Iraqi Communists analysis of current situation and call for solidarity

The Iraqi Communist Party has sent a lengthy and, in my view, dignified Letter to Fraternal and Friendly Parties About the Situation in Iraq and the Position of the Iraqi Communist Party. The letter should be read in its entirety but it restates its opposition to the war, outlines its attitude to foreign troops and encourages solidarity.

Its understated conclusion is - We have to note, with regret, that the Iraqi democratic forces have not received, in their difficult struggle, effective solidarity and support from international forces of the left. As a result, most of the latter have unfortunately been rendered observers of events, rather than exerting positive influence on the ongoing struggle over the future course of developments in Iraq, especially in supporting the struggle for a democratic prospect, at a time when the Iraqi patriotic and democratic forces are in urgent need for such concrete and multifarious support and solidarity.

On the presence of foreign troops, it says - We struggle for creating the conditions for the withdrawal of foreign troops at the earliest possible time. However, we believe that calling for their immediate withdrawal does not take into consideration the sharp current polarization in our country, the existence of paramilitary organizations, and the insufficient preparedness of the Iraqi security forces. Hence we call for a timetable for withdrawal together with doubling the efforts to provide the internal political, institutional and security conditions for this withdrawal. As was evident in the statement of the National Accord Conference held in Cairo last November, there is an Iraqi consensus regarding such a withdrawal timetable in order to avoid chaos and additional suffering. This is a realistic agenda and can be implemented in a relatively short period.

Gary Kent

Full Statement

Letter to Fraternal and Friendly Parties About the Situation in Iraq and the Position of the Iraqi Communist Party

Dear comrades and friends,

Warm comradely greetings,

The situation in Iraq has continued to be an international issue throughout the year 2005, even becoming a predominant national issue in several countries. It has also been the subject of debate among popular, progressive and democratic circles, especially because of the continued instability and extreme violence that has resulted in the death of scores of innocent civilians every day. All this is taking place with the presence of more than 140 thousand foreign soldiers. At the same time, a political process continues to advance in a climate of sharp sectarian and ethnic/national polarization and struggle around different political and societal visions and agendas.

Now that nearly three years have elapsed since the war, the occupation, and the downfall of the dictatorial regime, and in view of the recent general elections for a full term parliament and permanent government institutions, we think it is important to inform fraternal and friendly parties and forces about the theoretical and political analyses that were the basis of policies and positions adopted by our party, both during the period preceding the war and following the occupation and the collapse of the Iraqi state. In order to focus attention on principal issues, we shall solely concentrate here on the main political and theoretical themes that are currently debated.

Unprecedented situation

The situation that has emerged in Iraq after the war and collapse of the dictatorial regime is characterised with by almost unprecedented features and complications. It is different from the familiar historical cases of occupation in past decades, connected to colonial wars and Nazi occupation of Europe. Here lies the source of disagreement in analysis and error emanating from drawing comparisons outside the historical context, that do not give due consideration to the concrete conditions characterizing the situation in Iraq.

Analysing the situation in Iraq as being the case of an occupied country that necessitates supporting the national liberation struggle of its people with the aim of expelling the occupiers and achieving independence, entails a diminution and disregard of other important factors in the situation that need to be taken into consideration. Such analyses ignore not only the responsibility of the dictatorial regime in creating the conditions that facilitated foreign intervention, but also the attitude of the vast majority of the Iraqi people, who welcomed the collapse of the regime, but did not welcome the invaders with flowers. Above all, such an analysis does not fully grasp the implications of the complete collapse of the Iraqi state resulting in, on the one hand, the ensuing institutional and security vacuum, and, on the other, the active involvement of the Iraqi people, in all its social and political constituents, in the sphere of political action. Hence, it is no longer pos! sible to deal with the issue of ending the occupation and the restoration of full national sovereignty, which is a principal objective of the current stage, without due consideration to the stipulations of the internal situation and the ongoing struggle over the form and content of the process of rebuilding the Iraqi state and civil institutions. Our aim is to ensure that such a state will be national and democratic, both politically and socially.

Role of foreign intervention in change and establishing democracy

As to the controversy about foreign intervention and its ability to establish democracy, we would like to refer to our party's positions prior to, and especially on the eve of the war. We rejected then that war would be an instrument of change, considering it to be the worst option. We repeatedly stressed that war, military invasion and occupation were unacceptable as means for salvation from the dictatorial regime. We pointed out that the war option would not lead to genuine democracy, as it involves enormous dangers and unpredictable and hazardous repercussions. The experience of Iraq since the fall of dictatorship provides ample proof for this.

Democracy as a historical process

We are fully aware that democracy is a historical process of multisided dimensions: political, social, economic and cultural. No doubt, all the institutional prerequisites for democracy have not matured or fully developed within Iraqi society. However, instituting democracy, in all its aspects, is a long term and complex process. We consider that this process has already started in Iraq, and we have no illusions as to its completeness and shortcomings. But we are fighting to create the broadest alignment of forces possible in favour of pursuing this process, and fulfilling and consolidating the conditions for its success. Such a process may start under occupation, indeed it has, but cannot achieve all its requisites without regaining national sovereignty whose sole source is the free will of the people. Therefore, it is not right to invalidate all that has been achieved under this process, owing to the presence of foreign troops in the country. On the contrary, the struggle ! for consolidating democracy with all its constituent components is not only closely intertwined with that of ending occupation, but is considered as a supporting lever for the latter.

Position after occupation

The war took place in the context of a global strategy of the US pursuing its own interests and aiming at establishing hegemony in the region and worldwide. This doctrine of “pre-emptive war” is the concrete embodiment of this strategy. The war sought to reshape the political map of the region, and was related to the Plan for the Greater Middle East. Our Party is well aware of all these aspects and has a clear view in this respect. That is why it opposed the war.

However, in the aftermath of the war and following the collapse of the regime and the Iraqi state, new elements emerged in the internal situation that the party had to deal and interact with, aiming to influence them in favour of its national democratic project. With this in mind, we exerted the greatest effort throughout the early months following the collapse of the regime in order to mobilize the Iraq patriotic forces to fill the ensuing political vacuum and build up the best possible national balance of forces vis-à-vis the occupation powers in order to impose the national will of the people. However, for various reasons, this objective was not achieved. When we were approached to take part in the Governing Council and the political process as a whole, we decided, after carefully studying the situation and consulting a wide circle of party cadres and members, to join the Council, emphasizing at the same time the need to combine the struggle within emerging institution! s with the that outside these institutions, in the various fields of the mass action.

