[Marxism] Fw: [foil] iraqi "communists" trying to split UK antiwar labor

[andrew c pollack <andypollack@xxxxxxxx>]

Fascinating dossier on Brit piecards trying to cover their tracks in
backin Blair by blaming the SWP (and the ever-slimy AWL siding with the
piecards). Several articles and letters, all revealing. Thanks to the
original poster on the FOIL list for this great collection!
--------- Forwarded message ----------

          The Guardian Saturday October 23, 2004

          Union fury at Stop the War coalition's sectarianism

          Patrick Wintour, Kevin Maguire and Michael White

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

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

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

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troops should withdrawn from Iraq immediately or stay until after the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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday Mr Murray denied undermining Mr Prentis.

He added: "We regret Mick's resignation. He played an important part
in winning unions to oppose the war. But it's very sad he should
choose to resign in a way apparently designed to cause maximum
divisions at a critical time."

Adopting perhaps the campaign's best known slogan, Mr Rix had said
the controversial statement was "not issued in my name".

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

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

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

Unison's deputy general secretary, Kenneth Sonnet, is said to have
expressed his union's fury forcibly to Mr Murray. Concern has also
been expressed in the senior ranks of the T&G and GMB, two other
affiliated unions.

Accusing coalition leaders of "atrocious" treatment of the federation,
Mr Sonnet said: "It's not for us to tell unions in other countries how to

operate. We have to listen to what they want ... We have told the
coalition we are considering our position."

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

          The Guardian Saturday October 23, 2004

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

          Abdullah Muhsin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and support to Iraqi democrats, socialists and trade unionists.

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

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

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

They are trying to introduce free-market and privatisation policies
carried out by incompetent corporate plunderers whose aim is the
economic occupation of our country. Our trade unions are the main
impediment to such policies.

Some present a false dichotomy between the Jordanian terrorist, Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, and a mainstream Iraqi national resistance.

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

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

· Abdullah Muhsin is the foreign representative for the Iraqi Federation
of Trade Unions

www.iraqitradeunions.org

          The Guardian Monday October 25, 2004

          Letters: Cracks in the coalition

The attitude of the Stop the War coalition is not accurately presented
in your article (Union fury at Stop the War coalition's sectarianism,
October 23). Our position, which is the same as that adopted at the
TUC conference, is that an early date be set for the withdrawal of
British troops from Iraq.

The choice presented to the Labour party conference was either to
call for Tony Blair to "set an early date" for troop withdrawal or to
support a statement legitimising the occupation until December 2005
at the least, and beyond under certain circumstances. Regrettably, the
conference voted for the latter option.

The illegal occupation is killing hundreds of Iraqis and the lives of
British soldiers are being needlessly placed at risk. The coalition is
focused on campaigning against this tragedy. All our affiliates, 70% of
the public and the tens of thousands who marched in London this
month are with us, and we hope that Unison stays with us too.
Lindsey German
Convenor, Stop the War

It would be a disaster for the anti-war movement if Unison and the
other unions were to use ill-judged and excessive criticism of the Iraqi
Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) as an occasion to depart from the
Stop the War coalition. The IFTU letter to delegates at the Labour
party conference has been used within Unison to try to justify a failure
to support our union's anti-occupation policy. It provided an excuse for
union leaders who, for their own reasons, did not wish to confront
Tony Blair.

Many trade unionists regret the way in which the IFTU was used
against the anti-war movement in Brighton. This does not mean that
we should condemn those seeking to build independent trade unions
in Iraq. Those building IFTU unions, and other independent trade
unions, deserve our support and solidarity.
Jon Rogers
Lambeth Unison branch secretary

The dispute over the Stop the War coalition's attitude to the IFTU is
not primarily a disagreement over how long British troops should stay
in Iraq. It is about Stop the War's refusal to take a stand of solidarity

with working-class, women's and other democratic organisations in
Iraq, and its preference for the fascistic militias of the neo-Ba'athist/

Islamist "resistance" over such progressive forces.

