ninety minute nationalist

See this report. It doesn't look like a coincidence that this has been happening.

Tehran bus workers still need our solidarity

See this report on the Workers' Liberty site

China Labour Bulletin reports the release of Xiao Yunliang, one of the Liaoyang Two. Yao Fuxin remains in prison. There is also this interview with Xiao's sister.

LabourStart has this letter from the Tehran bus workers. If you haven't already done so please go here and register your opposition to the continuing incarceration of the bus workers' leaders and support for their demands -

"the Syndicate, on behalf of the bus company's drivers and workers, demands:


*the unconditional release of all the members of the union's executive;

*the reinstatement of all the laid-off workers; and

*the meeting of workers' rightful welfare demands, such as correction of the basic pay, the signing of a collective agreement and election of a genuine representative."

Kevin Williamson is able to see right to the heart of the cartoons issue. Why didn't I see it before? Which Nazi-occupied European country wouldn't collude in the annihilation of its Jewish population? You scratch my back...

Kev's insight isn't quite as unique as you might expect from such an original thinker, there seems to be at least one other original thinker with a similar idea.

This week's Scottish Socialist Voice has three letters on the Danish cartoon controversy. Unfortunately they all fall in line with the standard far left response; condemn the cartoons as racist, assert the real issue as support for a beleaguered muslim community, ignore any circumstances that don't fit in with that view.

I'm not even sure the writers of the first letter have actually seen the cartoons, the description they give has the air of second or third-hand information about it. For instance, these writers are outraged at a cartoon of Mohammed "as a pig writing The Quran". Fine, except that wasn't one of the cartoons published in the Danish paper, rather it was one of three additional cartoons mysteriously compiled along with the original twelve by a group of Danish imams for a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia used to stir up the controversy. Worth noting here that the original twelve cartoons were published in an Egyptian newspaper in October 2005 without creating any great uproar.

Bill Scott writes, in "the current climate of fear created by Bush and Blair portraying the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist is nothing less than promoting racial hatred.
That doesn’t mean that I believe that Islam can’t be criticised but that we as socialists have got to be sensitive about how. Otherwise we will end up siding with those who are driving ordinary Muslims into the waiting arms of extremists". The cartoon Bill refers to is certainly the most dubious of them of all, however, at least one muslim disagrees with Bill's interpretation,

"I am a Muslim. I believe in and recite the Kalima. I am in a rage over the cartoons. I have managed to see them, since there are many sites now where they are available, and my rage is that they are an accurate representation. Political cartoons are wonderful. They are a mirror which cuts away the superficial and shows by exaggeration what the cartoonist sees as the heart of the issue...

If a Danish newspaper commissions cartoonists to find an image of the Prophet Muhammad, where are they going to find the imagery to capture in their cartoons? They are going to see it in the face that the Muslim world presents. And it isn't pretty.

It is the face of the bomb ticking away above the brain, destroying reason. It is the face of the sword guarding repressed, hidden and frightened women. About a vision of paradise as a male voluptuous fantasy inspiring people to kill innocents and themselves. They could have shown other ugly scenes from state executions to anti-semitism and intolerance of other religions and viewpoints. The scariest image I saw was of the placards outside the Regent's Park mosque saying: 'To Hell with free speech' and 'Behead those who insult the prophet'. The Qur'an and the Al-hadith are venerated and recited, but not read, studied and acted upon". The Guardian 6/2/06

Portraying Mohammed in this way may be unwise unless you like getting death threats but is it really a call to racial hatred? As the letter writer to the Guardian shows there isn't just one interpretation of the cartoon's meaning.

I also don't like the idea that unless we moderate our criticism of militant Islamism we will end up "siding with those who are driving ordinary Muslims into the waiting arms of extremists". For one thing don't we have a duty to be honest with those we want to win to socialism. There are people dying throughout the Middle East at the hands of militant Islamists, militant Islamists have murdered thousands of workers in the USA, Indonesia, Nigeria, the UK; the very "extremists" Bill mentions promote a death cult and try to justify it on the basis of their Islamic faith. Also it's not clear to me who this mysterious "those" are, nor is it obvious there is a concerted campaign by 'them' to drive "ordinary Muslims into the waiting arms of extremists" as Bill implies and, whatever 'those'' people are doing, "ordinary Muslims" needn't respond by rushing "into the waiting arms of extremists".

The third letter is too depressing; how do conduct a debate with someone where the langauge used by one side is calculated to cut off debate before it can get started?