Our evaluation then, which still holds now, is that in the prevailing circumstances and balance of forces in Iraq, there is no alternative process, other than the existing one, that offers a political prospect of restoring security and order in the country and puts it on the path of reconstruction and development. Resorting to armed action may succeed in obstructing some aspects of the political process, causing hardships, and providing bargaining cards to secure additional stakes and positions for those who adopt this course of action. But it holds no political prospect for solving the problems of the country, whether ending occupation or rebuilding the state, let alone establishing democracy. This lack of a political prospect of armed action has been confirmed by the progress of the political process and the holding of general elections in January 2005

Contradictions in the political process

The political process is faced with two types of contradictions or conflicts. The first is between its components as a whole and the forces opposed to it, mainly followers of the defunct regime and extremist Islamists. A second set of contradictions exists among its constituent political forces and currents, which have different, perhaps conflicting visions and societal projects and agendas. Owing to the grave legacy of the previous regime, the way that change took place, and the changes in the world, the political and social forces committed to the national democratic agenda are not in their best state; they are in a weaker position than the forces based on politicising religious, sectarian or ethnic identities. The latter were not as adversely affected by the tyranny and repression as civil organisations and democratic forces. They benefited from the fact that because places of worship provided sanctuary they could be used as avenues for indoctrination and politi! cal mobilization. This situation, however, is not static.

The US and their allies are a major player in Iraqi affairs. However, it is wrong to overlook the role of the internal factors and the Iraqi actors. Events and developments in Iraq show that the latter can effectively influence the direction, content and pace of the development of the political process. This influence grows stronger the more the Iraqi forces succeed in unifying their ranks and act together on agreed upon national objectives. Therefore, we consider developments and their course as the outcome of a struggle, rather than being merely an implementation of a preset plan laid down by the occupation forces. There is no doubt that these forces have their own agenda and plans, but these can be foiled or changed by the Iraqi forces. We conceive the political process as an arena of struggle, with a view to orientate it closer to the national democratic agenda.

Resistance is a legitimate right of the people

Resistance against an invading force is a legitimate right that is universally acknowledged. However, we think it is wrong to reduce the resistance to armed struggle, which is but a form of struggle that is resorted to when the other forms are either exhausted or not feasible. Since the collapse of the regime in Iraq, there have been, and there will be in the foreseeable future, quite a variety of possible forms of political struggle. We, and the political forces in general, are no near to exhaust them entirely, especially in the spheres of mass struggle, trade union movement, civil society organisations, etc. On the other hand, contrary to all past examples that we know, the forces which claim armed resistance against the occupation, have not presented a political and social programme and have not put forward their own political representatives. In fact, their real project is a despotic and viciously anti-democratic one. Although we believe that resorting to arms is counter! productive in the current Iraqi context, we are ready to engage in dialogue with forces that really fight occupation but refrain from resorting to terror and targeting civilians and the infrastructure. While not denying the existence of such forces, they do not constitute the main element in the armed action which is generally dominated by extremist Islamists and supporters of the previous regime.

Position on withdrawal of foreign troops

We struggle for creating the conditions for the withdrawal of foreign troops at the earliest possible time. However, we believe that calling for their immediate withdrawal does not take into consideration the sharp current polarization in our country, the existence of paramilitary organizations, and the insufficient preparedness of the Iraqi security forces. Hence we call for a timetable for withdrawal together with doubling the efforts to provide the internal political, institutional and security conditions for this withdrawal. As was evident in the statement of the National Accord Conference held in Cairo last November, there is an Iraqi consensus regarding such a withdrawal timetable in order to avoid chaos and additional suffering. This is a realistic agenda and can be implemented in a relatively short period.

We hope that the anti-war forces take into consideration the complexities of the situation in Iraq. At the same time, we respect the right of all parties and organizations in the countries that have sent troops in Iraq to call for their speedy withdrawal. It is their own internal affair, while we too reserve the right to formulate our own position in accordance with what we consider to be in the interests of our country. Such an approach can provide an effective and practical basis for joint action that would serve the noble cause of world peace and the struggle for freedom, democracy, human rights and social progress.

We welcome an enhanced UN role in this transitional period, towards achieving full national sovereignty, ending the presence of all foreign troops as soon as possible, and providing support for the country's reconstruction. We also call for activating the role of the UN to enable Iraq and our people to complete the political processو build democratic constitutional institutions, and set up a fully legitimate elected government, as well as ensuring a free, fair and transparent election process.

International Solidarity

We have to note, with regret, that the Iraqi democratic forces have not received, in their difficult struggle, effective solidarity and support from international forces of the left. As a result, most of the latter have unfortunately been rendered observers of events, rather than exerting positive influence on the ongoing struggle over the future course of developments in Iraq, especially in supporting the struggle for a democratic prospect, at a time when the Iraqi patriotic and democratic forces are in urgent need for such concrete and multifarious support and solidarity.

International Relations Committee, Central Committee - Iraqi Communist Party
Baghdad, 15 January 2006

The pace of withdrawal

A senior American general considers that Iraqi forces will control as much as half the country by the end of this year. (David Spector)

Reliable water for more than a million Iraqis

Reconstruction has not been a major news priority in many recent reports
from Iraq but here is some good news. (David Spector)

Possible Iraqi coalition

Political horse-trading following the results of the December 15th poll. This report says that US diplomats involved in the process are pressing for an inclusive, consensus government as a way to undermine the Sunni insurgency and allow US troops to begin pulling out of Iraq. (David Spector)

ICFTU statement on murdered Iraqi trade unionist

IRAQ: Murder of Executive Board member of General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW)

Ibrahim Jaafari
Prime Minister
Office of the Prime Minister
Bagdad
Iraq

By fax: c/o Iraqi Embassy in Brussels:
02/374.76.15

TUR/FW 25 January 2006

Dear Prime Minister,

Murder of Executive Board member of General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW)

I am writing to protest at the murder of brother Alaa Issa Khalaf, Executive Board member of the GFIW, at 7:30 am today. Mr. Khalaf was shot by several unidentified men who were awaiting him outside his house in Bagdad when he left for work.

