Why are not the Iraqi unions centre stage

There is a strange gap in some of the lefts analysis and actions on Iraq three years after the invasion. Some seem more concerned about settling scores at home than engaging with new realities in Iraq, specifically the rise of a new and independent labour movement.

It’s almost as if it’s more important to bash Bush and Blair than give solidarity to Iraqi unions and other parts of the new civil society.

Will we be really happy to say “I told you so” to those who supported military action or is it much more important to assist those non-sectarian forces which are working night and day to unite workers for a federal, democratic and secular Iraq.

The Iraqi trade union movement was once been the most powerful in the Middle East. The May Day rally in Baghdad in 1959 attracted half a million people in a country with a population of about 7 million.

Saddam Hussein’s fascist-type regime annihilated independent political activity. Saddam established state-controlled “yellow unions” as part of his apparatus of terror. Trade union leaders were tortured, imprisoned, executed or exiled. By the time of Saddam’s fall in 2003 the unions had been reduced to a few hundred clandestine or exiled activists.

Since then, however, the main Iraqi trade union movement – now called the Iraqi Workers’ Federation as a result of a recent merger sanctioned by the Arab trade union confederation – has recruited about 200,000 members. There are professional associations for teachers and journalists as well as separate but fraternal unions in Iraqi Kurdistan. With several hundred thousands members, the unions have become a significant movement, all in the most dreadful conditions.

The unions have been attacked by American troops. A score of its leaders has been assassinated by insurgents who presumably fear the ability of non-sectarian organisations to unite Sunni, Shia and others. Its international secretary, Hadi Saleh escaped execution by Saddam but was tortured and strangled to death by remnants of his secret police who stole union membership records.

The new Iraqi government has also cracked down on the unions by bringing in Decree 8750 that freezes their assets and seeks to control their activities. This is the subject of a worldwide union campaign.

Unison has led the way in providing training. The Fire Brigades Union has sent containers of essential equipment such as fire-resistant uniforms and breathing apparatus. The RMT has supplied computers and the TUC runs a solidarity fund.

Sadly, parts of the left have not just sat on their hands but have smeared the new unions as collaborators, stooges and Quislings.

This hostility arose because Iraqi unions didn’t embrace calls at the 2004 Labour Party conference for a rapid withdrawal of troops. As one Iraqi put it, ‘We didn’t invite the troops in but we’d like a say on when they go.’

The Iraqi unions have accomplished something that some left-wingers here have signally failed to do – they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

They can oppose the invasion and seek the eventual withdrawal of troops but also recognise that the UN sanctioned political process – which has seen three popular votes with increasing participation, not least from Sunnis – might deliver a new dispensation in which unions can help to retrieve both the territorial as well as the economic sovereignty of their country.

The bile directed at the Iraqi labour movement is a betrayal of elementary principles of internationalism and is one of the most shameful points in the history of the British left.

Iraq is on the brink. It’s possible that the violence will tip into a full-scale civil war in which the hard-won gains of the labour movement will be extinguished for a long time.

It’s also still possible that most Iraqis will resist the temptation to retaliate to obscene provocations. Whether now or later, trade unions and other civil society groups can do much to heal the deep wounds of Iraqi society after so many decades of repression, violence, sanctions and occupation.

Iraqi trade unionists are amongst the bravest and clearest sighted I have ever met. Take Violet A Essa Qalaab, President of the Oil and Gas Union in Basra, who says: "Iraq is the only home we have and, God willing, extremists will be worn out by our resilience. But we cannot do it by ourselves alone and we need the support of the UN and the international community."

What is stopping the anti-war left and the pro-war left from sinking their deep differences, as we do, and embracing sisters like Violet?

It won’t be enough when our children ask us “what did you do over the Iraq war” to say that we kicked Bush and Blair whenever we could and didn’t lift a finger to help Violet and the Iraqi labour movement who are fighting for social justice and decency.

Gary Kent is director of Labour Friends of Iraq. He writes in a personal capacity.

Students against civil war

University students in Basra fight sectarian violence. (Thanks to Harry’s Place)

Civil war or Civil Society?

With recent reports concentrating on whether there is/will be/
is not a civil war in Iraq the more obvious benefits of reconstruction tend to be ignored. Here is news about over 600 Community Action Groups throughout Iraq and here is how the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific research is attempting to bridge the gap in science and technology, which previously separated Saddam's Iraq from the rest of the world, by sending over 1,000 students to the most prestigious overseas universities to complete their Doctorates. (David Spector)

Nick Cohen on Kember

Nick Cohen examines the Kember affair and concludes the following - Yet at least Kember and his colleagues made a commitment to Iraq. They may have done no good, they may have put better and braver men in danger, yet they strike me as preferable to the majority of European liberals who have sat out the conflict.

Civilians are massacred at random: silence. Al-Qaeda hits as many Shia mosques as it can in the hope of provoking a civil war: silence again. No condemnations of barbarism are offered for fear of giving the smallest support to George W Bush and Tony Blair.

The price that has already been paid is a shrivelling of the liberal conscience. If you refuse to take sides in Iraq, you can't take them anywhere else. From Burma to Darfur, crimes against humanity that would have produced outrage in the Nineties are met with indifference today.

Three Years On...(Continued)

The third anniversary continues to focus pro and anti-invasion views. Here is a review of Iraqi problems and possible solutions, from both sides of the argument.

Dlawer Ala'Alduen at openDemocracy argues that Iraq will only become stabilised once Iran and Syria stop attempting to influence the political and military situation.

Senator Edward Kennedy argues that President Bush should immediately convene a summit of Iraqi groups and leaders to support the creation of a broad-based national unity government and encourage the leaders to give the highest priorities to the compromises essential to avoid civil war. The Arab League should be encouraged as well to continue to facilitating dialogue between Iraqis. We also strongly support the United Nations' effort to establish a regional contact group of Iraq's neighbors. It's essential to find effective ways to increase trust between Iraq and its neighbors, and to minimize their intervention if conditions continue to deteriorate.

A National Review Online symposium offers an alternative American interpretation. Peter Brookes argues against a withdrawal, saying that it will leave a vacuum for al Qaeda, Iran or Syria to fill.

Laurie King-Irani concentrates on the historical context of the invasion. Although Iraq's
infrastructure needs repair, and the population need social and psychological healing and regeneration there are many possibilities for a highly literate society with a wealth of natural resources. (David Spector)

An American communist view of Iraqi situation

The Peoples Weekly World newspaper which enjoys a special relationship with the Communist Party USA carries this interesting viewpoint on the current struggle of Communists in Iraq – a view that could be adopted by more Communists in Britain and elsewhere. Gary Kent

Q: Obviously you oppose terrorism, but what position do American Communists take toward the homegrown (non-al-Qaeda) resistance to the U.S./British occupation? Do you support the armed resistance? If so, where does this position fit into the overall class struggle in Iraq and beyond? If not, how do you reconcile this position with your anti-imperialist stance?

A: We support the difficult struggle of the Iraqi Communist Party, along with the trade unions, women's organizations and other democratic forces in Iraq, to build broad, nonsectarian national unity in order to both rid themselves of foreign occupation and construct a democratic society that is not under the thumb of imperialism and reactionary forces.

We believe that the struggle for democracy is a key part of the class struggle and the struggle against imperialism. Armed forces that target the civilian population hinder the development of broad unity among all sectors of the Iraqi people. Armed forces that have the aim of installing theocratic or other reactionary government are anti-democratic.

In crisis situations especially, Communist parties in each country have a special responsibility to their people to carefully and soberly assess the political balance of forces and the mood and concerns of the people, to help find the methods of struggle that can achieve the national and democratic aims of the working class and its allies without violence if at all possible. We believe that the Communist Party and working class in each country is best qualified to make such assessments regarding their own country.