Finally, here is the voice of a socialist from Iran;

"I must admit, those of us who have fled the Islamic Republic of Iran are very familiar with this outlook on things. Cultural relativism's equal opportunity for all values and beliefs has often been shoved down our throats by many of the very same politicians, publishers and editors, telling us time and time again to respect 'our' culture and religion though it has been imposed by sheer force.

Now this racism of lower standards and relative rights regarding Islam is being applied to the European press as well! Beware!

From Jack Straw to frightened politicians and editors across the board, in unison with Ahmadinejad and others Islamists and their apologists, we are told that free speech and a free press do not mean the freedom to 'insult', 'offend', be 'inflammatory', 'insensitive' or 'disrespectful' to the 'beliefs of Muslims'.

I ask you, what use is free speech then if it merely deals with the mundane?"

Here and here.

China Labour Bulletin News Flash No. 61 (2006-02-14)

THE SHORT WORKING LIFE OF DENG WENPING

Silicosis victim dies just months after receiving compensation

It is with much sadness that CLB reports that Deng Wenping, a migrant worker who contracted silicosis while working at a Hong Kong-invested jewellery factory in southern China due to grossly inadequate workplace safety provision, finally died of his illness on 5 January, after years of struggling to meet his extremely expensive medical bills and only months after winning a several year-long legal battle to obtain compensation.

About 100 or so jewellery industry-related silicosis cases in Guangdong have been identified so far by CLB and other labour and human rights groups in Hong Kong, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. According to the PRC Ministry of Health, around 440,000 Chinese workers currently have silicosis, but in April 2005, the ministry's own experts estimated that the real figure was "around ten times higher." Many migrant workers are slowly dying of this illness because their employers failed to provide them with even the legally-required minimum level of workplace health and safety protection. Deng Wenping's tragic case highlights the severe human cost, in terms of basic health and safety, being paid daily by countless migrant workers for the sake of China's rapid economic development.

Deng was only 36 years old when he died; he is survived by his wife and two young children. He was diagnosed as having developed life-threatening silicosis after just three years on the job as a stone cutter and polisher. Previously, the average incubation period for this type of pneumoconiosis was seven years, suggesting that the health and safety conditions in the plant where Deng worked were particularly egregious.

His wife Tang Manzhen told CLB that Deng had been unable to breathe on his own for several months and that he had been reliant on an inflated "oxygen pillow" to stay alive. More recently, he had been receiving medical treatment for silicosis in a local hospital in his hometown in Sichuan before his death. "The daily medical fees were very high. He needed continuous emergency treatment during his last days," Tang said.

In July 2005, Deng received a total of 230,000 yuan (around USD 28,000) in compensation from his former employer, Perfect Gem & Pearl Manufacturing Company, in an out-of-court settlement mediated by the Huizhou Intermediate People's Court and Boluo County Court. Deng had earlier received 90,000 yuan in compensation from the company in 2001. The combination of Deng's illness-related loss of ability to work, the cost of the family's four-year legal fight for compensation and the punitively high medical bills that he had to pay throughout his illness eventually bankrupted the family.

By the time he died, very little of Deng's hard-won compensation money was left: Most of the settlement had been spent on paying for his medical care and to repay loans borrowed from friends and relatives, Deng's wife told CLB. Prior to the court settlement, the family even had to sell their home to pay Deng's medical bills and repay debts. His wife and their two children are now living with Deng's older sister.

The children, a nine-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter, will be able to continue their studies thanks to financial support from non-governmental organisations in Hong Kong, Ms. Deng said. Previously also a migrant worker in the cities, she has now gone back to a farming job in her home village. She said it was difficult for her, at the age of 36, to find any other kind of work by which to support herself and the two children.

She thanked China Labour Bulletin and other Hong Kong-based groups for helping her husband to fight for fair compensation. "I hope that the jewellery industry in Guangdong will pay more attention to workers' occupational health and safety and I hope that there will be no more heartbreaking tragedies like the one that's happened to my family," she said.

However, silicosis victims in China are now starting to fight back. In recent months, about 30 of them are known to have taken court action to force their employers to pay them decent compensation, and these lawsuits have produced initially encouraging results. Court-ordered compensation awards for silicosis victims in the jewellery industry have ranged from around 200,000 yuan to a recent record high of 463,000 yuan. In countless other such cases, however, seriously ill workers have neither the funds nor the confidence to hire lawyers to press for compensation through the court system. The real solution therefore can only lie in primary preventative measures - meaning factory owners have to begin taking China's laws and regulations on workplace safety seriously; and if they refuse to do so, the government must act to enforce the rules and punish the violators.