The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which represents more than 155 million workers through its 236 affiliates in 154 countries and territories, considers this to be a targeted attack on a trade union activist. On a separate matter, the ICFTU is also concerned at reports of government interference in union affairs, namely the GFIW-affiliated engineers' and lawyers' unions.

Mr. Prime Minister, as a member of the International labour Organisation (ILO), Iraq has an obligation to respect the fundamental labour standards established by Convention 87 on freedom of association, regardless of ratification. It is unacceptable that trade unionists should exercise their activities in a climate of violence, and it is your government's responsibility to ensure security for trade unionists.

I therefore strongly urge you to ensure a full and immediate investigation is launched into the murder of Alaa Issa Khalaf, and that adequate steps are taken to provide security for trade unionists, so they can do their legitimate trade union work without having to fear for their security or their lives. Finally, I urge you to ratify ILO Convention 87 on the right to freedom of association.

Yours sincerely,

General Secretary

Arab troops in?

Arab League chief Amr Moussa says Arab countries are willing to discuss sending troops to help stabilise Iraq once U.S.-led forces eventually leave, but only if asked by an Iraqi national unity government. (David Spector)

Disarming the militias

Stanley A Weiss argues in the Asia Times that the semi-private militias which deprive Baghdad of a basic tenet of any sovereign state - a monopoly on the use of coercive force - need to disarm themselves, and offers some historical precedents. (David Spector)

Iraqi resources

A group of Labour MPs has tabled a Commons motion which is as follows: That this House notes the re-broadcast of Between Iraq and a Hard Place on More4 which gave evidence of the theft of Iraq resources since the 2003 invasion as one of the largest in the history of the world; further notes the key findings of the report Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth which states that at an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed; further notes that these estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget; and further notes that under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42 per cent. to 162 per cent., far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12 per cent. return on investment.

Derek Wyatt MP has proposed an amendment which calls on the Government to advise their Iraqi counterparts on the efficacy of a windfall tax.

Optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect

Iraqis and Afghans are among most optimistic people in the world when it comes to their economic future, says a new survey for the BBC.

A progressive agenda for political reform in the Middle East

The Institute for Public Policy Research has published a new pamphlet by David Mepham.

The IPPR summarises it thus: The issue of political reform in the Middle East has never been higher on the international agenda. But it was pushed up that agenda not by progressive governments or political parties – those for whom democracy, human rights, gender equality and social justice are supposed to be defining values - but rather by a right-wing neo-Conservative administration in the United States. In response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, significant voices in the US policy community called for a fundamental shift in US strategy towards the Middle East. They argued that the region’s lack of liberty was a primary cause of Islamic extremism, and that addressing the region’s ‘democracy deficit’ was essential to stem the growth of global terrorism and to enhance the security of the US and its Allies.

The paper has three specific purposes. Firstly, it seeks to assess honestly the current state of the region, the challenges that it faces and how these have arisen. Secondly, it aims to provide a critique of existing ‘reform’ policies towards the Middle East, particularly those of the current US administration but also those pursued by some European governments. Thirdly, it proposes a distinctively ‘progressive’ agenda for supporting political reform in the region.

Iraqi Prospect organisation comment on the elections

Friday, January 20th, 2006

On the 15th of December 2005, Iraqis took to the polls for the third time in a year to vote for their first permanent National Assembly. After numerous complaints submitted to the Independent Iraqi Electoral Commission, the announcement of the results was delayed as the IECI and International Assessment Teams reviewed the voting process relating to these complaints. The ratified results were announced today.

Ali Latif, Chairman of the IPO, reacting to the results said "These elections are a milestone for Iraq's democratisation because of the unprecedented high turnout from all groups in Iraq. It's worth remembering that we only reached this stage because calls for the January elections last year to be postponed made by certain groups which were threatening to boycott the elections were not heeded - and they realised that the democratic process cannot be stalled or circumvented. Again, these same groups were aiming to undermine the democratic process by demanding re-runs of UN approved fair elections, and it seems that these calls are fortunately being ignored. We must show there is only one path available in the new Iraq, and that is the democratic one."

http://www.iprospect.org.uk

Comments on election results

The Times leader concludes that despite fissiparous strains, the commitment of those elected to Iraq’s unity is impressive. The country has passed another milestone on the road to recovery.

I say that this illustrates the need for the labour movement here to do much more to help the labour movement there so that unions and other parts of civil society can contribute to consolidating democracy.

Gary Kent

Iraqi election results

Here are the initial results

Tribune letter criticises breathtaking view

Before Christmas, Robert Taylor argued for troops out of Iraq and his article included the following paragraph: "It will be argued an Anglo-American evacuation from Iraq could not be done overnight. But a strict timetable of June or July next year could be set for the process to end. There is a precedent, although admittedly not one that suggests such a departure would be trouble-free. The exit from India and that country's partition in 1947 cost the lives of millions but it was a cruel necessity. The same can be said for Iraq."

Tribune has published the following from Councillor Clive Furness.

Re the 'Opinion' article by Robert Taylor (Tribune 16th Dec). To regard the
potential death of a million Iraqis as an acceptable price to pay to have
UK/US troops home for the summer is quite simply breathtaking. To view the
British withdrawal from India as an acceptable model for withdrawal defies
belief, coming from someone who is supposedly on the Left and as such is one
who values human life.

In support of his position he prays in aid opinion polls showing that the
occupation is unpopular amongst Iraqis. He neglects to mention that when
Iraqis have been asked when the troops should leave that they have
consistently replied that it should be when the security situation is
resolved.Unlike Mr Taylor, Iraqis do not seem to relish the idea of civil
war.

Lastly Mr Taylor calls upon Iraqis to hold a referendum on the occupation,
and he does this before the votes in the general election have even been
counted.

Something like 70% of Iraqi adults have just voted, (with a choice of 231
parties and 7500 candidates). Perhaps Mr Taylor will now have the humility
to allow Iraqis and those that they have elected to decide about how and
when foreign troops leave Iraq.

