostility shown towards them was such that they had to be escorted away by Alexandra Palace security staff.

The second incident, that evening, was even uglier, according to delegates. The plenary meeting on ending the occupation of Iraq, attended by around 1,000 people, and at which Mashadani – who spent more than 10 years in one of Saddam Hussein's prisons – had been invited to speak, was hijacked by the same group of extremists who kept up a constant barrage of noise designed to prevent the meeting from taking place.

A participant at the conference was Keith Sonnet, UNISON's deputy general secretary, who witnessed what happened.

"Unfortunately they succeeded. The co-chairs attempted to get order, even taking a vote to determine support for the meeting. The will of almost all those present that the meeting should proceed, was ignored by the disrupters and their behaviour made it impossible for it to take place."

UNISON says the attacks are unfair and must stop, repeating its support for the IFTU.

"We believe the voice of Iraqi trade unions should be heard at all levels. UNISON is a broad organisation that believes in the principle of free speech.

"No progress will be made on the development of a strategy for the future of Iraq unless we are prepared to listen to all shades of opinion.

"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."

The IFTU has released a statement saying, "As we understand it, unions make their own decisions based on their own policies.

"Contrary to the allegations against the IFTU, we must state emphatically 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 organisational, political and social progress of Iraqis and will continue to work with all sections of the international labour movement that support our aims."

Support the TUC Appeal for Iraq - Iraqi trade unionists speak

Speeches at the launch of the TUC Aid Iraq Appeal, 19th October 2004.

Launching the TUC Aid Iraq Appeal were Jeannie Drake (TUC President), Hilary Benn MP, Subhi Abdullah al Mashadani (IFTU General Secretary), Brendan Barber (TUC General Secretary), Hashimia Muhsin Hussein (Basra Electricity and Energy Union President)

Hilary Benn MP - Secretary of State for International Development
I’ve been to Iraq three times in the last year. And I have to tell you that each time I’ve come back filled with admiration, not just for the colleagues of mine who are working out there, supporting the reconstruction, but above all for the Iraqis I have met.

Because it is quite a humbling experience I can tell you to meet people who are literally putting their lives on the line in support of principles that they hold very dear. I met one minister in the interim government, before the transfer of sovereignty, who spoke very touchingly on a Thursday afternoon of how she was hoping to help build a new Iraq. She was shot on the Friday morning and she died five days later. I met election commissioners in Baghdad six weeks ago, who wanted to do their job and help the first elections to take place, but who were also scared for themselves and for their families.

And I simply want to say that whatever people think about what has happened in the last twenty or so months, though we will continue to debate and discuss it, but frankly whatever you think about that, what needs to be done now in the interests of building a democratic and free Iraq is very very clear. It is to give support to people who are working very hard in difficult circumstances for that to happen. And the trade union movement which suffered so much under Saddam’s regime, is as we know one of the essential components of a free and democratic society for Iraq.

I’m pleased that one of the contributions we’re making through our civil society fund is a £5m fund that we’ve established, alongside our £5m participation fund, to support Iraqi organisations including the Iraqi trade union movement to do the work they want to do to help build a better future for the people of Iraq.

And frankly our colleagues from Iraq deserve all of our support in the task that they are taking on, not least because of what they’ve suffered over a very long period of time. So I’m very pleased to be able to offer support for the TUC Aid for Iraq Appeal, as it’s a really important and really worthy cause, and all of us should do whatever we can to support our colleagues in their work.

Hashimia Muhsin Hussein - President of the Basra Electricity and Energy Union
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.

Subhi Abdullah al Mashadani - General Secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU)
Sisters and brothers, I would like to bring to you the greetings of the working people of Iraq, and to thank you and the TUC for the great support you have shown us in this critical time.

I wanted to speak to inform you what the situation is in Iraq and what the people want. Iraq has seen three wars, and we know what war brings to a nation. We say no to dictatorships and no to the devastation of wars. The war has happened, and though we were not responsible for the war, what we are now responsible for is to build a new Iraq, and a new politics of tolerance, democracy and respect for human rights.

We are facing two difficulties: difficulties from the terrorists who do not distinguish between innocent Iraqis and troops, who bomb places of worship, kill innocent children, and detonate car bombs in marketplaces; and difficulties from foreign troops in the country.

Terrorists and terrorism do not want to see democracy flourish, and do not want to uphold the rule of law. We want to support the political processes taking place in Iraq. We want civil society to flourish. We want the institution of democracy to take hold. We want to see elections taking place, and then we can call for the foreign troops to leave.

These are the principles that will guide us in our struggle, and I thank you very much for your support and solidarity you are offering through this appeal.

Please help our colleagues in Iraqi unions by donating whatever you can to the TUC Aid Iraqi Unions Appeal. You can find out more and donate online at www.tuc.org.uk/iraqappeal

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*

Mick Rix resigns from Stop the War steering committee

Mick Rix, trade unionist and former General Secretary of ASLEF, has resigned from the Stop the War Coalition steering committee.