It is possible to criticise the IFTU for its softness on many issues,
while extending its solidarity as a genuine organisation of the Iraqi
working class. But they are simply not interested in workers. You
describe Stop the War's leadership as Trotskyist, but its approach is
Stalinist to the core.
Sacha Ismail
Alliance for Workers' Liberty

Abdullah Muhsin is at odds with the facts when he writes that he did
"not offer voting advice to trade unions on Labour's Iraq motions" (We
are nobody's pawns, October 23). In fact, his advice was printed in the
party's official daily briefing for all delegates and in a special "open
letter to trade union delegates", in which he wrote that an early date
for withdrawal of troops "would be bad for my country, and would play
into the hands of extremists".
Carol Turner
Secretary, Labour CND

Abdullah Muhsin speaks for a group that has usurped the
representation of Iraqi workers using Saddam's law No 71 of 1987,
and by means of administrative orders of the US/British occupation
and its Iraqi governing council. His communist turned neo-con faction
helped provide political cover for war and sanctions. The group was
key in the consolidation of the Saddam dictatorship, and now it is
allied to the occupation.
Kamil Mahdik
Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter

          The Guardian Wednesday October 27, 2004

          Unions in war row ask for UK cash

          Helene Mulholland

An Iraqi trade union movement that helped persuade Labour
opponents of the war to back the government at their party
conference has admitted holding talks over receiving government
funds shortly afterwards.

Sobhi Mashhadani, the general secretary of the Iraq Federation of
Trade Unions (IFTU), has defended the decision to ask for assistance
from the British Council after the conference in Brighton earlier this
month.

But the revelation will add to the welter of denunciations by factions
within the Stop the War coalition against the IFTU.

The internecine spat within the Stop the War movement has already
seen a founder member, Mick Rix, resign in protest at the IFTU's
treatment by the left, with Unison threatening to follow if the attacks
on
the IFTU continue.

The British Council, responsible for handling part of the Department
for International Development's £5m civil society support fund which
was set up to support a range of existing and emerging civil society
organisations across Iraq, including trade unions, confirmed it was
awaiting a funding application from the IFTU.

A spokesman said it funded a number of British trade unions
promoting trade unions abroad, but was "awaiting a separate proposal
from the IFTU on trade union promotion in Iraq".

          The Guardian Wednesday October 27, 2004

          'We want to bring hope to Iraq'

Hélène Mulholland meets Sobhi Mashhadani, the Iraqi trade unionist
whose cooperation with the interim government has invoked the wrath
of the anti-war left

Sobhi Mashhadani, the general secretary of the Iraqi Federation of
Trade Unions (IFTU), who opposed the war but now backs the
occupation, presents a troubling dilemma for the British left.

The TUC and individual trade unions - many of whom are involved in
the Stop the War Coalition (SWC) - are supportive of his efforts to
build up an independent Iraqi trade union organisation. But factions
within the SWC have focused their wrath on his organisation over
what they describe as his "collaborator" status with the British
government.

A tall, imposing man, Mr Mashhadani's regal manner makes it hard to
picture him as a train driver, a job he held between spells in prison in
the 1960s for his union activities. His expression is permanently
serious, managing at best only a whisper of a smile, matched by a
heavy tone - prompted, perhaps, by the events of the past three
weeks.

He invoked the fury of sections of the anti-war movement when he
sent his British representative, Abdullah Muhsin, to lobby trade union
delegates at the Labour party conference to oppose calls for an early
withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

Anti-war activists, many of them Iraqi exiles, had their revenge when
they prevented him from speaking at a key debate on ending the
occupation at the European Social Forum, held in London earlier this
month. Earlier that day he had been literally hounded out of the hall by
a noisy crowd.

The protesters accused him of being a "collaborator" with the British
government in its desire to keep the troops in Iraq, and the IFTU of
being a "paper organisation". Mr Mashhadani says the experience
reminded him of being "silenced like we were silenced by Saddam".

He will not concede that the IFTU's original anti-war stance has
changed following the violent insurgency raging against the
occupation. "My responsibility is to the trade unions," he says. "I
promote the policies of the IFTU wherever we are invited to go and
explain this process." He adds: "We certainly do not promote the
policies of others."

He is clear that the IFTU is not in anyone's pocket. "We are not a
puppet union or of any government," he says. "We initiated the
campaign to build new trade unions."

"After the collapse of Saddam, [Paul] Bremer and his army attacked
us," he claims, detailing how US troops ransacked the IFTU
headquarters and arrested eight of its leading members, including the
president of the transport and communication union.

"But this did not deter us to build the trade union movement. That is
independent, transparent democratic and independent from the state
and political parties."

Mr Mashhadani won't disclose his age, but his coiffed white hair and
moustache identify him as a man in his sixties or seventies. His
English is about as good as my Arabic and the three-way interview
with his British representative, Mr Muhsin, sees several deliberative
chats between the two before a reply is given.

Iraq has been a stranger to the concept of a free, independent trade
union movement after years of "yellow trade unions" established by
Saddam's Ba'athist regime.