Iraqi unions in photographs

The American journalist and frequent commentator on Iraqi labour movement matters David Bacon has a fascinating photodocumentary project which shows people at work on the rigs in the refineries and the ports, their unions and leaders, and their life at home with their families.

Kamm and Anderson debate left and foreign policy

Paul Anderson and Oliver Kamm cross swords – to some degree. Paul makes the pertinent point that that opposition to totalitarianism should be at the very core of foreign policy in every democratic polity.

TUC back journalists’ rights

Journalists adopt Charter for Social and Professional Rights with £10,000 from the TUC Aid Iraq Appeal. The project is being run by the International Federation of Journalists to help journalists establish free trade unions in Iraq and Kurdistan.

Tomb raiders

Former arts minister Mark Fisher writes in the Guardian that the cradle of civilisation is still being looted. He asks: How important is this? For the Iraqis, the damage strikes at the heart of their culture and history. Although the Iraq National Museum was founded only in 1923, it was an institution around which all Iraqis, regardless of religion, could attempt to create some shared national identity. There is also considerable significance for the rest of the world: in these sites are buried the roots of western civilisation. A line of influence (philosophical, scientific, artistic, aesthetic) runs from Mesopotamia through Greece to Rome and on to us. This is the birthplace of historiography in that it was here, in Babylonia, in southern Iraq, that writing was invented 5,000 years ago, when cuneiform, etched on clay tablets, allowed the transmission of ideas, of achievements, of records.

Commons backing for Books to Iraq initiative

LFIQ Chair Dave Anderson MP has tabled a Commons motion in support of the
Books to Iraq Appeal with cross-party support from, so far, members of 4 parties. George Galloway is not one but we understand that he is otherwise engaged.

The Commons Motion reads: That this House believes that Iraq has given the world a great legacy of pharmaceutical and medical knowledge; notes that in addition to the recent conflict and continuing violence, two wars and 12 years of sanctions have had a crippling effect on Iraq's pharmacy education and practice, severely affected access to information resources such as books and journals and imposed a total isolation from the international scientific community; and supports the new initiative Books to Iraq, www.bookstoiraq.org.uk which has been created by pharmacists who wish to contribute to rebuilding Iraqi schools of pharmacy by raising money to send them a range of medical and pharmaceutical textbooks because the safe supply of drugs and drug information is an essential tool of public health which will directly help Iraqi universities, academics and students and indirectly help the wider Iraqi population as well as help replenish the knowledge that Iraq held for humanity in the past.

Fabians debate foreign policy

A workshop at the Fabian Society conference on 14th January examined Global Britain: Must foreign policy divide? The report kindly mentions the following from my own intervention: In a contribution from the floor, Gary Kent of Labour Friends of Iraq, said. ‘Why don’t we ask Iraqis what they want from us. Whatever our positions on the war, we should be able to agree on a policy of solidarity and offer practical assistance to those struggling to build an Iraqi labour movement’.

From making similar comments at other events, I find that there is a ready “market” for the call for solidarity and yet it remains a low priority for much of the British labour movement, which needs convincing that backing Iraqi democrats is not the same thing as backing Bush. There needs to be a step change in the movement her, and internationally, if “our side” – trade unionists, progressives and others – are to stand a chance of influencing the development of Iraqi democracy from within.

Whatever view you took on the war, I urge you please to raise this issue in your local party or union branch and with friends. Time is pressing. This is not an academic debate but a life and death issue for Iraqis many of whom believe that a potent labour movement can unite working people regardless of religion or ethnic identity.

Gary Kent
Director, LFIQ

The workshop speakers were: Haleh Afshar (Professor of Middle Eastern Politics, University of York); Nick Cohen (Observer); John Kampfner (Editor, New Statesman); John Lloyd (Contributing Editor, Financial Times); Chair: Stephen Twigg (Fabian Executive & Foreign Policy Centre)

Iraqi Trade Unions unite for economic sovereignty

The Iraqi economy has been severely affected by decades of sanctions, wars and occupation. The Iraqi trade unions and federations believe in the capacity of the country with all its oil and mineral resources to provide a decent living standard for Iraqis.

The federations and unions consider that the wars and occupation have caused a dramatic decrease in the living and social standards of Iraqis and especially of workers.

The federations and unions stress the importance of complete sovereignty for Iraq over its petroleum and natural resources so as to develop them in a way that assures a complete reconstruction of the country. We wish to stress the following points in regard to the policies of the IMF and World Bank in Iraq:

1) Increasing transparency and additional representation for Iraq in the decision-making structures of the IFIs.

2) To stop imposing structural adjustment conditions for loans.

3) Agreeing to provide funding for public services and state-owned
enterprises without demanding their privatization.

4) Canceling debts owed by Iraq that have resulted from the policies of the former regime.

5) Rejecting the reduction of spending on social services especially the elimination of government support for the food distribution system or the reduction of the number of items covered.

6) Strongly rejecting the privatization of publicly owned entities and especially of the oil, education, health, electricity, transportation and construction sectors.

7) Rejecting the increase in the price of petroleum products, considering the negative impact of the increase on the living standards of Iraqis.

8) Adopting a new labor law and a pension and social security law that assure workers' rights and are in conformity with international labor standards and human rights conventions. The World Bank and the IMF must also respect these standards.

The unions and federations that have signed this statement announce the formation of a permanent coordinating committee that will make its positions known to the Iraqi Government and to the IFIs. They also demand that the IFIs engage in dialogue, discussion and negotiations with the trade union federations regarding their policies in Iraq.

Finally, they request the assistance of international trade union organizations to provide all possible support to the above-mentioned demands.

(Signed)

General Federation of Iraqi Workers
Oil Unions Federation in Iraq / Basra
Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq
Kurdistan General Workers Syndicate Union / Erbil
Iraqi Kurdistan Workers Syndicate Union

Amman, 16 January 2006

Backlash against foreign fighters in Iraq?

Christopher Hitchens wonders if it is Curtains for al-Qaida. The article quotes the following from a Washington Post report - Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city. … Dozens of Sunni members of the Dulaimi tribe established cordons around Shiite homes, and Sunni men battled followers of Zarqawi, a Jordanian, for an hour Saturday morning. The clashes killed five of Zarqawi's guerrillas and two tribal fighters, residents and hospital workers said. Zarqawi loyalists pulled out of two contested neighborhoods in pickup trucks stripped of license plates, witnesses said.