China Labour Bulletin extends its sincere condolences to Deng Wenping's wife and two children over their sad loss. Deng's death highlights the urgency of the need for Hong Kong investors and the relevant Guangdong authorities to take immediate action to remedy the dangerous working conditions found in most of the province's jewellery processing industry. Workers' rights and wellbeing must be respected - they are not a mere optional extra in the process of China's continuing economic growth and modernization.

For more information on the silicosis epidemic in China, please see the following:
- CLB research report Deadly Dust: http://iso.china-labour.org.hk/public/contents/article?revision%5fid=19186&item%5fid=19182

- Interview with Deng Wenping's wife: http://www.clb.org.hk/public/contents/article?revision%5fid=7003&item%5fid=6999


Also, you can sign our online campaign for safe working conditions for the jewellery workers in Guangdong at:
http://www.clb.org.hk/public/contents/campaign?revision%5fid=17964&item%5fid=17906

14 February 2006

Socialist Worker finally got round to commenting on the 'cartoons debate'. It was well worth the wait. A grade 'A' attempt at sucking up to your chosen market, full of non-sequiturs, nothing to do with socialist politics, guilty of treating muslims as a homogeneous mass. Tragedy, farce and jokes! What more could you ask for?

In an number of posts a long time ago Norm Geras wrote about moving on - the war, as such, was over, time to deal with the reality of Iraq post-Saddam. Unfortunately, however many times he tries to move on, it seems other people, those who disagree with him, won't let him; they will keep perpetuating the "lie" that the overriding stated reason for the war was the desire for self-protection against the perceived threat from the Hussein regime and that any notion of bringing democracy to Iraq was of, at best. secondary importance, if not, downright optional. He re-itirates that view in this post.

As an opponent of the war I don't agree with this rosy-spectacled view of the reasons for it. I prefer to believe what Bush and Blair had to say for themselves -


President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

Tony Blair, 18th March 2003.

Nevertheless I have no difficulty in 'moving on'; no difficulty in smiling at the downfall of Saddam and the Ba'athists; no difficulty in supporting and building solidarity initiatives with the labour movement in Iraq; no difficulty condemning the barbaric reactionary forces of the 'resistance'; no difficulty condemning the STWC and its offshoots for the reactionary forces they are. But that doesn't mean I will deny the evidence about the reasons for the war; I won't prettify the reasons Bush and Blair had for doing what they did.

For some reason Norm Geras and the people at Harry's Place seem to feel they must do just that. Every time the idea of the overthrow of Saddam is portrayed as something other than a glorious fight for democracy they feel compelled to shout No!. You might almost think there was an element of insecurity involved - however that would be to indulge in the very same cod-psychoanalysis employed by Mr Geras in the piece linked to below.

A report by Martin Thomas, well worth reading right through to the end.

Hassan Juma’a, President of the General Union of Oil Employees in Basra, spoke in London on 8 February and answered questions. The meeting was organised by Iraq Occupation Focus, and the translation was by Sami Ramadani.

This is a transcript of what he said.

Greetings, my dear friends. I am very happy to meet this segment of British society, who stand with us in the ordeal we are living through in Iraq.

The Americans' greed in occupying Iraq is very well known and very clear to all. In 1975 a book was published by an American politician, Henry Kissinger, in which he outlined US policy in the Middle East. He stressed that the USA should control Middle East oil, and that, we believe, is the main reason why Iraq was invaded and occupied.

The former ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was working as though he was an official of the State Department. The State Department could have removed him with an order of dismissal. But the USA felt it could handle things differently. Preparations were made against Iraq because Iraq is rich in natural resources.

I will briefly survey the Iraqi trade union scene in the 1950s. 1958 was the beginning of a new stage, with the 14 July revolution. Then we had the decision in 1987 by the Revolutionary Command Council, headed by Saddam Hussein, to transform workers into "civil servants" [so that they could not join unions]. With that decree, the identity of the biggest social group in Iraq, the working class, was deformed.

Nobody raised their voice to ask how the workers' identity could suddenly be changed into civil servants. Violations of workers' rights escalated.

Iraqi trade unions were established in the 1950s. Following the discovery of oil in the region, and the expansion of the sea ports, the unions became quite important. They demanded improvements in workers' conditions. In 1952 the oil union staged the first strike against the oil company, demanding improvement in the wages of the workers. That was followed in 1956 by a similar strike led by the port workers' union.