But an underground resistance movement kept the spirit of free trade
unionism alive, allowing the IFTU to emerge after the fall of Saddam.
It represents 12 affiliated unions, though Mr Mashhadani offers no
clear figure of membership other than a loose reference to having
"hundreds of thousands" of members.

The IFTU is a melting pot of political allegiances, he explains, held
together by the usual denominator of trade union organisations: a
commitment to workers' rights.

It is now busy lobbying the interim government to scrap the
oppressive trade union laws introduced by Saddam and introduce a
decent "labour code" benefiting a nascent society, including the right
to union organisation.

To these ends, British trade unions are lending their weight to the
IFTU and other trade union organisations sprouting in Iraq, providing
training, support, and donations.

Sitting by his side, Mr Muhsin flatly rebuts that he tried to influence
the
Labour membership, despite a clear request published in the
conference daily briefing which called on conference to rescind the
emergency motion on withdrawing the troops.

"We were asked what is the situation for trade unions now," says Mr
Muhsin, speaking for himself. "We explained it. We condemned the
war - it is an illegal war," he says animatedly.

"We said we are against the military and economic occupation of our
country, that we want the removal of troops from our country, but we
said we wanted the removal of troops as part and parcel of process
sanctioned by UN resolution 1546, which not a single nation voted
against ...

"It is not our role to interfere in the politics of the Labour party. But
it is
our role to support the political process of Iraq."

Since the reconstruction plans under resolution 1546 involve
occupying troops to stay on at least until after the January elections,
isn't it fair to say that the IFTU has changed tack and now backs the
occupation?

"There is no tension for us," says Mr Muhsin. "We campaigned
against the war. It happened. The war was unjust for us ... the
Americans wanted it to happen, not us. We are the victims and we
should not be blamed for the atrocities. What we want now is to keep
our country together and bring hope to Iraq ... What I did is because
of what I believe is [necessary] for people to have a decent life not to
be told by cultural imperialists how we should live our lives and
conduct our affairs."

The IFTU claims that other than training support offered by
international trade unions, it is being funded solely through some of
the unfrozen assets of the "paper" trade union movement under
Saddam's reign, which saw workers' subscriptions deducted at source
without their consent.

Mr Mashhadani denies that the IFTU receives any government
funding, whether US or British, though when it is pointed out to him
that the government-funded British Council has said it is "awaiting" a
proposal from the IFTU, Mr Muhsin admits that talks were held three
weeks ago, shortly after the Labour conference. This is for possible
cash to help with the "mobile theatres" the IFTU plans to take around
the country to promote trade union activities.

This news is likely to do little to calm the infighting within SWC, which

has around a dozen affiliated trade unions. SWC refuses to recant on
its public attack of IFTU. Is it really fair to single out an Iraqi
movement for the simple crime of putting across the case that British
trade unions and Labour party members alike chose to take on
board? Andrew Murray, from SWC, insists that British trade unions
were also rebuked for the stance they took following Mr Muhsin's
appeal. "We have said the trade unions made a mistake," he explains,
"... but the IFTU support was used to persuade trade unions to make
that shift."

Maybe so. But the spotlight has been shone directly in the IFTU's
eyes. Mr Mashhadani came to Britain to find allies, and returns home
at the end of this month to inform colleagues he has made itself an
unexpected enemy. However, the Iraqi people are no doubt more
versed than most in tales of the unexpected emerging from an illegal
war.

          The Guardian Wednesday October 27, 2004

          Collaboration won't buy Iraq's freedom

The British labour movement should avoid taking advice from Iraqis
who work hand in glove with their occupiers

          Sami Ramadani

Iraqis campaigning to end the occupation of our country have been
shocked to hear the harsh criticisms levelled at the Stop the War
coalition by leaders of the trade union Unison and others. It must also
be a source of dismay to the many thousands of union and Labour
activists who consistently opposed the war of aggression on Iraq and
continue to campaign to bring the troops home.

This unwelcome diversion follows the Labour conference voting to
reject a call for an early date to be set for the withdrawal of British
troops from Iraq. The vote was a blow to the Iraqi people's struggle for
liberation and democracy at a critical time in the murderously ruthless
occupation of our country. Britain's role might not be decisive
militarily,
but it is the one country important enough to provide the Bush
administration with the fig leaf it desperately seeks to convince the
American people that there is international support for its war policies.

Tony Blair's propaganda value in the US means that British withdrawal
would have a huge impact on the US public.