We believe that all peoples have the right to resist dictatorship and foreign occupation and to determine for themselves how they will do so. We Communists are humanists, and we see armed struggle as the very last resort, something to be avoided, unless it is forced on the people when all other, peaceful means of struggle have been exhausted or become impossible. In all such cases, we keep in mind that the poor and working-class people usually pay the heaviest price.

Not a Clash between Civilisations, but a Clash about Civilisation

This speech by the Prime Minister ranges wide over the state of UK foreign policy which he says has been strongly activist, justifying our actions, even if not always successfully, at least as much by reference to values as interests. We have constructed a foreign policy agenda that has sought to link, in values, military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq with diplomatic action on climate change, world trade, Africa and Palestine.

He says that jihadist terror will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core. By this I don’t mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Koran.

He says that What happens in Iraq or Afghanistan today is not just crucial for the people in those countries or even in those regions; but for our security here and round the world. It is a cause that has none of the debatable nature of the decisions to go for regime change; it is an entirely noble one – to help people in need of our help in pursuit of liberty; and a self-interested one, since in their salvation lies our own security.

The speech is in full here.

Speech by the Prime Minister to the Foreign Policy Centre and Reuters, London

“Not a Clash between Civilisations, but a Clash about Civilisation”

21 March 2006

Over these past nine years, Britain has pursued a markedly different foreign policy. We have been strongly activist, justifying our actions, even if not always successfully, at least as much by reference to values as interests. We have constructed a foreign policy agenda that has sought to link, in values, military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq with diplomatic action on climate change, world trade, Africa and Palestine. I set out the basis for this in the Chicago speech of 1999 where I called for a doctrine of international community, and again in the speech to the US Congress in July 2003.

The basic thesis is that the defining characteristic of today’s world is its interdependence; that whereas the economics of globalisation are well matured, the politics of globalisation are not; and that unless we articulate a common global policy based on common values, we risk chaos threatening our stability, economic and political, through letting extremism, conflict or injustice go unchecked.

The consequence of this thesis is a policy of engagement not isolation; and one that is active not reactive.

Confusingly, its proponents and opponents come from all sides of the political spectrum. So it is apparently a “neo-conservative” ie right wing view, to be ardently in favour of spreading democracy round the world; whilst others on the right take the view that this is dangerous and deluded – the only thing that matters is an immediate view of national interest. Some progressives see intervention as humanitarian and necessary; others take the view that provided dictators don’t threaten our citizens directly, what they do with their own, is up to them.

The debate on world trade has thrown all sides into an orgy of political cross-dressing. Protectionist sentiment is rife on the left; on the right, there are calls for “economic patriotism”; meanwhile some voices left and right, are making the case for free trade not just on grounds of commerce but of justice.

The true division in foreign policy today is between: those who want the shop “open”, or those who want it “closed”; those who believe that the long-term interests of a country lie in it being out there, engaged, interactive and those who think the short-term pain of such a policy and its decisions, too great. This division has strong echoes in debates not just over foreign policy and trade but also over immigration.

Progressives may implement policy differently from conservatives, but the fault lines are the same.

Where progressive and conservative policy can differ is that progressives are stronger on the challenges of poverty, climate change and trade justice. I have no doubt at all it is impossible to gain support for our values, unless the demand for justice is as strong as the demand for freedom; and the willingness to work in partnership with others is an avowed preference to going it alone, even if that may sometimes be necessary.

I believe we will not ever get real support for the tough action that may well be essential to safeguard our way of life; unless we also attack global poverty and environmental degradation or injustice with equal vigour.

Neither in defending this interventionist policy do I pretend that mistakes have not been made or that major problems do not confront us and there are many areas in which we have not intervened as effectively as I would wish, even if only by political pressure. Sudan, for example; the appalling deterioration in the conditions of the people of Zimbabwe; human rights in Burma; the virtual enslavement of the people of North Korea.

I also acknowledge – and shall at a later time expand on this point – that the state of the MEPP and the stand-off between Israel and Palestine remains a, perhaps the, real, genuine source of anger in the Arab and Muslim world that goes far beyond usual anti-western feeling. The issue of “even handedness” rankles deeply. I will set out later how we should respond to Hamas in a way that acknowledges its democratic mandate but seeks to make progress peacefully.

So this is not an attempt to deflect criticism or ignore the huge challenges which remain; but to set out the thinking behind the foreign policy we have pursued.

Over the next few weeks, I will outline the implication of this agenda in three speeches, including this one. In this, the first, I will describe how I believe we can defeat global terrorism and why I believe victory for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is a vital element of doing that. In the second, I shall outline the importance of a broad global alliance to achieve our common goals. In the third, in America, I shall say how the international institutions need radical reform to make them capable of implementing such an agenda, in a strong and effective multilateral way. But throughout all three, I want to stress why this concept of an international community, based on core, shared values, prepared actively to intervene and resolve problems, is an essential pre-condition of our future prosperity and stability.

It is in confronting global terrorism today that the sharpest debate and disagreement is found. Nowhere is the supposed “folly” of the interventionist case so loudly trumpeted as in this case. Here, so it is said, as the third anniversary of the Iraq conflict takes place, is the wreckage of such a world view. Under Saddam Iraq was “stable”. Now its stability is in the balance. Ergo, it should never have been done.

This is essentially the product of the conventional view of foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This view holds that there is no longer a defining issue in foreign policy. Countries should therefore manage their affairs and relationships according to their narrow national interests. The basic posture represented by this view is: not to provoke, to keep all as settled as it can be and cause no tectonic plates to move. It has its soft face in dealing with issues like global warming or Africa; and reserves its hard face only if directly attacked by another state, which is unlikely. It is a view which sees the world as not without challenge but basically calm, with a few nasty things lurking in deep waters, which it is best to avoid; but no major currents that inevitably threaten its placid surface. It believes the storms have been largely self-created.

This is the majority view of a large part of western opinion, certainly in Europe. According to this opinion, the policy of America since 9/11 has been a gross overreaction; George Bush is as much if not more of a threat to world peace as Osama bin Laden; and what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East, is an entirely understandable consequence of US/UK imperialism or worse, of just plain stupidity. Leave it all alone or at least treat it with sensitivity and it would all resolve itself in time; “it” never quite being defined, but just generally felt as anything that causes disruption.

This world view – which I would characterise as a doctrine of benign inactivity – sits in the commentator’s seat, almost as a matter of principle. It has imposed a paradigm on world events that is extraordinary in its attraction and its scope. As we speak, Iraq is facing a crucial moment in its history: to unify and progress, under a government elected by its people for the first time in half a century; or to descend into sectarian strife, bringing a return to certain misery for millions. In Afghanistan, the same life choice for a nation, is being played out. And in many Arab and Muslim states, similar, though less publicised, struggles for democracy dominate their politics.

The effect of this paradigm is to see each setback in Iraq or Afghanistan, each revolting terrorist barbarity, each reverse for the forces of democracy or advance for the forces of tyranny as merely an illustration of the foolishness of our ever being there; as a reason why Saddam should have been left in place or the Taliban free to continue their alliance with Al Qaida. Those who still justify the interventions are treated with scorn.

Then, when terrorists strike in the nations like Britain or Spain, who supported such action, there is a groundswell of opinion formers keen to say, in effect, that it’s hardly surprising – after all, if we do this to “their” countries, is it any wonder they do it to “ours”?

So the statement that Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or indeed Chechnya, Kashmir or half a dozen other troublespots is seen by extremists as fertile ground for their recruiting – a statement of the obvious – is elided with the notion that we have “caused” such recruitment or made terrorism worse, a notion that, on any sane analysis, has the most profound implications for democracy.

The easiest line for any politician seeking office in the West today is to attack American policy. A couple of weeks ago as I was addressing young Slovak students, one got up, denouncing US/UK policy in Iraq, fully bought in to the demonisation of the US, utterly oblivious to the fact that without the US and the liberation of his country, he would have been unable to ask such a question, let alone get an answer to it.

