Can International Islam Resolve The Dilemma of Iraq?

Harry Barnes wonders if Ayatollah Sistani can succeed in his efforts to overcome Shia-Sunni differences and examines the Mecca Document which has emerged from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which represents all 57 Islamic nations.

Books are weapons

LFIQ Vice-President Harry Barnes remembers not being allowed to buy Das Kapital in Basra in the mid 50s and links to a story about which he says: The Baghdad booksellers love of books as shown in the video, shows just why Iraq can still have a future.

Survey of union rights in Iraq and worldwide

The International Trade Union Confederation has just published its first Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights covering 138 countries, which shows an alarming rise in the number of people killed as a result of their trade union activities, from 115 in 2005 to 144 in 2006. On Iraq, it says: In addition to the many trade unionists who fell victim to untargeted violence, at least two trade union leaders were assassinated on account of their union activities and there were countless other violations of trade union rights. The authorities increased their interference. After taking control of trade union finances they decided to supervise all aspects of the trade union elections. No progress was made in introducing the new draft labour code. Old laws are still in force as a result, denying public sector workers the right to organise.

The Surge and Political Progress

Mousa Baraka

September 12, 2007

The testimonies of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryon Crocker over the last two days have been very much in line with expectations: the surge is making progress, albeit uneven, however any wavering on the current strategy will have detrimental effects for both Iraq and the United States. Significant security progress is being made (more in some areas than others) with the last two weeks being the safest since June 2006. So confident is Gen. Petraeus in the military gains being made that he has stated that troop levels may be brought down to pre-surge levels in the summer of 2008, which Bush is expected to announce in the next coming days. But although the ‘political, economic, and diplomatic developments in Iraq’ are moving in the right direction, the line is not ‘steep’, and it is the connection between this ‘line’ and security progress produced by the surge that I shall explore.

It is widely assumed that political and economic developments cannot be made without a stable security situation. And this, to a large extent, is true. However it does not mean that there is a correlation to be expected between the political-economic situation and security; rather, as the last few months of the surge have shown, they are largely independent of each other. Changes in the political process have not changed the security situation, and improvements in the security have not changed the politics. Previous calls to widen the political spectrum in attempt to improve security had far from the desired effect. The political groups included instead began using violence to put pressure on others to help achieve their political aims. Furthermore, since the surge started overall security has improved, but there have been very few improvements in the political scene, with key legislation (e.g. oil) not being passed. This does not go without explanation. Since February, attendance within the Iraqi parliament has rarely been above two-thirds; when all the surge troops arrived and the most progress was made (the last month) parliament had been adjourned for summer recess; and finally, only until recently did Iraq have a so-called ‘national-unity’ government which would stall at every stepping point (see previous analysis). What these points show is that security and political developments cannot be assessed on the same progress line, and that they should be looked at independently.

Having said that, there is a different link to be made between American military progress and the productivity of Iraqi political parties. There are some Iraqi groups who are trying to use American timetables to portray a bleak picture of Iraq, so as to try and force a change either in the current political system, or in the leadership of that system. The mid-September Petraeus-Crocker report was one such example. Instead of being a target to make gains, some elected groups used it for exactly the opposite, shown by the increase in the number of times groups have withdrawn from government and parliament since the surge began. What this shows is that there is still a reliance or expectance that American influence can and will lead to a change in the democratic system and its democratically elected leadership. The recent efforts by previous Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in Washington illustrate this point. Although it is within his democratic right to do so, the fact that he has been garnering for support in Washington, not Baghdad, implies that change takes place in Washington rather than in the democratically elected Iraq. It is this idea that is dangerous for Iraq in the long term, and must be overcome before political progress can be made between the Iraqi parties.

Overall things are looking much better than they did before the surge started. Al-Qaeda has received several blows, especially in Anbar, where they almost cease to exist. The Mehdi Army has now been suspended after the chaos caused in Karabala, and so far this step has proven to be positive. A unified majority government now exists and all opposition has moved out of government. Leaders of the five major blocs in parliament have come together and agreed on some key issues for Iraqi progress. What is required now is for the United States to give Iraq a long term assurance as well as show an unwavering commitment to the current democratic political system, forcing Iraqis into accepting responsibility and moving forward.

News Analysis brought to you by the Iraqi Prospect Organisation - www.iprospect.org.uk

The Iraqi Prospect Organisation is an Iraqi-based network of young men and women promoting democratic values.

Independent sees flickers of hope in Iraq

The Leader in todays paper says: Increasingly, though, it is not the foreign troops who are bearing the brunt of the violence, but Iraqi civilians. A war against foreign occupation has turned into a sectarian conflict, if not – yet – outright civil war.

This means that even an early withdrawal of foreign troops will not, of itself, bring peace. And with no single Iraqi grouping strong enough to prevail alone, the warring factions will one day have to negotiate a settlement. If Iraq is to remain a unitary state – as a majority of Iraqis appear to want – the sooner this can happen, the better.

To the Finland Station?

Details of high-level private talks to find a settlement in Iraq

Press release Monday 3 September

Leading representatives of Iraqi political parties and others linked to a range of groups close to the conflict completed four days of discussions in Finland

Participants committed themselves to work towards a robust framework for a lasting settlement. Those present agreed to a set of recommendations to start negotiations to reach national reconciliation. These recommendations are contained in the attached Helsinki Agreement. The principles of inclusivity, power-sharing and a commitment to removing the use of violence as a means of resolving political differences were among the most urgent concerns agreed.