He says:

"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 [Muhsin, the UK representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions]. 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 criticism, and there were better ways of inviting views on this criticism, 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."

Intimidation against Iraqi trade union leaders condemned by the TUC and by LFIQ

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.

LFIQ statement 16th October

"Labour Friends of Iraq condemns the lack of respect for free speech by some people attending the European Social Forum in London.

Stop the War Coalition leaders and others, unfortunately, have helped create a climate of opinion in which Iraqi trade unionists are portrayed as the equivalent of the Vichy regime whilst violent anti-democratic forces are falsely compared to the French resistance.

This was a shameful incident and we hope that labour movement organisations around the country will respond by inviting an IFTU representative to their meetings so that they can hear what the emerging Iraqi labour movement stands for and how to provide solidarity.”

Gary Kent, Director and Jane Ashworth, Chair

Iraq solidarity: neither pro-war nor anti-war, but post-war

Letter in Solidarity 3/59, 7 October 2004

Congratulations to the sharp-eyed Colin Foster for spotting the existence of the Labour Friends of Iraq (LFIQ) (Solidarity, September). There was indeed a LFIQ website which we withdrew after only a few days. As Colin says, we promise to be back online soon at labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk, and may even be so by the time of your publication. But there Colin’s forensic skills end.

He is wrong about the ownership of the successful fringe meeting at Party Conference that attracted more than 100 delegates.

He says it was an LFIQ event, while actually it was an IFTU reception. However, it is just the sort of event that the LFIQ wants to fix up — that and visits to constituency parties.

Colin’s also got it wrong about our "tilt… towards pro-war and pro-occupation elements in the labour movement".

For the record, most of the interim officers were anti-war but, that aside, the battle for the future of Iraq may prove to be the hinge of our times and so the LFIQ will not be pro-war, nor anti-war but post-war.

The purpose of LFIQ is to support the organisations of democratic Iraq — trade unions, women’s groups and human rights organisations — by forging direct links of solidarity and mutual aid.

Jane Ashworth

LFIQ President Harry Barnes MP proposes Third Way on Iraq

Business Statement, House of Commons, Thursday 14th October

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): May I press for that debate on Iraq? There are people with different perspectives on the matter, ranging from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), who asked for the debate, to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. There are some of us who believe in a third way - I thought that the Government might be interested in third ways. We say that the invasion itself was wrong and that some of its consequences were predictable, but that everything must now be done to assist democratic forces in Iraq to build a proper, decent society. Although there might still be big differences between both sides, there might be an area on which we could get agreement, so let us have the debate.

Mr. Hain (Leader of the House of Commons): I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend's point of view. Whatever opinions are passionately held about the merits, or otherwise, of going to war in Iraq, the truth is that we are where we are. The objective now, as he says, is to ensure that we have a democratic Iraq that includes a strong and independent trade union movement. We must support that enterprise and use all our efforts and resources to ensure that the Iraqi people have the chance to run their own country for the first time in at least a generation, if not ever.

LFIQ Letter to Daily Mirror

We appreciate Labour MP Geraldine Smith's concerns (Mirror, 14th October) but suggest that she also addresses the immediate need to back brave Iraqis trying to build independent trade unions and women's groups as well as new parties and newspapers in order to create a democratic Iraq. They need all our help.

Gary Kent
Director
Labour Friends of Iraq

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.

Labour NEC Statement on Iraq

Conference resolves to do everything we can to help the Iraqis build a free, stable and democratic future. Conference condemns all acts of terrorism, including the holding of innocent people as hostages. Conference notes that the vast majority of the victims of these attacks are the Iraqi people themselves.

Conference acknowledges 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 Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). The IFTU strongly supports the process endorsed by the United Nations Security Council for the creation of a federal, democratic, pluralist, and unified Iraq, in which there is full respect for the political and human rights of all. Conference supports the TUC's appeal to raise funds to help rebuild the Iraqi trade union movement and its campaigns for workers rights.

Conference notes UN Security Council Resolution 1546 was adopted unanimously by all fifteen members on 8 June 2004. The British Government sponsored the Resolution, voted for it, is bound by it, and of course will honour it.

This resolution stated that, "the mandate for the multi national force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or 12 months from the date of this resolution and that this mandate shall expire upon the completion of the political progress...and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the government of Iraq". In the light of this UN resolution conference recognises that British troops remain in Iraq at any time only at the request of the Iraqi Government and under the terms of this resolution the UN mandate for the multinational forces will terminate by December 2005.

Thereafter, there would have to be a request for the renewal of their mandate from the democratically elected Iraqi Government either with the agreement of the UN Security Council or as the result of a specific request from a democratically elected Iraqi government agreed with the United Kingdom Government, in conformity with UN resolutions and international law.

Conference notes that the UN adopted this resolution in response to a request by lyad Allawi, Prime Minister of the interim Iraqi Government. Conference notes that this UN resolution looked forward "to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq". Conference notes that the transfer of sovereignty took place on the 28th of June this year.

The UN resolution recognised the importance of the consent of the sovereign government of Iraq for the presence of the multi national force and close co-ordination between the multi national force and that government. Conference notes that these elections will lead to a Transitional National Assembly which will have responsibility for drafting a permanent constitution for Iraq leading to a constitutionally elected government by the end of 2005.

The UN resolution noted "the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multi national force" and set out its tasks including, "by preventing and deterring terrorism so that the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people" and allowing them to, "implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and programme for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities." This UN resolution makes clear that "Iraqi security forces are responsible to appropriate Iraqi ministers" and that the Iraqi Government and the Multinational Force should reach agreement "on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations".

The UN resolution recognised “that the multi national force will also assist in building the capability of the Iraqi security forces and institutions through a programme of recruitment, training, equipping, mentoring and monitoring.”

Solidarity with Grassroots Iraq

Iraq is emerging from its long nightmare of Saddam’s totalitarianism, wars and privation. Iraq now has an opportunity to use its natural and human wealth to build a democratic civil society. An independent and secular labour movement is a key part of civil society and can do much to promote the unity of working people, regardless of creed or gender.

The United Nations has endorsed an ambitious political process aiming to establish a democratic government by the end of next year. The new Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) is using the process to secure labour rights to regain sovereignty and build democracy. Labour Friends of Iraq (LFIQ) strongly supports them and opposes those who use violence to deprive the Iraqi people of a democratic future.

LFIQ includes those who opposed and those who supported military action but are united in supporting Iraq's struggle for democracy and labour rights.

History will not forgive us if we fail to give solidarity to Grassroots Iraq as its long-suffering people seek a federal, democratic, pluralist, and unified Iraq, in which there is full respect for the political and human rights of all.

We will encourage support for the IFTU and the labour interest through fact-finding trips, publications, seminars, fundraising, speaker tours, regular electronic bulletins and on our website. We will encourage mutually beneficial cultural, social, political and economic links with progressive Iraqi organisations.

Who are we?

Presidents: Harry Barnes MP and Ann Clwyd MP

The members of the LFIQ executive committee are Jane Ashworth (Chair), Gary Kent (Director), Graham Wildridge (Treasurer), Eric Lee (Webmaster), Alan Johnson (Publications), John Slinger, Urmee Khan, Robert G Smith, Simon Pottinger and David Mapstone.

Jack Straw: "Now there are free trade unionists"

An extract from Jack Straw's address to Labour Party Conference 30th September 2004. The full speech is on http://www.labour.org.uk

And where, under Saddam, those who campaigned for free trade unions often ended in a mass grave with a bullet in their back, now there are free trade unionists. One of its members, Abdullah Muhsin of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions is here today.

Hear what he wrote in the Conference Daily on Tuesday, and I quote:

"You have two options before you this week. One would give hope to all those in Iraq who want to see free trade unions and political organisations grow and thrive.

"The alternative", he said, "is an early date for the unilateral withdrawal of troops which would be bad for my country, bad for the emerging progressive forces, a terrible blow for free trade unionism, and would play into the hands of extremists and terrorists."

Let us be aware of this: yes, the terrorists have killed foreigners; kidnapped some; still hold hostage Kenneth Bigley.

But overwhelmingly the targets are the Iraqi economy and their victims are Iraqis - ordinary decent Iraqis, who want the chance to rebuild their country and who are being stopped, not by US or UK forces, but by these evil men who, knowing that they cannot succeed by ballot seek to impose their will by bullet and bomb.

UNISON Labour Link committee chair on Labour Party conference

Steve Warwick, chair of UNISON Labour Link committee and leader of the delegation at this week's Labour Party conference, has written a report to the union's executive on what the union achieved in Brighton.

"As leader of the UNISON delegation, I am writing to bring you up to date on our work at this week’s Labour Party conference. UNISON, working together with the other big unions, AMICUS, GMB and TGWU, established Labour Party policy on pensions, the public services, manufacturing and employment rights.

"Our own composite, on public services, called on the government to address the continuing failure of private companies and to make available real alternatives for public authorities. We won backing for a manifesto which shows we are committed to improving public services without using the private sector.

"Together we defeated the government’s position on rail nationalisation and council housing.

"Contrary to inaccurate press reports, the unions ensured that there was a debate about a date for troops to leave Iraq. We also achieved a firm commitment from the government about a date for that to happen in line with UN resolutions.

"Although none of the trade unions submitted contemporary motions on Iraq, a number of constituency parties did. These were composited into two motions - Composite 5, largely acceptable to the government and Composite 6, which was not. Both are available for download below.

"Direct talks took place during the week between the four unions and government ministers, with the support of our delegations. Our aim was to commit the government to a timetable for troops to leave Iraq.

"Discussions centred on Resolution 1546, which had been passed in June 2004. This sets out clearly that the UN mandate for multinational troo