There is an interesting debate going on inside government today about how to counter extremism in British communities. Ministers have been advised never to use the term “Islamist extremist”. It will give offence. It is true. It will. There are those – perfectly decent-minded people – who say the extremists who commit these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. And, of course, they are right. They are no more proper Muslims than the Protestant bigot who murders a Catholic in Northern Ireland is a proper Christian. But, unfortunately, he is still a “Protestant” bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.

Yet, in respect of radical Islam, the paradigm insists that to say what is true, is to provoke, to show insensitivity, to demonstrate the same qualities of purblind ignorance that leads us to suppose that Muslims view democracy or liberty in the same way we do.

Just as it lets go unchallenged the frequent refrain that it is to be expected that Muslim opinion will react violently to the invasion of Iraq: after all it is a Muslim country. Thus, the attitude is: we understand your sense of grievance; we acknowledge your anger at the invasion of a Muslim country; but to strike back through terrorism is wrong.

It is a posture of weakness, defeatism and most of all, deeply insulting to every Muslim who believes in freedom ie the majority. Instead of challenging the extremism, this attitude panders to it and therefore instead of choking it, feeds its growth.

None of this means, incidentally, that the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was right; merely that it is nonsense to suggest it was done because the countries are Muslim.

I recall the video footage of Mohammed Sadiq Khan, the man who was the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. There he was, complaining about the suppression of Muslims, the wickedness of America and Britain, calling on all fellow Muslims to fight us. And I thought: here is someone, brought up in this country, free to practise his religion, free to speak out, free to vote, with a good standard of living and every chance to raise a family in a decent way of life, talking about “us”, the British, when his whole experience of “us” has been the very opposite of the message he is preaching. And in so far as he is angry about Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan let Iraqi or Afghan Muslims decide whether to be angry or not by ballot.

There was something tragic, terrible but also ridiculous about such a diatribe. He may have been born here. But his ideology wasn’t. And that is why it has to be taken on, everywhere.

This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core. By this I don’t mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Koran.

But in order to do this, we must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress; that if only we altered this decision or that, the extremism would fade away. The only way to win is: to recognise this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas, in which it operates, as linked; and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists.

The roots of global terrorism and extremism are indeed deep. They reach right down through decades of alienation, victimhood and political oppression in the Arab and Muslim world. Yet this is not and never has been inevitable. The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran – in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic – is to understand how progressive it is. I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was breathtaking. Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. The standard bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian.

This is not the place to digress into a history of what subsequently happened. But by the early 20th century, after renaissance, reformation and enlightenment had swept over the Western world, the Muslim and Arab world was uncertain, insecure and on the defensive. Some countries like Turkey went for a muscular move to secularism. Others found themselves caught between colonisation, nascent nationalism, political oppression and religious radicalism. Muslims began to see the sorry state of Muslim countries as symptomatic of the sorry state of Islam. Political radicals became religious radicals and vice versa. Those in power tried to accommodate the resurgent Islamic radicalism by incorporating some of its leaders and some of its ideology. The result was nearly always disastrous. The religious radicalism was made respectable; the political radicalism suppressed and so in the minds of many, the cause of the two came together to symbolise the need for change. So many came to believe that the way of restoring the confidence and stability of Islam was the combination of religious extremism and populist politics.

The true enemies became “the West” and those Islamic leaders who co-operated with them.

The extremism may have started through religious doctrine and thought. But soon, in offshoots of the Muslim brotherhood, supported by Wahabi extremists and taught in some of the Madrassas of the Middle East and Asia, an ideology was born and exported around the world.

The worst terrorist act was 9/11 in New York and Washington DC in 2001, where three thousand people were murdered. But the reality is that many more had already died not just in acts of terrorism against Western interests, but in political insurrection and turmoil round the world. Over 100,000 died in Algeria. In Chechnya and Kashmir political causes that could have been resolved became brutally incapable of resolution under the pressure of terrorism. Today, in well over 30 or 40 countries terrorists are plotting action loosely linked with this ideology. Its roots are not superficial, therefore, they are deep, embedded now in the culture of many nations and capable of an eruption at any time.

The different aspects of this terrorism are linked. The struggle against terrorism in Madrid or London or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the PIJ in Palestine or rejectionist groups in Iraq. The murder of the innocent in Beslan is part of the same ideology that takes innocent lives in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen or Libya. And when Iran gives support to such terrorism, it becomes part of the same battle with the same ideology at its heart.

True the conventional view is that, for example, Iran is hostile to Al Qaida and therefore would never support its activities. But as we know from our own history of conflict, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change. Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy.

Which brings me to the fundamental point. “We” is not the West. “We” are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. “We” are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.

This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.

And this is why the position of so much opinion on how to defeat this terrorism and on the continuing struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East is, in my judgement, so mistaken.

It ignores the true significance of the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is: given the chance, the people wanted democracy. OK so they voted on religious or regional lines. That’s not surprising, given the history. But there’s not much doubt what all the main parties in both countries would prefer and it is neither theocratic nor secular dictatorship. The people – despite violence, intimidation, inexperience and often logistical nightmares – voted. Not a few. But in numbers large enough to shame many western democracies. They want Government decided by the people.

And who is trying to stop them? In Iraq, a mixture of foreign Jihadists, former Saddamists and rejectionist insurgents. In Afghanistan, a combination of drug barons, Taliban and Al Qaida.

In each case, US, UK and the forces of many other nations are there to help the indigenous security forces grow, to support the democratic process and to provide some clear bulwark against the terrorism that threatens it. In each case, full UN authority is in place. There was and is a debate about the legality of the original decision to remove Saddam. But since May 2003, the MNF has been in Iraq under a UN resolution and with the authority of the first ever elected Government. In Afghanistan throughout, UN authority has been in place.

In both countries, the armed forces and police service are taking shape so that in time a democratically elected government has, under its control, sufficient power to do the will of the democratic state. In each case again, people die queuing up to join such forces, determined whatever the risk, to be part of a new and different dispensation.

Of course, and wholly wrongly, there are abuses of human rights, mistakes made, things done that should not be done. There always were. But at least this time, someone demands redress; people are free to complain.

So here, in its most pure form, is a struggle between democracy and violence. People look back on the three years since the Iraq conflict; they point to the precarious nature of Iraq today and to those who have died – mainly in terrorist acts – and they say: how can it have been worth it?

But there is a different question to ask: why is it so important to the forces of reaction and violence to halt Iraq in its democratic tracks and tip it into sectarian war? Why do foreign terrorists from Al Qaida and its associates go across the border to kill and maim? Why does Syria not take stronger action to prevent them? Why does Iran meddle so furiously in the stability of Iraq?

Examine the propaganda poured into the minds of Arabs and Muslims. Every abuse at Abu Ghraib is exposed in detail; of course it is unacceptable but it is as if the only absence of due process in that part of the world is in prisons run by the Americans. Every conspiracy theory – from seizing Iraqi oil to imperial domination – is largely dusted down and repeated.

Why? The answer is that the reactionary elements know the importance of victory or defeat in Iraq. Right from the beginning, to them it was obvious. For sure, errors were made on our side. It is arguable that de-Baathification went too quickly and was spread too indiscriminately, especially amongst the armed forces. Though in parenthesis, the real worry, back in 2003 was a humanitarian crisis, which we avoided; and the pressure was all to de-Baathify faster.

But the basic problem from the murder of the United Nations staff in August 2003 onwards was simple: security. The reactionary elements were trying to de-rail both reconstruction and democracy by violence. Power and electricity became problems not through the indolence of either Iraqis or the MNF but through sabotage. People became frightened through terrorism and through criminal gangs, some deliberately released by Saddam.

These were not random acts. They were and are a strategy. When that strategy failed to push the MNF out of Iraq prematurely and failed to stop the voting; they turned to sectarian killing and outrage most notably February's savage and blasphemous destruction of the Shia Shrine at Samarra.

They know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow. Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world.

That to me is the painful irony of what is happening. They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake. They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. Every act of carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it. For us, so much of our opinion believes that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong, that it is reluctant to accept what is plainly right now.

What happens in Iraq or Afghanistan today is not just crucial for the people in those countries or even in those regions; but for our security here and round the world. It is a cause that has none of the debatable nature of the decisions to go for regime change; it is an entirely noble one – to help people in need of our help in pursuit of liberty; and a self-interested one, since in their salvation lies our own security.

Naturally, the debate over the wisdom of the original decisions, especially in respect of Iraq will continue. Opponents will say Iraq was never a threat; there were no WMD; the drug trade in Afghanistan continues. I will point out Iraq was indeed a threat as two regional wars, 14 UN resolutions and the final report of the Iraq Survey Group show; that in the aftermath of the Iraq War we secured major advances on WMD not least the new relationship with Libya and the shutting down of the AQ Khan network; and that it was the Taliban who manipulated the drug trade and in any event housed Al Qaida and its training camps.

But whatever the conclusion to this debate, if there ever is one, the fact is that now, whatever the rights and wrongs of how and why Saddam and the Taliban were removed, there is an obvious, clear and overwhelming reason for supporting the people of those countries in their desire for democracy.

I might point out too that in both countries supporters of the ideology represented by Saddam and Mullah Omar are free to stand in elections and on the rare occasions they dare to do so, don't win many votes.

Across the Arab and Muslim world such a struggle for democracy and liberty continues. One reason I am so passionate about Turkey’s membership of the EU is precisely because it enhances the possibility of a good outcome to such a struggle. It should be our task to empower and support those in favour of uniting Islam and democracy, everywhere.

To do this, we must fight the ideas of the extremists, not just their actions; and stand up for and not walk away from those engaged in a life or death battle for freedom. The fact of their courage in doing so should give us courage; their determination should lend us strength; their embrace of democratic values, which do not belong to any race, religion or nation, but are universal, should reinforce our own confidence in those values.

Shortly after Saddam fell, I met in London a woman who after years of exile – and there were 4 million such exiles – had returned to Iraq to participate in modern politics there. A couple of months later, she was assassinated, one of the first to be so. I cannot tell what she would say now. But I do know it would not be: give up. She would not want her sacrifice for her beliefs to be in vain.

Two years later the same ideology killed people on the streets of London, and for the same reason. To stop cultures, faiths and races living in harmony; to deter those who see greater openness to others as a mark of humanity’s progress; to disrupt the very thing that makes London special would in time, if allowed to, set Iraq on a course of progress too.

This is, ultimately, a battle about modernity. Some of it can only be conducted and won within Islam itself. But don’t let us in our desire not to speak of what we can only imperfectly understand; or our wish not to trespass on sensitive feelings, end up accepting the premise of the very people fighting us.

The extremism is not the true voice of Islam. Neither is that voice necessarily to be found in those who are from one part only of Islamic thought, however assertively that voice makes itself heard. It is, as ever, to be found in the calm, but too often unheard beliefs of the many Muslims, millions of them the world over, including in Europe, who want what we all want: to be ourselves free and for others to be free also; who regard tolerance as a virtue and respect for the faith of others as part of our own faith. That is what this battle is about, within Islam and outside of it; it is a battle of values and progress; and therefore it is one we must win.

Johann Hari and his critics

Johann Hari of The Independent says that he was terribly wrong to have supported the war in the first place.

He tells us that he had a colossal response to this article and cites as a typical response one from Abdulkhaliq Hussein which says Your article in the Independent today, 20/3/2006, was really disappointing to all of your admirers. You let them down. You changed your mind and switched from pro-war to join the anti-war campaigners, means that you gave in bowed to the aggressors. So instead of blaming the terrorists for this mass killing in Iraq at the hand of the terrorists, you put the blame on Bush and Blair for liberating Iraqi people from the worst dictator in history. If your new stance is right, then it was wrong to stand up against Hitler in the WW II, because that war caused humanity 55 million casualties. So it was better not oppose the Axis sates. Is that fair? Is this is the justice that we are looking for? If the tyrants were left to do as they like because of the possible revenge from their followers, then our glob will be place for the tyrants only and the whole planet population will be living like sheep.

Mohammed from Iraq The Model disagrees with Johann. He is happy to show cynical contempt for the weepers, whiners, teenagers and half educated naive people and their silly rallies. It sometimes appears that if you come from Iraq you are more likely to consider that the suffering may ultimately be worthwhile. (David Spector)

Views on and from within the anti-war movement

Many people have used the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion to impart their opinion on the Stop The War coalition. Tim Hames argues that they may have succeeded and that no more totalitarian dictators will be removed from office and that there may be no more openings for civil and religious liberty. And Harrys Place publishes leaked e mails which show some tension within the Stop the War leadership over its orientation towards sectarian forces. (David Spector)

Camus catch

Alan Johnson the editor of Democratiya has written an excellent essay called Camus Catch: How democracies can defeat Totalitarian Political Islam. His argument is in three parts. First, the left has not seen the terrorist threat plain. Like the dreamy citizens of Oran in Camus' novel The Plague, it has embraced denial ('there are no rats') or worse - incoherent anti-Americanism ('the rats are to be defended') or self-loathing ('we are the rats'). I set out what the threat actually is - Totalitarian Political Islam - and why it emerged. Second, I discuss two kinds of left-wing response – 'Left Kissingerian Realism' and 'Reactionary Anti-Imperialism' – which I criticise as inadequate, or worse. Third, I map an alternative response (Camus' catch) and I end by echoing Paul Berman's call for a 'third force' - a global network of networks through which democrats can wage and win the battle of ideas

Progress debate lessons for Labour from Iraq

To mark the third anniversary of the Iraq war, Progress will be hosting a debate on the lessons of the conflict for Labour. The next issue of Progress magazine will also feature a special report on the subject. Three years on: the lessons for Labour from Iraq, will take place on Tuesday 21 March in Committee Room 16 in the House of Commons between 6 and 7.30pm.

The panel will comprise of

Sadiq Khan MP;

Gisela Stuart MP;

Gary Kent, director, Labour Friends of Iraq;

and Oliver Kamm, author of Anti-Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy.

Stephen Twigg will chair the event.

Registration is essential.

For more details and to register e-mail neil@progressives.org.uk or call 0203 008 8180.

Response to Guardian Diary

The Guardians lead diary story below is based on a false premise which an
easy check would have found: the meeting organised by Progress does not just consist of the three people mentioned but also includes Sadiq Khan, the newly elected Labour MP for Tooting and an opponent of the war.

The panel had included John Denham MP who had resigned as a Home Office minister because of his opposition to the war.

Progress selects its invited speakers. I just see it as a useful opportunity to persuade people – whatever their position on the invasion – of the need to increase solidarity with Iraqi democrats and the new labour movement.

Having attended a commemoration of the 18th anniversary of the Halbja attack - part of Saddam’s genocidal Anfal campaign which claimed nearly 200,000 lives - I don't retract my pre-war belief, shared by many others, that
Saddam had WMD. He certainly had had WMD as we know Halabja and Anfal and the war with Iran.

Anyway, they spelt the name correctly.

Gary Kent
Director LFIQ

Jon Henley
Tuesday March 14, 2006

Heartening to see that even the freethinkers at Progress (aim: to promote "open debate and discussion of progressive ideas and policies" in the Labour party) are still so solidly behind our leader's Great Iraqi Adventure. For a moment there, the group's March 21 talk – Three Years On: the Lessons for Labour from Iraq - looked like it might actually yield a spot of dangerously off-message debate. Thankfully, however, we see the three panelists are: a) pro-war MP Gisela Stuart, who backed Bush because Kerry would only encourage the suicide bombers; b) Oliver Kamm, banker and part-time Times columnist, who recently told Hove residents to vote Tory because their Labour candidate opposed the war; and c) Gary Kent, director of Labour Friends of Iraq, who once thought it was "a fair assumption" Saddam had WMD, and still thinks Blair "could be right" about the war. Lots of progressive ideas there, then.

Corrections and clarifications

Wednesday March 15, 2006
The Guardian

In the lead item in our Diary, page 29, yesterday, we seemed to be suggesting that all the speakers scheduled to talk at an Iraq event organised by Progress were supporters of the war in Iraq. We overlooked the name of the anti-war MP Sadiq Khan in the panel of speakers. Another anti-war MP, John Denham, had also agreed to speak but has since withdrawn due to other commitments. See www.progressives.org.uk.

TEN REASONS WHICH DO NOT ADD UP

LFIQ Joint President and former MP Harry Barnes, who helped found Labour against the War, casts a critical eye over the platform for the coming Stop the War demonstration.

The "Stop the War Coalition" is organising a demonstration entitled "Troops Home from Iraq, Don't Attack Iran." To drum up support, they have produced a leaflet which contains ten reasons for joining in. Each of these is fundamentally flawed.

REASON 1. "Iraq is suffering - the occupation has cost more than 100,000 lives with no end in sight. Iraqis want our troops to go."

Whilst the figures are exaggerated, this is not the reason for challenging this statement. For the numbers killed has been (and each day continues to be) serious. Current brutal murders are being undertaken by terrorists against ordinary Iraqis. Such acts have to be condemned and action has to be taken to seek to protect Iraq's citizen. Until Iraq can fully operate its own security services, there is a case for some form of foreign troops being in place to aid protections. The Iraqi people now have a Parliament through which to express their views.

If the Parliament decides that our troops should leave, then we should act in conformity with their wishes. A Government when properly established and a Parliament are better placed to work out an overall strategy involving withdrawal, than are our judgements about public opinion. The Coalition's strategy is one of cut-and-run and of ignoring Iraq's properly expressed wishes.

REASON 2. "British troops are dying in Blair's war - nearly 100 so far, with hundreds more badly injured."

To prevent further killings and injuries to British Troops, we need to remove the terrorist threat, rather than give in to it. The Coalition should be just as concerned about the current role of terrorists as they were about the original invasion. In any case, strictly speaking, the war is over. An occupation then followed and we have now moved into a democratic set of arrangements which, however, lives alongside the democratic deficit of still living alongside foreign troops. It isn't perfect, but if the troops leave prematurely, then so might the prospect of a fully functioning democracy. All this is difficult for the Coalition to recognise, and they would have to change its name to "Stop the attempt to move to a fuller democracy."

REASON 3 "The US and Britain are plotting new aggression - against Iran above all. The war could spread and it could become a nuclear war."

Whilst an attack on Iran would be disastrous, the Coalition needs to adopt alternative strategies for tackling the massive shortcomings of the Iranian Regime. These include the Authorities’ attack on the bus drivers of Tehran, the subjugation of women, encouragements to religious extremism, homophobia and ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Because we should not bomb and/or invade Iran, doesn't mean that we shouldn't seek to influence it so that it will end the worst of its practices.

REASON 4. "We were lied to about the attack on Iraq - it is time Blair was held to account for his decisions, which have undermined democracy."

It is nice to see that the Coalition has an interest in democracy. Unfortunately, it is only our democracy they seek to defend and not the Iraqis'. Whatever it is that needs to be done to "bring Blair to account", we need to have a couple of points in mind. First, we should not take our eye off the ball which is that of seeking to assist the Iraqi people to build a democratic system which meets the basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, security and the chance to participate in educational, artistic, cultural and scientific investigations. Actually, we can use a vulnerable Blair to further such ends. Secondly, if the rest of us join in the call for legal and political action against Blair, it will be assumed that we share the Coalition's agenda and that the democratic and socialist points made above are secondary to our hatred for Blair. Perhaps the Coalition should leave others to further a change at Downing Street.

REASON 5 "Blair's foreign policy is making Britain a terror target, as the atrocities of July 7 last year proved."

It is the foreign policy on key matters that effect the Middle East, which I assume the Coalition has its sights upon. Yet no matter how problematic these policies are, it is clear that the great bulk of Muslims in Britain have not been turned into suicide bombers or their supporters. But is the Coalition responding to what is at least the other half of the praxis of evil when it comes to suicide bombings, as illustrated in the crude philosophy and the "ideas" people such as Abu Hamza. Even with suicide bombers, it needs more than the forces of Imperialism to fashion their minds.

REASON 6. "Freedom is under threat - civil liberties are being torn up by the government because of the so-called "war on terror".

Whilst the Government and the Police have been keen to use a security crisis to extend their powers, this does not mean that no genuine crisis exists. The only solution is to work out a balance in which as many rights as possible are left for citizens, within a framework of the most sensible security arrangements. There is no easy formula for this, other than eternal vigilance, with an ability to pull back powers that have proven to been excessive or to have been badly used. Crying "wolf" can be as dangerous as baying for the moon.

REASON 7. "British Muslims are under threat. We must stand together to protect communities being targeted by Islamophobic racists."

In so far as this is a call for solidarity it is fine. Of course, it has nothing to do with the Coalition's case about Iraq and Iran. There is plenty of hidden and open racism in British Society. Muslims face this more than ever, because racists latch on to any passing openings. This happens even though all Muslims aren't Arabs and all Arabs aren't Muslims. But racists don't draw these distinctions, because they don't know or they don't care. One consequence of challenging Islamophobic attitudes is, of course, not to desert the people of Iraq, who in the main are Islamic. They need our protection. We should stand together to provide it.

REASON 8. "Billions are being wasted on the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan which could be used for pensions and public services in Britain"

Now Afghanistan has been added to the protest. The title should have been extended to include "Troops Home from Afghanistan. All power to the Talliban." To say that a major reason for taking our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is to have more money for social expenditure at home is a non-starter. Does it mean that we should stop other forms of overseas expenditure for this better form of domestic expenditure; including an end to overseas aid? If money were saved by bringing the troops home, what is the mechanism that will prevent it from then being spent to the advantage of the undeserving rich? Perhaps the Coalition was getting pushed to fill up its quota of 10 points.

REASON 9. "March 18 is an international day of action against the occupation. Protests are already planned across the world, including Iraq."

All people, especially Iraqis should have the opportunity to engage in peaceful protests on matters which are free from actions to stimulate racial, religious, tribal, and sexual forms of hatred. Peaceful protest is a legitimate form of pressure politics and it helps to knit people together in the cause they are pursuing. Peaceful protest in Iraq about the presence of British and American troops is greatly to be preferred to suicide bombings and other violence
directed at bringing towards the same ends. It is also much better than expressions of religious fanaticism such as that expressed within the Al Sadr movement. It is to be hoped that the Coalition in its links with groups in Iraq has made it clear that it will in no way associate itself with any forms of intolerant extremism including demonstrations on March 18 by the Al Sadr movement."

REASON 10. "The world will be watching - let's show friend and foe alike that the British are opposed to the Iraq occupation and the threats to world peace and freedom"


We can't be defenders of peace and freedom by giving in to terrorism or to tribal and religious bigotry. Thankfully in Iraq, the bulk of the people take a similar line and should have our active support. The way the Iraqi people come out of their homes to try and help the victims of terrorism should be an inspiration to us all. It goes beyond the devotion of the people of London in the blitz during the Second World War, for no-one can sound the all clear on
terrorist activity. Perhaps some day we will be able to mobilise people onto the streets to join the Iraqi people in their struggle to have peace from terrorism and their freedom to form Political Parties, Trade Unions, Women's Organisations, Youth Groups and other Voluntary Associations.

Unification in Iraqi Kurdistan

Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells has given the following answer to a parliamentary question on political developments in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Kurdish Region

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on (a) political progress and (b) the impact of unification in the two Kurdish administrations since the war in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

Dr. Howells: The Kurdish people have a proud tradition of political participation. Following the removal of the former regime, the two Kurdish administrations agreed to form one unified Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). This will be a challenging task—merging the two governments involves downsizing from 27 to 16 Ministries and reunifying some 400,000 civil servants from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and more than 500,000 civil servants from the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP).

This decision is testament to the Kurds commitment to democratic rule. Nechirvan Barzani, from the KDP, has been named Prime Minister of the KRG and the position of Deputy Prime Minister will be filled by a member from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. The KRG continues to play a crucial role in promoting the formation of a government of national unity, and has advocated a strong central government.

Senior US figures discuss drawing down troops

President Jimmy Carter rejects a pre-emptive withdrawal of US troops but urges the Bush administration to drawdown its forces in Iraq. The US ambassador to Iraq compares the toppling of Saddam Hussein to opening a Pandoras Box. It might be argued that, as Zalmay Khalized makes so few public statements, and even fewer as frank as this one, there is a significant debate at the highest level of American government regarding the timing of any troop withdrawal. (David Spector)

Report of meeting with Iraqi women trade unionists

A delegation of Iraqi women trade unionists visited the House of Commons on 7th March for a Labour Friends of Iraq briefing meeting.

The Iraqi sisters were: Nazanin T. Ali, Head of Women at the Kurdistan Workers Union and member of the Service Workers Union, which covers workers in hotels, restaurants, coffee shops and beauticians; Hasnaa A. Abdulsatar, (Printing Union); Huda S. Rafiq from the Iraqi Kurdistan Journalists Union in the Kurdistan Workers Union; and Violet A Essa Qalaab, President of the Oil and Gas Union in Basrah. Huda and Violet spoke to the meeting.

This was Chaired by Labour MP and LFIQ Chair Dave Anderson.

A message of solidarity was received from the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. He said: "I do not delude myself about the challenges faced by the people of Iraq. But just as millions of people showed what sort of future they want by voting in December's elections, so the trade union movement in Iraq is showing its determination to defy those who seek to destroy the process of rebuilding your country. In that we offer you solidarity and wish you well."

Then Rt Hon Ann Clwyd MP, the Prime Minister's Envoy to Iraq on Human Rights, spoke. She emphasised the need for women's rights and equality and praised the role of Iraqi unions. She said: We know that bodies such as the TUC and the ICFTU have protested against, for example, Decree 8750 and the new government of Iraq, when it is formed, must understand that strong trade unions are vital in Iraq, in all professions, and in consolidating the freedoms and rights which Iraqis are beginning to enjoy for the first time."

Huda said that Iraqi Kurdistan was relatively better off and more secure having suffered so much under Saddam's brutal dictatorship. It had a high rate of participation by women with many entrepreneurs but after Saddam's genocidal Anfal campaign there were many orphans and widows. The state provided some social support but women were often held back by stigma and prejudice about what work women should do, which is sustained by tribal traditions and customs. The Kurdish Syndicate Workers Union publishes a monthly newsletter and run education courses but are held back by lack of funds.

Violet said that working mums were initially given support from the head of the Southern Oil Company such as crèches when the union started to organise in September 2003. The union campaigns to build free and independent unions as part of a wider campaign for a secular and democratic Iraq and exposes corruption as well as extremism. It also produces a monthly newsletter. Its resources are very limited and relies on donations from some members as well as funding from NGOs and sister unions abroad.

The Women's Minister Meg Munn MP also spoke. She referred to the unions' desire to increase the number of women in the Iraqi parliament from its statutory 25%. She said that "27% of the PLP are women and only 20% of Parliament is women and this is after nearly 90 years of having the vote so we have a long way to go. We are very pleased to see you and try to build strong links with women parliamentarians across the world."

In response to LFIQ Joint President Harry Barnes, Huda outlined how unions tried to tackle religious and gender divisions. For instance, the Iraqi Kurdish Assembly had outlawed honour killings but these still took place in faraway villages where tribal leaders had greater influence than the law. This showed that change also needs to be cultural and long-term and she outlined her union's efforts to increase understanding on women's rights, not just for women but also for men. Violet said that women often faced violence from three sources: family, tribes and some parties. A key point is to provide hope through jobs and economic prosperity.

Councillor David Griffin said he was humbled by the bravery of the speakers. In response to his question on improvements in provision of power and water, Huda said that there was actually less electricity in Iraqi Kurdistan than under Saddam. This wasn't due to terrorism but because the federal government in Baghdad now redistributed local power to the rest of the country. She later said that a good sign of the close relations between unions in Iraqi Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq was that they worked jointly to oppose anti-union laws although these didn't affect Iraqi Kurdistan.

Clive Furness asked if they were hopeful. Violet replied that "Iraq is the only home we have and, God willing, extremists will be worn out by our resilience. But we cannot do it by ourselves alone and we need the support of the UN and the international community."

Asked about relations with political parties, both stressed that they seek constructive relations with all parties and the government but want the parties to understand that the unions wish to be progressive but totally independent of political parties.

The Chair Dave Anderson MP, himself a former President of Unison concluded the meeting by arguing that trade unions are the bedrock of democracies and that LFIQ as well as Unison are committed to helping Iraqi brothers and sisters in any way we can.

Lyn Brown MP attended the meeting too and apologies were received from several MPs.

Apologies were received from Tim Lezard, NUJ President, Joni McDougall of the GMB and MPs Joan Ruddock, George Howarth, Rudi Vis, Rob Marris and Margaret Moran.

Ann Clwyd speech to LFIQ meeting with Iraqi women trade unionists at the Commons

Then Rt Hon Ann Clwyd MP addressed the meeting. The Prime Minister’s Envoy to Iraq on Human Rights

I am very pleased to see you all here – particularly women from Iraq - because I have a long association with you and it is important that you are here in the week of international Women’s Day and because you are examples of how much has been achieved in Iraq and the determination of the women of Iraq, despite all the difficulties, to fight for what you believe to be worthwhile.

Some of us were associated for a long period of time with Cardri - . the Committee Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq.

When I was in Iraq 18 months ago I met representatives of the free trade unions and I showed them a Cardri newsletter from 1987 that had several articles on the crushing of unions by Saddam.

They said to me, oh, we used to hand that out, translated into Arabic, on the streets of Baghdad.

We in Cardri did not then know that our newsletters were reaching the streets of Baghdad but unfortunately one if not two of those brave men who we met were subsequently killed.

It was very sad that those fighting to restore trade unions in Iraq were being attacked in that way.

That’s one of the many reasons why we admire you for standing up for the thing you believe in despite the threats.

And when I was in Basra for the first election it was amazing to see so many women turn out to vote.

The polling stations that were being attacked by mortars and many women were present at this particular polling station.

I asked the polling clerk what did the women do. He said that they stood there and sang a song of defiance.

So we understand what problems face you and your difficulties and we obviously want to do everything we can to help you.

We know that bodies such as the TUC and the ICFTU have protested against, for example, Decree 8750 and the new government of Iraq, when it is formed, must understand that strong trade unions are vital in Iraq, in all professions, and in consolidating the freedoms and rights which Iraqis are beginning to enjoy for the first time.

On International Women’s Day we say in this country that women must be represented at all levels and have equal rights with men.

We who are elected as MPs also understand how difficult the struggle is for women not only in your country but in ours too. For example, for 17 years I was the only woman MP from Wales. So because we have had to struggle ourselves in different circumstances to you, we want you to know that you have our support and solidarity and would be happy to give any assistance we can.

A question of solidarity

LFIQ Director Gary Kent pens a personal view of left failings and the need for solidarity with the Iraqi Labour Movement in this piece for Progress. He concludes that the poisonous rhetoric of armchair revolutionaries, who ignore or insult Iraqi labour voices facing great dangers from Islamists and Ba’athists, pollutes progressive politics. There is still not enough concerted emphasis on practical ways of helping our Iraqi comrades. It’s a basic question of solidarity. Are we up for it?

Jack Straw message to LFIQ meeting with Iraqi women trade unionists

LFIQ hosted a meeting at the Commons with a visiting delegation of Iraqi women trade unionists. It was Chaired by Dave Anderson MP with a contribution from Ann Clwyd, LFIQ Joint President and the Prime Minister’s Envoy to Iraq on Human Rights. More reports of the discussion will follow but in the meantime here is the solidarity message sent by the Foreign Secretary.

Gary Kent
Director LFIQ

I am sorry that I cannot attend your meeting this evening.

I wanted though to send you my very best wishes. I know from my regular visits to Iraq of the vital role people such as yourselves are playing in building a new future for the country. You can be assured that in your historic mission you have the support of the UK Government.

I do not delude myself about the challenges faced by the people of Iraq. But just as millions of people showed what sort of future they want by voting in December's elections, so the trade union movement in Iraq is showing its determination to defy those who seek to destroy the process of rebuilding your country. In that we offer you solidarity and wish you well.

Report of the Iraqi Womens League Conference

The IWL held its 5th Conference in Baghdad

The 5th Conference of Iraqi Women’s League
(24-25 July 2005)

The 5th Conference of Iraqi Women’s League (IWL) was held in Baghdad during the period 24-25 July 2005, under the slogan: “A Peaceful and Democratic Iraq is Guarantee for Womens Equality and Childrens Happiness”. It was attended by 98 delegates. The opening session was given the name “Martyr Ayda Yassin”, in memory of the prominent leading figure of IWL who “disappeared” after being detained in 1980 by security forces of Saddam’s dictatorial regime.

The Conference endorsed a general report that dealt with major developments during the past decades and their impact on Iraqi society and the position of Iraqi women.

The report pointed out that the social and economic conditions in the country had deteriorated enormously as a result of the total and all-encompassing crisis of dictatorship during its reign of repression, as well as its internal and external wars. Iraqi women were in the forefront of victims of dictatorship, burdened with the consequences of catastrophic political decisions. They had to shoulder full responsibility for their families as a result of the loss of sons or husbands, whether in terror campaigns of physical liquidation or during the three wars waged by the ousted regime. Women had also the job of caring for war victims who were left disabled. They also became targets for political detention, humiliation, rape and various kinds of torture in prisons, and often ending up in mass graves.

As a result of poor economic conditions and rampant poverty, women were forced to take up difficult and dangerous jobs, under extremely complex conditions. They came to face directly the manifestation of social corruption, as well as systematic corruption practised by the regime’s leading figures and stooges. All these factors led to the fragmentation of families. The regime encouraged the revival of outdated customs and traditions that humiliate women and degrade their dignity. ,This in turn was used as a justification for the oppression and injustice against women, within family relations or in marriage, both as mothers and divorced women. Legislations and laws were enacted that debased the human dignity of women and reinforced their women’s position as an underclass.

The report drew attention to the “Faith Campaign” personally launched by the dictator Saddam Hussein, that deprived women of the rights that they had won over previous decades with their own struggle and supported by democratic and progressive forces in Iraqi society. The dictatorship’s policy during its final years meant that women were trapped at home, isolated from fields of work and general activity.

The report added that the above-mentioned conditions, that were described only briefly, did not end with the shameful downfall of dictatorship in April 2003. Our Iraqi people and social forces aspiring for social change, including the Iraqi Women’s League (IWL), are therefore determined to fight to tackle the legacy of dictatorship. Accordingly, the IWL strives to lay the proper foundations for a civilized society, based on democracy in economic, social and cultural fields. This vision shapes its understanding of social change, progress, women’s rights and their fundamental rights.

The report dealt with the position of Iraqi women after the war and the fall of dictatorship, with new political and social manifestations emerging with subsequent effects on all Iraqis, especially Iraqi women. Iraq now witnesses a new situation:, getting rid of dictatorship but falling under occupation. Refusal by the occupying forces to hand back political power and national sovereignty, as well as the responsibility for security, to the Iraqis, and the destruction of principal structures of the Iraqi state, has led to the deterioration of the security situation. Gangs of organised criminals, along with extremist reactionary forces and remnants of the dictatorial regime, are waging bloody terror against the Iraqi people under the pretext of resisting the occupation. Iraqi women have become an easier target for these gangs. In addition to arbitrary car bombings and explosions, women have been kidnapped, held as hostages. In addition, women have suffered from murder, barbaric slaughtering and rape.

Meanwhile, the forces of political Islam in the southern and central areas of the country have exploited the social atmosphere resulting from decades of dictatorship’s rule, and its so-called “Faith Campaign”, to put forward their political alternative, with practical measures to implement their concept for the “Islamization of society”. This is achieved through imposing constraints on public and personal freedoms of individuals, especially with regard to women’s personal and civil freedoms. In this context, a psychological atmosphere has been promoted to impose changes on Iraqi women in a coercive manner, , for example imposing the wearing of Hijab in some areas. The attempt to abolish the Personal Status Law (in late 2003) signalled the intention to reverse women’s civil status. It has to be pointed out that the existing Personal Status Law was actually based on various denominations of Islamic law, and the alternative meant a return to sectarian jurisprudence in the field of personal status.

Iraqi women have managed to participate in political life during the past two years, though in a limited way. A number of women participated in the Governing Council, the Interim and Transitional Governments, and the National Assembly. The Iraqi State’s Administrative Law (the interim constitution) stipulated that the percentage of women in the elected National Assembly must be no less than 25%. Democratic women’s organisations played an active role in defeating Decree 137, issued by the Governing Council (in late 2003), that was effectively aimed at abolishing the Personal Status Law. An Iraqi Women Network was also set up, encompassing more than 50 women organisations.

During the past two years, the Iraqi Women’s League (IWL) participated in a host of activities concerned with women’s rights. IWL activists led the first women’s demonstration in Baghdad after the fall of dictatorship. The League initially faced the task of rebuilding its organisations in most Iraqi cities under the above-mentioned complex conditions. But this task faced a lot of obstacles as a result of the prevailing security and political conditions, thus hindering its fulfilment to the level desired by IWL. Further consideration of the current situation and work is needed, developing plans to utilize the potential of IWL.

The essence of IWL’s work, throughout its long history of struggle over more than half a century, lies in connecting between its fight for the freedom and sovereignty of the homeland and the struggle for women rights and children’s happiness. This is based on its awareness that women’s liberation can only be achieved with the liberation of the society. It is not an organisation that exists outside the context of the Iraqi society’s history and its political, social and economic contradictions. IWL also believes that the liberation of women is not an elitist type of work, or one that is part of charitable or humanitarian activity. IWL’s work and struggle is aimed for women’s rights and freedoms that are achieved as part and parcel of the struggle for social change, progress and democracy.

The report also presented IWL’s understanding of civil society organisations, as a means for public benefit rather than personal benefit or for the purpose of hegemony by political parties that are in power or outside it. Struggle must be waged against the latter tendencies, and against anything that leads to marginalizing IWL’s role and conception of civil society organisations.

Civil society is not an alternative to struggle for social change and progress; rather it is one of its manifestations. Overlooking this fact, or not acting in accordance with it, in spite of being real advocates of civil society as part of our developmental and enlightened project, will harm the future of civil society and nullify its real functions. This is why IWL’s work in the field of civil society organisations needs to be connected with our struggle to deepen and consolidate democracy.

Work Among Women Masses

The experience of IWL’s work throughout its long history has highlighted the fact that it becomes an effective mass force in society, and achieves gains for Iraqi women, when it is engaged in daily mass work, actively involved in residential areas and women’s gatherings, raising daily demands, helping to tackle social problems in urban areas, promoting health awareness, opening centres for eradicating illiteracy, and through raising the level of awareness of women in the countryside.

IWL activists had never been tied down to office work … IWL will not emulate some women fronts and organisations that want to gain a foothold through spending money or grants among women with the aim of buying off people. The secret of IWL’s success lies in developing close, strong and steady relations with the mass of women.

The need for the existence of IWL lies in undertaking this leading role, fearless of giving sacrifice, as it had often done throughout its history. Furthermore, unless the forces of political Islam can be countered by mass democratic struggle, any constitutional and political gains that have been made may be stripped of their democratic content.

The report drew attention to the concept of women’s rights on national and international levels, and the need to defend these rights. IWL will follow developments in women’s movements internationally, interact with them, and participate in formulating the principal guidelines concerning women rights on international level. Undertaking this task successfully requires an in-depth study of our society, drawing programs on the basis of existing facts, and relying on figures and statistics.

The report stressed the need for rejuvenating IWL’s methods of work, by discarding spontaneity, and acting in a spirit of solidarity as women fighting for a cause. This requires conveying accumulated experience, and helping young cadres to assume their role in IWL’s leadership, with the consent and support of women masses. It is essential to emphasize the issue of expanding democracy in daily work, involving as many members as possible in decision making, displaying transparency and a critical spirit, and empowering IWL organisations in the provinces and towns.

A spirit of initiative, collective work and approaching the masses on the basis of properly considered programmes, can help to achieve a qualitative change in IWL’s work.

Immediate Tasks

The report concluded by calling for the need to act as follows:
- Providing security and peace in our homeland should be one of the principal tasks for IWL.

- Struggle to end the occupation and achieve full restoration of national sovereignty, and to eliminate the legacy of dictatorship, especially in the fields that concern women’s rights and their fundamental freedoms.

- Empowering women and ensuring their full participation, equally, in all aspects of society’s life, including participation in the decision making process and holding positions in government, are fundamental issues for achieving equality, development and peace. Possible alliances must therefore be developed to achieve this objective, and to increase the present minimum 25% quota for women participation in the National Assembly to 40%. It also requires ensuring active participation of women in drafting the constitution, and that includes Iraq’s endorsement of all international covenants and agreements that guarantee women’s rights.

- Eliminating poverty through reliance on economic growth, social development, environment protection and providing social security require the involvement of women in economic and social development, achieving equal opportunities, and equal and full participation of women and men. All forms of pressure must therefore be exercised on the authorities, now and in future, so that this orientation is implemented in government policies. It must not be considered a minor demand.

- The battle of democratic freedoms, the battle of enlightenment, rationalism and the culture of tolerance and accepting the ‘Other’, and strengthening dialogue, is a principal battle for IWL. This is so because women’s rights and their principal freedoms are very closely connected to achieving these objectives. The IWL has to work for the unity in action of the women’s movement on the basis of diversity, pluralism and respect for the cultural specificities of the constituent components of Iraqi people, through developing forms of coordination and joint action, while stressing the need for maintaining IWL’s independence in its decisions and general policies. The IWL believes that its main field of work in this respect lies among women masses, to win more gains for women and guarantee, in practice, the rights and freedom stipulated in the constitution and relevant legislations.

Remember the Marsh Arabs, says Cherie Booth

Cherie Booth told a recent conference that the destruction of the Iraqi marshlands during the 1980s and 1990s was symptomatic of the wider destruction of Iraq. It involved not just the destruction of land, but also of the people whose land it was. In the case of the Iraqi marshlands, most of its people were forcibly displaced not once but many times, leaving behind their possessions.The reconstruction of a nation cannot be achieved without involving the people of that nation in the reconstruction process.

Event outside the Iraqi Embassy today in London

Calling for the Speedy Formation of National Unity Government to Defeat Terror and Sectarian Sedition and Build a Free Democratic Iraq

Organised by Iraqi political organisations and groups in UK.

Tuesday, 7 March 2006, 4.00 - 5.00 p.m.

The Iraqi Embassy, 9 Holland Villas Road, London W14 8BP

Parliament Could Be In Session By End Of The Week

This report and this report suggest that Iraqs new parliament could be called into session by March 12th, and possibly by the end of this week.

The significance of this date is that the constitution requires parliament to hold its first meeting no later than four week after the election result is certified. Once parliament meets, they have 60 days to elect a president and approve a prime minister and cabinet. Even if parliament were to be convened, these subjects could still prove divisive.

It was reported earlier that President Jalal Talabani was now attempting to block the Shiite prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, from serving a second term. Stephen Biddle argues that only a communual compromise will bring peace to Iraq. At present, America's central ambition appears to lie in an expansion of the local military infrastructure to control Sunni insurgents. (David Spector).

Building a rights-based, federal democracy

The Iraqi Ambassador to Canada Howar Ziad says Iraq is in a struggle between truth and falsehood, between decency and depravity, between democracy and dictatorship and between freedom and slavery.

Before its liberation in April, 2003, Iraq was not a peaceful democracy, nor was it a country of social justice, or of ethnic, religious and linguistic tolerance as this great country Canada is. No, Iraq was a country occupied by a foreign ideology, the fascist idea of Baathism; a country in which the regime was at war with the people; a regime that was at war with its neighbours and the world; a regime that had isolated Iraq and brought international sanctions on itself; a regime guilty of aggression, genocide and terrorism; a regime in flagrant non-compliance with its international obligations.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the road to a rights-based democracy in Iraq can sometimes seem daunting. But the progress that has been made so far is remarkable. Governments have changed peacefully. Hundreds of political parties have been formed. Governments have been created on the basis of democratic elections -- and governments that can legitimately claim to represent the vast majority of Iraqis, no less. Negotiation, compromise and deliberation, not coups and conspiracies, are the character of contemporary Iraqi politics. Iraq has had an interim and now a final constitution, both documents agreed to by a process of negotiation and then, in the case of the final constitution, adopted through a democratic referendum.

The constitution seeks to establish a rights-based democratic federation, based on the twin federal principles of shared rule and self-rule. It aims at a federal government that is inclusive of the country's diversity. It allows for decentralization so that local communities can make their own decisions in some matters that are important to them. It entrenches the principle of bilingualism -- showing respect for both of Iraq's major language communities. And all of this takes place within a context in which fundamental human rights are protected throughout the state. Such a model of government should be familiar to you because these are the very same principles on which this great federation -- Canada -- is based.

Sadly, a small minority of Iraqis have rejected the politics of negotiation, consensus and compromise and have, without provocation or just cause, turned to violence. They are aided, abetted and encouraged by foreign elements, religious fanatics and fundamentalists. The Baathist fascists, who long supported and encouraged the religious jihadist fascists of al-Qaeda, are now having the favour returned. There is no clearer evidence that the violence in Iraq is not so-called "resistance" to foreign occupation but pure blatant fascism than the recent attack on the holy shrine in Samarra. This act of sacrilege is a sign of the utter lack of respect that the Ba'athist-Jihadist alliance has for Islam and in particular for the Shi'ah faith that is so dear to the majority of Iraqis.

There have been similar acts of sacrilege before. In 2002, Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate group, destroyed Sufi tombs in the remote Kurdish village of Biyara, and in 2003 and 2004, the Ba'athist-Jihadist alliance launched murderous attacks near the mosques in Najaf and Kerbala.

This violent minority threatens all of us. They will not be content with victory in Iraq alone (not that we will concede that to them); they will always seek to impose and export their sickness elsewhere.

Iraq is in a struggle between truth and falsehood, between decency and depravity, between democracy and dictatorship and between freedom and slavery. Building a rights-based, federal democracy like the one in which we stand is difficult in such a context, but we are persevering and we are determined to succeed. We have waited too long for this chance. We will not allow the violence and hatred of a small minority to deprive us of this historic opportunity.

Howar Ziad is the Ambassador of Iraq to Canada. This is an edited excerpt from a speech he gave in Ottawa to the Canadian Peacebuilding Co-ordinating Committee on March 2.

Support growing for Dave Andersons Commons motion in defence of free unions in Iraq

Dave Anderson MP’s Commons motion has secured more support from MPs across the political spectrum, including SDLP leader Mark Durkan as well as a mix of MPs who opposed or supported the invasion of Iraq – uniting such people in favour of post war solidarity is one of the key aims of Labour Friends of Iraq.