Harry Barnes gives a personal response to Andrew Murray

I am not writing to defend Oliver Kamm, whose work takes the bulk of Andrew Murray’s criticisms in the three-part series you published on 28, 29, 30 December. But I do find Murray’s analysis to be seriously flawed.

He tells us that he is discussing the question of a division of opinion on the left over the need for the continuing presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Yet he centres on the works of Kamm, whose “claim to be on the left at all is rather thin.” This is to admit that Kamm is being used as no more than an Aunt Sally. So maybe those of us who have stronger claims to be on the left should intervene.

I hope that being a former columnist in the ‘Morning Star’ and being active for 17 years in the Socialist Campaign Group will give me sufficient street cred.

I believe that it is his misuse of the concepts of “anti-imperialism”, “totalitarianism,” and “terrorism” which lead Murray into a mistaken call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. This is not where the left should now stand.

1. Murray’s whole approach is made through the prism of his own form of “anti-imperialism.” But the scope of his brand of anti-imperialism is both too narrow and too broad at the same time.

First, he skirts around the problem of Soviet Imperialism in the l930s. Claiming that Kamm comes forward with no evidence of this. Secondly, he claims that British Imperialism was far worse in any case.

His second argument, of course, hits the point of his first argument on the head . Perhaps he realises that Soviet Bloc Imperialism did exist. It attempted to regain what it could of the earlier Russian Empire, such as the Northern Caucasus (including Chechnya,) Transcausia and Central Asia. The threat of Communism and Atheism were anathema to many Muslims and others. Now whether the comrades were right or wrong, they were certainly Imperialists. Perhaps Murray means that they were good Imperialists.

The fact that British Imperialism was more widespread and capitalist than Soviet Imperialism, doesn’t mean that the later either did not exist nor is beyond any criticism.

Murray even gives a chuck on to Kadar’s Hungary which came into being in 1956. Whilst it is generally recognised that Kadar introduced a period of economic reform and relative liberalism into Hungary, he did it on the back of Soviet tanks and Soviet Imperialism.

Some of us were on the side of Imre Nagy in 1956 who lead a liberalised Communist experiment which the Soviet Union attacked. I remember attending a Communist Party Rally at Newcastle, where I cheered John Gollan the General Secretary of the British Communist Party when he attacked the British invasion of Egypt; then booed him over his defence of the invasion of Hungary . I was against both forms of Imperialism.

Anti-imperialists, such as Murray and myself need to face up to some post-colonial problems. Imperialism isn’t the only problem. Its analysis doesn’t lead us to all-embracing solutions.

Whilst the left invariably and correctly support anti-colonial struggles, we have to accept that successes lead on to mixed results. In sub-Saharan Africa, despite massive difficulties, some hopes are high. Tanzania, Ghana, Mozambique and South Africa are achieving more than could have been expected. But we have also seen the aberrations of Banda, Mobuto, Amin, Mengistu and now Mugabe.

The question is how we can aid and encourage developments in poor countries, who are subject to the worst impacts of globalisation, debts and unfair trade. For their social fabric is liable to crack under such weights.

Of course, we must try to see that these burdens are removed and that progressive alternatives such as the Tobin Tax are put in their place. But even whilst we wait (and wait) for serious measures of success, we should also aid locally based developments towards the hinterland of democracy. It will not work out otherwise.

I agree, however, with Murray’s final words, that “bourgeois democracy just can’t be left to the bourgeois to look after.” (Which probably puts both of us in our place.)

After all, following the Iraqi revolution of 1958 it was their Communist Party which was the major advocate of bourgeois democracy, as a base for working people to find space within the political system.

Unfortunately, events (mainly around Saddam Hussein) literally killed off those hopes until recently.

However it came about, we should not miss a fresh chance to support those in Iraq who look for bourgeois democracy - especially from the non-bourgeoisie. In Iraq and elsewhere we should be on the side of secular , civil rights advocates who are a potential labour, feminist, youth and community-based movement. It is in their interests that we should unequivocally oppose terrorism as well as excesses by foreign troops.

2. Murray claims that the term “totalitarianism” is a post-war invention, directed at Communism. Well, not exactly.

The term was coined by Mussolini in the early 1920’s to describe and praise the new fascist State of Italy and was encapsulated in his phrase “all within the state, non outside”. For like Thatcher, Mussolini believed that there was no such thing as society.

To provide what he thought couldn’t develop naturally, Mussolini was for incorporating splintered and disruptive factors into an Italian Nation under his strict control. It is generally recognised that Mussolini failed to achieve his target, but that Hitler and Saddam Hussein came much nearer. As Bin Laden et al would do given half a chance.

Modern mass techniques of military, cultural and social incorporation have been greatly advanced under modern technology and have aided such forms of totalitarianism.

It is quite possible for any form of State to develop totalitarian characteristics. For instance, liberal-style democracies may allow citizens the vote, but manipulate affairs so that its electors have little or no say over decisions which control their lives. In “One Dimensional Man”, Marcuse wrote of situations where forms of liberty are subverted into instances of dominance. The institutional arrangements of liberal bourgeois democracy tend, however, to act as a stumbling block to fully fledged Orwellian totalitarian methods.

The opportunities for effective countervailing forces to emerge can be much less in Nazi, Baathist, Theocratic and Military Regimes. Even though the term might fit such regimes more fully, it is no surprise that it can be applied to Stalinism also. For once the workers soviets had been subverted, the possibilities of checks and balances, free assembly and publication, and uncontrolled pressure groups went out of the window. I accept that by adding certain plusses to these disturbing minuses, actual Communism wasn’t as bad an experience as that of the main Right Wing Regimes I indicated above; but it was worse than in many regimes with serious bourgeois-democratic pretensions.

I am worried that when Murray tries to shield Communist Regimes from the charge of totalitarianism, that he moves a shield that should really be used to protect us from modern forms of fascism.

Despite all the problems around Bush and that side of America which displays militarist, plutocratic and Christian fundamentalist instincts, the biggest threat of fascist totalitarianism in today’s world comes from groups such as Al-Qaeda.