The 14 July revolution of 1958 transformed Iraq from a monarchy into a republic under the leadership of Abd al-Karim Qassem. Within a few days of that revolution those who controlled power in Iraq started to repress and oppress the trade union leaders.

But the biggest problems for the workers began in 1968, when the Ba'th party took control of Iraq through a military coup. Not until a month after that coup did Iraqis find out the real identity of the coup leaders. They hid their identity because they had captured power previously in 1963 and had written a black page for the Iraqi people.

Unions continued, but now under the umbrella of the Ba'thist ideology of unions serving the regime. The Ba'thists tried to make unions belong solely to the Ba'th party. Trade unions stopped demanding workers' rights and became mouthpieces for the regime. In fact they became security organisations, taking to task workers who demanded their rights.

That continued until 1987, when the decree was issued under which workers were transformed into "civil servants". Many people who did not understand the real meaning of the decree applauded it. One justification for the decree, according to Saddam Hussein when he appeared on television, was that women in Iraq did not want to marry a worker. He had taken the decision [to reclassify state-sector workers as "civil servants"] so that Iraqi women would marry workers.

The General Federation of Trade Unions used to get a lot of state funding through deductions from workers' salaries. It owned a lot of property. The decree also enabled the regime to control all the money going into the workers' social security scheme.

The situation of the workers in the state sector was extremely bad. As regards benefits accrued to the employees, a lot of distinctions were made between one group and another. For example, in the Southern Oil Company the general manager got a share of profits of one million dinars while the workers got five thousand.

Moving forward to April 2003, when the occupation forces entered Basra - some union activists decided to form an oil workers' union to protect the national economy. We knew very well that the Americans and their allies had come for the oil. When the British forces entered Basra they protected the oil installations, leaving the universities, the hospitals, and so on to be burned or looted.

We established a nine-member committee on 20 April to protect production and to liaise with the administration. That happened in conditions of extreme chaos across the country.

There are ten oil companies in Basra. We established unions there and then we started our second fight against the Americans.

Paul Bremer's decrees banned the formation of trade unions and associations in order to protect US interests. [They said that the 1987 decree remained in force]. We expected that the living standards of the workers would increase, but a table of wages was issued by Paul Bremer with eleven steps, where the oil workers' wage was set at the equivalent of $35. That was strange for a country which has the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Meanwhile, workers brought from Asia by KBR [a subsidiary of the US corporation Hallliburton, granted contracts by the occupation authorities for reconstruction] were getting twenty times as much.

In the oil union we objected to the wages decision. The US administration refused to listen to us, so we staged a strike on 10 August 2003. We stopped oil exports for three days. It forced the Americans, the Oil Ministry, and the Finance Ministry to scrap the two lowest scales in the wages table.

We think it's important KBR gets out, because we believe that US strategy is that military occupation should be followed by economic occupation. They plan to privatise the oil sector and all other economic sectors, and we think the US has the dominant position in privatising the oil industry.

Iyad Allawi has told the Oil Council, in the Ministry of Oil, that the decisions about privatising the oil industry should be kept secret and should not be revealed to the national assembly.

Most of the major pumping stations were controlled by the USA. KBR brought in an Indian company and a Kuwaiti company, which, when there was such high unemployment in Iraq, brought in 1200 workers from Asia. We cannot deal with these companies because they are protected by US tanks and forces. We tried to enter negotiations with the Kuwaiti company, and succeeded in getting 1000 Iraqi workers employed and having 1000 of those brought in by the Kuwaiti company sent home.

Pressure on KBR forced it to withdraw from the pumping stations and to give the work to Iraqis.

Because we succeeded in imposing those restrictions on KBR, it started to become very obstructive about supplies of simple things like spectacles - instead of making them available within a day or two, they delayed them for months.

The USA was planning that no Iraqi oil should be exported until four years after the occupation. They were surprised to find Iraqi workers were able to restore production after two months - for humanitarian reasons, because the money was needed. That forced the USA to revise its policy on the question of oil exports and rebuilding of the oil installations.

I attended four meetings with the head of the Southern Oil Company, but in those meetings I found nothing that served Iraqis. They were focused on obstructing the production process. Our problems in the oil sector are still there, and transgressions of workers' rights are continuing.

The Oil Ministry was supposed to activate two companies within the oil sector - the oil digging company and the oil transport company. Those two sectors are vital, and to freeze their activities means to destroy the oil sector.

We are opposed to privatisation. The reason is very clear. The servants of the old regime took with them vast amounts of money, and if the oil installations are put up for sale, we are convinced that these agents of Saddam's regime will try to purchase them.

We greet you all because we know that you have stood by us in our hour of need. We appreciate that very much, and we stand by all those who stand by us.

[Have Iraqi political parties campaigned against privatisation?]

We hope that all the parties which took part in the elections will adopt that stand. All that is left for Iraq in terms of natural resources is the oil. The entire infrastructure of Iraq has been destroyed.

Please don't take my remarks as being for or against the elections. Since the entry of the occupation forces in Iraq, Iraq has still been working with Saddam Hussein's laws. We hope that the elected government, though not fully legitimate, will take us forward.

We don't think this government will have a magic wand to stop all violence. But certainly there will be some change. We hope that the new government will provide security.

There is confusion between the resistance and those who carry out acts of violence, the suicide bombers etc., who are hurting Iraqis more than the Americans.

We have heard bin Laden's recent statement appointing Zarqawi prince of Iraq. Obviously those people have their agents and people working with them, and they don't want to see a stable Iraq.

[Under the US occupation authority decrees] what is underground cannot be privatised. But oil companies could be brought in to extract the oil. Those concessions could be given to American companies.

Before the elections I met religious and other political parties. I felt that they were all opposed to privatisation. What they will do when they come to power, only God knows.

As far as the trade unions are concerned, God willing we can stop this project, even if we have to give our blood in the process.

[Have the unions tried to organise those foreign workers, brought in by contractors, who remain in Iraq?]

The Kuwaiti company, when it came into Iraq, changed its name to the "Iraqi National Company". In reality the company was never registered as an Iraqi company.

The workers brought in by these companies are in very special conditions. Most of them are mechanics [engineers?]. Maybe the mechanics' section of the union can handle their case. But it's a very difficult situation because these workers are under very strict control.

It is a new situation for Iraq, because previously the law forbade oil companies to bring workers into the country other than high-level experts. All other work had to be handled by Iraqis.

In any case, the Kuwaiti company has withdrawn from Iraq, because one of their managers and their doctor were assassinated.

[Does Hassan's union, based in Basra, have links with oil workers in the north of Iraq?]

Yes. Our aim is to establish one oil workers' union for the whole of Iraq. We are the biggest in terms of number of workers, geographical area, and volume of production. We have good links with the unions in Kirkuk and other centres.

[What are the oil union's relation with other unions in Iraq?]

There are three union federations in Iraq. The first is the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, which gained recognition from the regime of Iyad Allawi. According to law, outside bodies should not recognise this body, because it has been imposed by the government. If a government gives legitimacy to one union, that union will not oppose the government or protect workers' rights.

This federation was formed on the principle of coalition - [a committee with] five members from Allawi's party, five Communist Party members, and five from the Arab Socialist Movement. The president of this federation is a deputy in Iyad Allawi's party.

The second federation has people within it who claim to be independent and a group which belongs to the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and some from the Dawa party [an older Islamist party, which like SCIRI has participated in the Interim Government].

The third federation, led by Falih Alwan, belongs to the Worker-communist Party [the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq].

The southern oil workers' union decided to remain independent, though personally I know people from all these federations and work with them.

For 35 years we lived under one party rule. Each one of us has his own convictions and ideology - Communist, or Dawa party member. We should leave those political identities out of union work. Unfortunately, it does not happen like that.

Coordination between the unions is ongoing, because we have a common purpose - how to gain rights for the workers, and how to plan to expel the occupation forces.

[What about the old Ba'thist union federation, the GFTU?]

At the last meeting, held in Amman, of the Arab labour organisation, the three federations that I named were invited. I was also invited. I did not go, but the general secretary of the oil workers' union went. He told me what happened at the meeting.

Three men and a woman came to the meeting from the old regime and said that they also represented workers in Iraq. The leader of the Arab labour movement, an Algerian, tried to expel them from the meeting. These are people who change their colour according to the circumstances. If the water is blue, they are blue; if the water is green, they turn green. God willing, they will not have their way.

[Have unions taken directly political action?]

The production area in the Najaf regime stopped work during the US attack on Najaf. As regards the union's influence on general policy, it is represented on the Oil Council in the Ministry of Oil. The Oil Council has control over raising or lowering production. We have the power and the muscle that if we stop production for one day, the government will surely listen to us.

[Have US/UK troops intervened in industrial disputes?]

The Kuwaiti company had an industrial dispute. The welders had not been paid their full wages, and they went on strike. An American manager came in and told them that if they did not end the strike, he would bring US forces in.

In another strike, against the same company, US tanks actually came in and stood between the strikers and the company management.

Those incidents were not reported in the media.

The unions must unite with and cooperate with all forces that want to end the occupation. The unions are like any Iraqi who wants to end the occupation. They must use all available means to do that. We do not want to be outside that arena of struggle.

Remember, in terms of industrial workers, we represent about 50% of those workers. In the southern oil sector, we have about 23,000 employees, not counting the port workers, the railway workers, etc. If we all unite, then we could produce some effective results.

[Oil production levels?]

At one time, under the old regime, oil production levels were extremely high, though there was no much gain for the people. Production reached 4,350,000 barrels a day, and the price was $36 a barrel. You could create quite an advanced society with those sums. Regrettably, the money was used to prop up the military-industrial complex.

Today, probably about 1.8 million barrels a day are being exported, and total production is about 2.5 million barrels.

Since we succeeded in eliminating the two bottom wage scales, the relative economic position of the workers has improved, although it is nowhere near where we are aiming for. Under the sanctions regime, at one point, a teacher's salary was the equivalent of only five kilograms of flour, so the situation was desperate. There is a relative improvement now, which the union has fought for.

[Until recently the Southern Oil Company Union was affiliated to the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. What are its relations now?]

We were never part of that federation, because we questioned its legitimacy. We think the information that we were part of it has come from someone called Abdullah Muhsin, in Britain, who has good relations with Members of Parliament and others here*.

I have been nominated by the Arab labour organisation to coordinate between the oil workers' unions in Iraq and the oil workers' unions in Iran. So how could we be affiliated to the IFTU, if the Arab labour organisation deals with us independently?

In fact, I have document issued by the president of the IFTU to the Arab labour organisation declaring that the IFTU will dissolve itself after the election of a new government in Iraq.

[What are the union's relations with the unemployed or with unemployed organisations?]

We don't formally work with the unemployed in an organised way, but we do our best to find work for them. My frankness in answering such questions always gets me in trouble with some political forces back in Iraq. The unemployed workers' union belongs to the Worker-communist Party, and I don't want to tread on their toes.

[The current situation with foreign workers in the oil industry?]

The Americans and the terrorists have done their best to keep foreigners out of Iraq, as part of sabotaging economic conditions in Iraq. The security situation means that there are no foreign workers now.


* The information about the Southern Oil Company Union's affiliation to the IFTU came not from Abdullah Muhsin, who is the British representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, but from Ewa Jasiewicz, an activist who spent several months in Basra working with the SOCU and who, in fact, chaired Hassan's meeting. See www.workersliberty.org/files/Occupied_Basra_19.pdf. Ewa was reporting the SOCU as affiliated to the IFTU as recently as November 2004: see Workers' Liberty.. Martin Thomas spoke with Hassan Juma'a after the 8 February meeting, through a different interpreter, and he said yes, the SOCU had in the past "coordinated with" the IFTU "in the interests of unity".

Norm Geras has a post up about this article by Jonathan Steele. I don't have much to add , Mr Geras has Mr Steele by the lapels and pushed right up against the wall. However, there is one thing - near the end of the post Mr Geras once more puts forward the idea that at least part of the reason for the invasion was the democratisation of Iraq. I don't agree with this, there is plenty of evidence in the behaviour of the coalition both before they went in and since that democracy was not a prime aim; Jonathan Steele making ludicrous and unprincipled arguments doesn't change that.

Two events connected to the situation in Iraq on the same day in London. At one of these the labour movement in the UK will come together to show purposeful solidarity with its natural constituency, the labour movement in Iraq; at the other, the self-styled anti-imperialists of the Stop the War Campaign (STWC) will prioritise the issue of troop withdrawal and solidarity with the 'resistance'.

So what will the STWC be saying to those Iraqi trade unionists and labour movement activists who will be present at the TUC solidarity conference? Will they tell them how wrong they are to concentrate on 'secondary' issues such as building a new, independent trade union movement, even when one of the aims of that movement is to become strong enough to make removal of the occupation forces possible without that being, at the same time, a death sentence for the labour movement? Will they be saying, first things first, let's get rid of the occupation then we can talk about building democratic structures and a labour movement. How, instead of fighting to get to the head of the queue, they should be giving way to the 'resistance', building links with the 'resistance'; you know, the same 'resistance' that is attacking them, kidnapping them, bombing them, shooting them?