Brought together by the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies at the University of Massachusetts - Boston, with the assistance of the Crisis Management Initiative, sixteen Iraqi delegates were aided by senior representatives of peace processes of Northern Ireland and South Africa to explore the current situation in Iraq.

No further information can be offered at this stage.

Helsinki Agreement

Representatives of Iraqi parties and blocs held discussions in Finland from August 31 through September 3, 2007 and agreed to consult further on the following recommendations to start negotiations to reach national reconciliation:

1. To resolve all political issues through non-violence and democracy.

2. To prohibit the use of arms for all armed groups during the process of
negotiations.

3. To form an independent commission approved by all parties, its task being to
supervise the process of disarmament of non-governmental armed groups in a
verifiable manner.

4. All parties will commit to accept the results of the negotiations and no party
can be subject to a threat of force from any groups that reject all or part of any
agreement reached.

5. To work to end international and regional interference in internal Iraqi affairs.

6. To commit to protect human rights.

7. To assure the independence and efficiency of the legal and justice systems,
especially the constitutional court.

8. To ensure the full participation of all Iraqi parties and blocs in the political
process and agreed governance arrangements.

9. To take all necessary steps to end all violence, killings, forced displacement
and any further damage to infrastructure.

10. To establish an independent consultative body to explore ways to deal with the
legacy of the past in a way that will unite the nation.

11. All Iraqi parties and blocs have to build Iraq and contribute efficiently to
support all the efforts that would make the political process and Iraqi unity
successful and to preserve its sovereignty.

12. All participating groups must commit to all of the principles listed here as a
complete system of rules.

TUC Fringe Meeting

17.30, Wednesday 12th September, Brighton Conference Centre

Solidarity with Iraqi Workers

Speakers: Gary Kent, Director, Labour Friends of Iraq; Abdullah Muhsin, International representative, General Federation of Iraqi Workers; Sue Rogers, Chair TUC Iraqi Solidarity Committee/NASUWT; Norma Stephenson, Unison President; Councillor Mushtaq Laharie, Chairman, Third World Solidarity
Chair: Dave Anderson, MP

Venue: Meeting Room 1, Brighton Centre
Refreshments provided. Open to all TUC delegates and visitors

Surge of solidarity needed

LFIQ Director Gary Kent argues in Progress that with or without foreign troops, a surge of solidarity with the unions and others in Iraq is needed.

No time to crow

We should all be reaching out to Iraqi trade unionists and democrats

31 August 2007

Why is sympathy for and solidarity with Iraqi democrats so muted? Al Qaeda followers in Iraq recently carried out their second worst atrocity after 9/11 by blowing hundreds of ordinary Yazidi Kurds to smithereens. Where were the vigils and the round-robin letters that would have been organised over, for example, the loss of hundreds of innocent people in, say, a US air attack.

Why can't more progressives start seeing who are its real enemies and friends in Iraq? Instead, some seem stuck in a time-warp circa February 2003 when millions marched to prevent the invasion of Iraq. The war easily toppled Saddam which most Iraqis welcomed but the American military proceeded to start losing the peace with great stupidity.

One of the most important gains has been the renaissance of a new civil society after decades of fascist-type rule. Labour Friends of Iraq (LFIQ) concentrates its efforts on supporting the Iraqi trade union movement.

The labour movement was all but extinguished by Saddam who put Ali Hassan al-Majid - 'Chemical Ali' - in charge of his regime-friendly yellow unions. It is reckoned that the combined strength of the clandestine and exiled movement was in its hundreds in 2003. It is now in its hundreds of thousands. The General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW) brings together three union centres and its founding congress is shortly being held in Baghdad: itself a defiant response to extremists. The movement is deliberately non-sectarian, seeks to increase the participation of women in its ranks and to contribute to building ademocratic and federal Iraq.

Oil is the biggest issue in a country which derives 97% of its revenue from one resource. The oil industry is clapped out after years of under-investment and external expertise and investment are needed. But the unions insist that oil is a national resource and want to be part of the debate about a new national oil law.

The Iraqi labour movement faces grave dangers. Its leaders have been ruthlessly targeted by the insurgency and many of its leaders have been martyred. Its offices have on several times been raided by US troops who, on one occasion, trashed anti-terror posters. It also faces the hostility of parts of the central Iraqi Government ,which has not only maintained Saddam's ban on public sector trade unions but has also frozen the movement's funds.

The movement suffers, as much as the rest of Iraqi society, from decades of repression of independent political activity and its leaders are keen to catch up on discussions and technologies so long denied to them.

They enjoy the support of the TUC (which is running an appeal formobile phones for union organisers) as well as the Fire Brigades Union (which recently donated and drove two fire engines all the way to Iraq), Teachers Union NASUWT (which assists with training) and Unison. An LFIQ delegation last year visited Iraqi Kurdistan where we saw a Unison-sponsored training session in Erbil which only differed in language from such events here.

The delegation held a five-hour discussion with a score of union leaders from around Iraq. Their message was simple: help us to stand on our own two feet and contribute to defending social justice. International solidarity is often a minority pastime but there is something different about attitudes towards Iraq solidarity.

It's perfectly understandable that those who opposed the invasion maintain the integrity of their arguments. It's quite another to effectively adopt an "I told you so" stance and sit on one's hands at the expense of the workers' movement, women's organisations and elected Iraqi parliamentarians and parties.

It's obscene for a minority to back insurgents who murder union leaders and would destroy civil society. With or without foreign troops, a surge of solidarity with the unions and others is needed. It's the very least one would expect from progressive internationalism.