3. The difference between Murray and myself on the issue of “terrorism” is that I am reluctant to give it any form of excuse except in the most extreme of cases, such as the ANC fighting apartheid in South Africa with widespread popular support. Murray is at the other extreme. He will only condemn most terrorism when it is seen as being completely ineffective or counter-productive as with the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Brigade.

There is a universe between our positions , which is illustrated over our attitudes to the IRA. Murray feels that it was Government intransigence which led to IRA terrorism being necessary to get us to the Belfast Agreement. But I believe that if the Provisional IRA hadn’t stepped in to subvert a position headed by People’s Democracy and others, we could have reached where we are now, a long time ago.

Trade links between the Republic and the North were blocked for decades by the consequences of terrorism, such as blocked roads by the military and rail attacks by the paramilitary. Yet as Karl Marx pointed out transformations in the superstructures of society tend to consolidate shifts in their (mainly) economic base. I don’t know why the island of Ireland would violate this insight. Except in constitutional terms, we could now almost have had a de facto united Ireland. Sinn Fein and the IRA lost out by going for the shadow and not the substance.

Even without my above argument, I would have opposed terrorism in Northern Ireland. It could never be justified in the circumstances; either by those seeking a United Ireland or a United Kingdom.

The constitutional and political set-up of Northern Ireland was open to reform; although reforms are not always simple things to achieve

Then look as to what violence led us to. In working class areas there is a greater physical separation between Catholic and Protestant Communities that at any time in the islands history.

How can you build united working class social bonds in such circumstances? Campaigns such as that for Integrated Education have to try to step in to fill the breach.

I just can’t understand how someone who is opposed generally to war, can not adopt the same attitude to terrorism.

4. It is differences over terms such as Imperialism, Totalitarianism and Terrorism that lead Murray and myself to have opposed perceptions about what should be done in Iraq. I will illustrate this by reference to the position of Al-Qaeda. I feel that variations on the same theme could apply to others such as Ansar Al-Islam, Saddam Loyalists and the Mehdi Army .

Al-Qaeda’s claim (as recognise by Murray) is that terrorism is a consequence of the existence of Israel, the US Military presence in Muslim lands and the earlier sanctions on Iraq.

Such matters may gain Al-Qaeda recruits, but they attract most recruits because they also offer crusades against infidels . Jews are dealt with as destroyers of Muslim life, which is a mirror image of what people such as Wagner and Hitler perceived for their wider Germanys. There is to be no two State solution for Palestine and Israel, just the latter’s complete destruction. It is gas chamber thinking.

Al-Qaeda would introduce an extreme form of Shariah law. The crude way in which this would destroy the life of women would further consume everyone’s lives when extended to the remaining matters of supposed justice. We have already seen a dry run of this with the Taliban.

Just in case Al-Qaeda’s fascist and totalitarian dreams are fulfilled in Muslim lands, their case against America, homosexuals and non-conformism generally help to keep alive its obsession with terrorism and suicide bombing from here to their and our eternity.

From what we see happening day by day in Iraq, it isn’t just people on the London Underground or in New York skyscrapers who need defending from this evil non-sense, it applies even more fully and urgently to the Iraqi people, especially their non-bourgeoisie .

I don’t need to be told that it is all the fault of Bush and the American Power-Elite. I absorbed the lessons of C. Wright Mill on the later years ago and have quoted from him ever since.

It was because such understandings are natural to me that I was on the initial platform of “Labour Against the War”. I’m also aware that I could since have stayed put and bleated “I told you so” each time new disasters hit Iraq. But what about the missed opportunities instead to support the people in Iraq who are attempting to build a decent future?

I am not asking Andrew Murray to go back on his stand against the War, but to follow its logic which is to try and help in the salvation of the Iraqi people. This does not mean surrendering to some neocon agenda. In fact, it means the we on the left take on the agenda we understand. Co-operation, democratic participation, civic freedoms and social equality.

Democratic Socialists should avoid the twin dangers of New Labour and the New Fascism.

Don’t desert labour movements in Islamic countries

This wide ranging piece by Shalom Lappin in Dissent deserves reading in full but is strong in its criticisms of those left-wing participants in alliance with religious extremists pursuing a totalitarian theocratic vision who have effectively become advocates of the Islamists’ agenda. They have abandoned labor unionists, human rights activists, democrats, and feminists in Islamic countries, as well as in their own, in deference to their jihadist confederates. For this part of the left, its peculiar notion of anti-imperialism does not so much take precedence over progressive political concerns as replace them. Anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism have exhausted its content to the point that it has become ripe for merger and acquisition by militant Islamic jihadists posing as the representatives of the third world poor struggling against Western domination.

The author explores how social democracy can become effective globally.

Hat Tip: Engage

Protest to free jailed Iranian union leader!

12-2pm, Saturday 7 January 2006
BBC Persian Section
Bush House
The Strand
London WC2B 4PH
(nearest tube: Holborn)

Bus workers in the Iranian capital Tehran have called for a worldwide day of action this Saturday, 7 January, to press for the immediate release of their union leader, Mansoor Ossanlou, who is being held without any charges in Evin Prison.

Labour movement, Iranian exile and solidarity activists will be protesting outside the BBC’s Persian Section in London to raise the issue.

Bus drivers in Tehran will put up a poster on their screens with the words "Mansoor Ossanlou must be released" and drive with their lights on all day.

Ossanlou, the head of the Union of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company (Sherkat e Vahed), has been held without any charges since 22
December. So far negotiations with Tehran’s Mayor, Mohammad Bagher
Ghalibaf, for his release and over a series of other demands have produced no results.

Activists are gravely concerned that the regime is buying time and is planning to frame Ossanlou and other activists on trumped up charges.

Following a successful strike on Sunday 25 December in protest at the arrests, a number of their imprisoned colleagues were released. The workers have appealed to labour movement organisations around the world for support.

Please send your letters of protest to the Islamic Republic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at ahmadinejad@president.ir and copy to houzan73@yahoo.co.uk

Clive Furness opens up LFIQ Questions and Answers

We have addressed a number of meetings of constituency general committees and council Labour Groups since September 2005. These have always provoked interesting discussions and there are some questions that are often repeated. We include some of them here with our responses.

If you have a question for LFIQ on issues relating to Iraq please email LFIQ

Q Won’t the new constitution and the elections lead to a break up of the Iraqi state?

A Commentators have increasingly suggested that Iraq is heading towards a disintegration based upon religion or ethnicity, (Kurdish north, Arab Shia south and east, Sunni Arab centre and west). This cannot be completely ruled out. However there are strong indicators to suggest that it will not happen.

In a poll conducted for the BBC in December 2005, the results showed that some 70% of Iraqis supported a single unified state and some 60% supported a democratic system as their favoured system of government.

In popular discourse the Shi’ites of Iraq are commonly linked to Iran, understandably because they share a common religious heritage. This does, however, ignore the wide range of opinion within the Shi’ite community, much of which is currently linked directly to religious leaders because of the distrust of politicians.

Some groups are certain to have received overt or tacit support from Iran. Where this is tactical alliance it should not be confused with a desire on the part of Shi’ite Iraqis to become part of a greater Persia.

The Kurds have a long history of oppression under Saddam, but also at the hands of Arab and military rulers in Baghdad pre-Saddam Iraq. Opinion polls in the north have frequently shown widespread support for an independent Kurdistan. However, the political leadership of the two major Kurdish parties have always talked in terms of regional autonomy within a federal state, never of independence. And for very good reason.

UDI would invite the intervention of the Iraqi army to recover land and the oil beneath it. Independence, in the unlikely event that it would be part of a formal treaty would invite the unwanted attentions of two powerful neighbours, Iran and Turkey, both of whom have acted to suppress thoughts of Kurdish nationalism at home and both of which have interfered in Iraqi Kurdistan as their policy needs dictated. Generally, the more remote Iraqi Kurdistan has become from Baghdad, the greater freedom neighbouring powers have had to intervene. Although it would be popular amongst Iraq’s Kurds, it is unlikely to become part of the policy of any of the major Iraqi Kurdish parties.

The Sunni Arab population have consistently shown the greatest desire to remain part of a unified Iraq. They have shown no desire to secede.

The other communities do not have the critical mass to secede.

Q Opinion polls consistently show the widespread hostility of Iraqis towards British and US troops. It is their presence in Iraq that incites the actions of the resistance. If we were to bring the troops back the reason for the insurgency would end.

A The question (or statement) assumes that the insurgency is both unified and aimed purely at the British and American troops. Neither of these assumptions is correct.

It also assumes that withdrawal of British and US troops will lead to a peaceful settlement. This belies the statements of some of the insurgents themselves.

It is always dangerous to simplify, but there are two distinct trends within the so-called resistance. The first is the Baathist/Nationalist, the second the Salafist/Religious.

Within the first are those linked very closely to the old regime, including some at least from within the intelligence services, the mukhabbarat and the istakhabbarat. Whereas there is universal condemnation of the old regime and its systematic use of terror and oppression against its own people there are some who seek to view the worst elements of a fascistic regime as some kind of genuine resistance. (see for example repeated references in The Guardian)

Added to these are elements inspired by Arab nationalism or simply appalled by some of the results of the actions of occupation forces.

Sooner or later a deal will have to be done with this wider group, drawing them into the political process. To recall the famous phrase of LB Johnson, it will be better to have them inside the tent…… The participation of the Sunni Arab community in the December 2005 elections is a welcome sign of progress in this area.

With regard to the smaller in number Salafists, their stated aim is for civil war and the removal of ‘apostate’ Shi’ites from Iraq. They have deliberately targeted civilians, children and worshippers to create the greatest number of casualties. It is difficult to see how any deal could be done with them and there can be little hope or expectation of negotiation or compromise with them. Dealing with them will ultimately become one of the longer term problems that the newly elected government will have to address.

One commentator writing in the left-wing newspaper Tribune recently suggested that the solution was to withdraw foreign troops immediately and let Iraqis sort out their problems (ignoring the fact that the most homicidal elements are themselves non-Iraqis). He gave as a blueprint, the British withdrawal from India in which over one million people were killed in inter-communal violence, suggesting that such a result would be preferable to a continued occupation by foreign troops.

LFIQ draws its support from people both, who opposed and who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The suggestion that massive inter-communal violence was an acceptable price to bring troops home early is one that we reject. Whether one supports the presence of British and US (and other) troops in Iraq, there is a job that needs to be done until Iraqi security forces are in a position to do the whole job themselves. It would be the height of irresponsibility to withdraw before that is possible.

We are equally clear that the time for British troops to begin to withdraw is the day after they are asked to do so by the elected government of Iraq.

Q Would it not be better to remove US troops and replace them with UN peacekeepers?

A The US troops are in Iraq under UN Security Council Resolutions 1546 and 1637, by which the UN Security Council has given a mandate for the multi-national force until December 31st 2006. This is true for all of the British, Polish, Italian, Ukrainian, Australian etc troops who are presently operating in Iraq. The question assumes that there is a role for peacekeepers. Until there is a settlement, there isn’t a peace to keep. After there is a political settlement a changed role for UN sponsored forces cannot be ruled out, but this role is more likely to be done by Iraqi forces.

Q The Sunnis are opposed to the new constitution. How can it work without their participation?

There is a problem with the premise of the question. There are approx 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq and around 4 million Sunni Kurds. Whilst Sunni Arabs have been largely hostile to the changes, Sunni Kurds have been overwhelmingly supportive. The use of the term ‘Sunni’ has often been used to ignore or deny the religious heritage of Iraqi Kurds.

In the January 2005 election Sunni Arabs stayed away from the polls. How much this was a matter of principle and how much a matter of intimidation has never been established. In the December 2005 elections Sunni Arabs voted in large numbers for the first time.

The trend is clear. The is a movement from within the Sunni Arab community towards engagement in the new constitution and the democratic process. This does not mean that the insurgency will end, but it is a necessary step toward that end.

Q The elections are a farce. How can you have a free election when the country is under the occupation of foreign troops?

A The assertion at the beginning of the question is stated as a fact, whereas it is only an opinion. In our view, it is an opinion that is quite simply incorrect and it is one that insults the bravery of millions of Iraqis who turned out to cast their votes in the face of considerable personal danger.

The post-WWII elections in Germany and Japan were conducted under the auspices of the occupying forces of the victorious powers, (ironically the US played a major role in these as well). More recently in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan this was also the case. The evidence is that whilst occupying forces might well invalidate the elections (see for example Soviet troops in Afghanistan) it is not the presence of troops so much as their role in the process and the policy that they are supporting that is determinant. Where foreign troops have operated to promote security and facilitate free elections there has been a genuine and widespread participation. In the recent (December) elections in Iraq there were over 230 parties and 7500 candidates seeking electoral support. There was a turnout of over 70%. There have also been reports of malpractice. Although these do seem to be limited to less than 70 ballot boxes out of a total of 31,000 ballot boxes.

The initial results suggest that the United Iraqi Alliance (Shia) will get 119 seats in the assembly; The Democratic and Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan will have 47 seats; The Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni Arab) 37; The Iraqi National List (Left/Democrat) 15; Hewar National Iraqi Front (Cross-community coalition of Kurds, Arabs, Yezdis and Christians); Others 4. In addition 45 seats will be allocated to parties that did well nationally but failed to get a large enough number of local seats.

Q Saddam is facing a show trial. It is neither fair nor just.

A It is worth recollecting whence the term ‘show trial’ comes from. It came from the Soviet Union of the 1930’s when the ‘trials’ took on the aspect of theatre over justice. There were no juries and no independence of the judiciary from either Party or State. An accusation was followed by a confession and all too often summary execution or slow death in the ‘Gulag’.

The ‘crimes’ were often that the accused ‘thought’ something, not that he did something. Crimes of the imagination, “thought crimes” were created. Some ‘crimes’ did not have to be thought, it was sufficient that the accused might think them in the future. They were the mechanism whereby a body of potential opposition to Stalin, within the CP of the USSR, was removed and the rest was cowed.

In a time before television, the proceedings were filmed and offered for widespread distribution.

There was neither defence nor appeal.

Compare this with the trial of Saddam. He has a team of hundreds of lawyers; at one time it was over 1000 and from many countries. It is apparent that he has made no confession, indeed he has attempted to refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the court and in an attempt to allow him to speak he has been able to rail and rant in the attempt to make a political case rather than a legal case in his own defence.

The trial is conducted before a panel of judges and a jury. It is too early to make judgements on the independence of the judiciary, all of whom have suffered death threats against themselves or their families, but some firm evidence should be adduced before they are accused of being in anyone’s pocket.

Saddam’s behaviour in the dock and the judges response is far closer to that of Milosovic and the UN special tribunal in the Hague rather than a of a dissident communist of the 1930’s.

Lastly, great pains have been taken to ensure that the crimes of which Saddam is accused are real and that there is evidence, not simply that the crimes occurred, but which links Saddam to them. The first trial links him directly to the death of between 130-140 Shi’ite villagers. There are other counts pending which link him to the deaths of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

If you have a question that you would like a response to please email it to LFIQ. If you would like your name to be quoted, please make that clear in the correspondence.

This page is maintained by volunteers and we do not guarantee to make a response to every query.

LFIQ backs conference on democratic consolidation in Iraq

Learning from Precedent: the prospects for democratic consolidation in Iraq, lessons from other cases

Saturday 7th January 2006 (1pm-6pm please note revised start time)
The Board Room
Town House 102
Kingston University
Penrhyn Road Campus
Kingston Upon Thames
(Directions at bottom of this email)

In the aftermath of the Iraqi election the debate on the prospects for democratic consolidation in Iraq will be more intense than ever. The Helen Bamber Centre, the Labour Friends of Iraq, the UK Iraqi Community Association and the Centre for Federal Studies,University of Kent, have combined to arrange an afternoons discussion on theme of democratic consolidation on Saturday 7th January 2006 at Kingston University. Our object is to develop the seminar held in the summer on the theme of Learning from Precedent and explore the extent to which other cases of post-conflict transition to democracy hold clues and provide blueprints/lessons for the prospects for democratic consolidation in Iraq. The event is primarily designed for Iraqis involved in building democracy in Iraq and the aim is one of capacity building through exchange and discussion.


1.00-2.30: Opening Plenary:

Democratic Consolidation: An overview

Professor Gerard Alexander, Univeristy of Virginia, author of the highly acclaimed, The Sources of Democratic Consolidation (Cornell University Press, 2002)

3.00-5.00: Panel discussion
Dr. Joan Maholloy LSE, Professor Michael Burgess, Kent, Abdullah Muhsin, Philip Spencer, Kingston

5.00-6.00: Conclusing discussion

Travel Directions

How to get to Penrhyn Road - detailed travel directions
By train and bus
By car

By train and bus

Train from London Waterloo to Surbiton

Exit railway station to left

Cross mini roundabout to Lloyds TSB bank in Claremont Road

Bus stop is in front of Waitrose. The following buses are routed via Penrhyn Road: 71, 281, 406, 465, 479, K2, K3

Ask bus driver for correct stop.

By car

NB: There is very limited parking at Penrhyn Road, you are advised to use a public car park. The nearest one is in The Bittoms, just off Penrhyn Road (see map).

From the North:

M1 to junction 6a (M25)

M25 to junction 13 (A30)

A30 to A308

A308 to Hampton Court roundabout

Turn right, signposted 'Guildford, A3, A309' - this route avoids Kingston one way system

A309 to second roundabout (Scilly Isles). First turn on left (A307)

A307 (Portsmouth Road, High Street) to Kingston. River appears on left

At mini roundabout turn right (Kingston Hall Rd)

Right at next (College) roundabout, signposted 'University - Penrhyn Rd'

Penrhyn Road campus is about half a mile on left along road.
From the South:

M25 to junction 9 (A243)

A243 to junction with A3 at Hook roundabout

Straight over roundabout (Hook Road)

Hook Road until mini roundabout

Straight over roundabout (Upper Brighton Rd)

At T junction, turn right (Portsmouth Rd), river on left

At mini roundabout turn right (Kingston Hall Rd)

Right at next (College) roundabout, signposted 'University - Penrhyn Rd'

Penrhyn Road campus is about half a mile on left along road.
From London:

A3 from London to Tolworth roundabout

Third exit, signposted 'A240'

A240 (Ewell Road, Surbiton Hill Road, Penrhyn Road) for about two miles

Penrhyn Road campus is on right of Penrhyn Road (A240), opposite County Hall.