What has startled many anti-occupation Iraqis is that Stop the War,
the broadest anti-war mass movement Britain has ever seen, is being
criticised for sectarianism. And all because it is refusing to cosy up to

an organisation that masquerades as an anti-occupation council of
trade unions in Iraq.

Outside Iraq, this organisation calls itself the Iraqi Federation of
Trade
Unions (IFTU), but inside the country uses the same name (the
General Federation of Workers' Trade Unions in Iraq) as the "yellow"
unions set up by Saddam Hussein. Paul Bremer, President Bush's
proconsul in Iraq until this summer, eventually blessed the decision of
his Iraqi Governing Council to recognise one of at least two outfits
claiming to take up the mantle of the GFWTUI (and hence legally
control its massive assets and individual unions). That outfit is none
other than the IFTU of today. But of course it is not the only trade
union federation, nor is it recognised by most people attempting to
create independent unions as their representative. These include the
oil workers union in Basra and the Federation of Workers Councils
and Trade Unions. There are also other ad-hoc federations led by
Islamists, and Kurdish parties in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The question is why the occupation authorities chose to recognise the
IFTU as the sole federation in Iraq. The answer is that most IFTU
leaders belong to the Iraqi Communist party, which had a proud
record under the British-imposed regime in the 1950s and afterwards
but which made the mistake of going into government with Saddam's
Ba'ath party in the 70s, and since the early 90s has lost its bearings
entirely. Within three months of the invasion it switched its official
policy to active cooperation with the occupation when it joined
Bremer's governing council. Today the party has one senior and two
junior ministers in the longtime CIA asset Ayad Allawi's regime. Allawi,
himself a former senior Saddamist, also leads a CIA-funded
organisation, the Iraqi National Accord, composed of former Saddam
loyalists in the armed forces and security services. These now control
the key ministries of defence, the interior and national security.

Allawi's party and the ICP - whose leader was recently described in
the Financial Times as "the US's ideal partner" in Iraq - are now close
allies. Hence the IFTU's efforts to support Blair's abortive attempt to
invite Allawi to address the Labour conference. That should have
alerted trade unions and Labour delegates to the role being played by
the IFTU and the way it has been used by the Blair government.

Abdullah Muhsin, the IFTU's international representative, led the
campaign to invite Allawi and pleaded with trade union and Labour
delegates not to support the call for an early withdrawal of Britain's
forces. Despite his denials, his opposition to the conference resolution
calling for an early date for withdrawal was published in the party's
daily briefing to delegates and was widely distributed in advance of the
debate.

Muhsin has been upset at accusations of collaboration. I for one
would be happy to drop such an emotive term if someone could
suggest a more apposite description of an organisation that: gets
backing from the occupation authorities in preference to all other
unions and federations; does not campaign within Iraq against the
occupation; says not a word about Iraq's real ruler at Saddam's
Republican Palace in Baghdad, US ambassador John Negroponte;
attacks all those resisting the occupation as terrorists and echoes
Bush and Blair in their portrayal of popular resistance to occupation as
one and the same as the criminal acts of a hoodlum like Zarqawi;
supports the prolongation of the occupation by opposing the setting of
an early date for the troops' withdrawal; actively supports an
occupation-imposed puppet regime that, following a Bremer decree,
enacted Saddam's 1987 law banning strikes and unions in the state
sector; and fails to campaign against the US bombardment of Iraqi
cities.

Now it has emerged that the IFTU has been in discussions with the
British Council about accepting funds from the British government -
which has invaded and occupied our homeland - to support its
activities in Iraq.

Instead of accusing them of "cultural imperialism", Muhsin and the
IFTU should be saluting those in Britain who recognise the legitimacy
of the Iraqi people's resistance to an illegal war and occupation, and
end their deep involvement with the occupation-appointed authorities.

Trade unions and anti-war campaigners need to reject this latest
diversion, as Tony Woodley of the transport union has urged, increase
the pressure for the withdrawal of British forces and support the Iraqi
people's struggle for liberation and democracy. In considering the
IFTU leaders' arguments in support of the US-installed Allawi regime,
we bear in mind the slogan which is chanted by Iraqis as they gather
near homes destroyed by US bombardment, after their tears for the
dead and injured give way to anger. It damns Allawi as both a coward
and an agent of the US: "Ya Allawi ya jaban, ya ameel il-Amreekan!"

· Sami Ramadani was a political refugee from Saddam Hussein's
regime and is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University

sami.ramadani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Foil-l mailing list
Foil-l@xxxxxxxxx
http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/foil-l_insaf.net

________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/ month - visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism