ninety minute nationalist

STWC puts islamists before iraqi trade unionists

2006-05-07T15:43:00.001+01:00

This letter has been sent from the Iraq Union Solidarity Campaign to the Stop the War Campaign,

"Stop the War Coalition,
27 Britannia Street,
London,
WC1X 9JP
26.4.06

Dear STWC,

You may be aware that Iraq Union Solidarity (IUS) is an activist campaign, which makes solidarity with the emerging Iraqi trade unions. We collect money for Iraqi unions, help publicise their struggles, help to get them to speak at union conferences and set up direct links between workers in Iraq and in the UK.

I'm sure you can appreciate that trying to form trade unions in Iraq is a very difficult and dangerous thing to do. It has taken over 200 years in the UK for us to form and enjoy legal trade unions. In Iraq, workers are still fighting for the basic necessities which our ancestors won centuries ago; such as to be allowed to organise, to have facilities, to not have state interference, and to be consulted on workplace matters. In IUS we constantly hear stories of Iraqi trade unionists who have been killed, arrested, tortured, assassinated, silenced, abused or restricted either by coalition forces or sectarian forces who are hostile to trade unions. We would expect that anyone who genuinely wants peace and democracy in Iraq, would welcome the formation of trades unions there, and would give them as much help as possible.

It is therefore with deep sadness and outrage that we learned at our last meeting, that leaders of STWC had once again attacked the Iraqi left/Iraqi trade unionists. Dashty Jamal reported to us that he and the Worker Communist Party of Iraq (who have helped to form the Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq) were harassed by STWC stewards. WCPI had a bookstall with a banner reading "No to America, No to Political Islam" which was blocked by STWC stewards. STWC stewards put an SWP stall up in front of the WCPI stall, blocking its access. Dashty asked politely several times for STWC to remove their stall, when they failed to comply, he removed it himself.

Also STWC stewards called the British police to harass the Iraqi comrades saying, "We have organised this demo. You can't have banners which say that." IUS was not aware that STWC have become the Thought Police, who call on the British state police to help them out to suppress the Iraqi left.

Dashty also reported that whilst an Iraqi woman called Nadia Mahmood was being interviewed and filmed, STWC stewards and others shouted, jeered, harassed and abused her.

These events coupled with statements made in the past by leaders of STWC, we find to be wholly unacceptable.

It is possible that the STWC stewards who conducted these attacks, did not agree with the statement on the WCPI banner. We believe that dialogue and debate is the best way of resolving disagreements, not the suppression of such ideas. I will repeat my previous invitation to STWC for a debate on the question of political Islam and the role of Iraqi trades unions; though I expect that this request will be ignored.

Above all we would like an apology to Dashty, Nadia, the WCPI, FWCUI for this incident and the IFTU (now part of the FWI) for the attacks they have endured from leading members of STWC, who claim to uphold the principle of 'Respect'.

We hope to hear from you soon about this very serious matter, though if you ignore this letter we will conclude that you are simply continuing your pattern of ignoring or suppressing views, which you are unable to deal with. This might be tolerable if we were discussing something trivial, but you know that we are not. To continue your tactics will inevitably destroy the STW movement, empower sectarian forces in Iraq, enflame the civil war there and will benefit no one who genuinely wants peace and democracy in Iraq.

Yours Sincerely

Pauline Bradley
Convenor

Iraq Union Solidarity
C/o Haringey Unison, 14a Willoughby Road, Hornsey, N8 0HU
"mailto:iraqunionsolidarity@yahoo.com", Tel 07979 421475"

more on Tehran busworkers

2006-04-16T17:31:00.000+01:00
See this report. It doesn't look like a coincidence that this has been happening.

Tehran bus workers's struggle continues

2006-03-14T19:29:00.000Z
Tehran bus workers still need our solidarity

strike at Cottam power station (Notts)

2006-03-06T18:41:00.000Z
See this report on the Workers' Liberty site

Xiao Yunliang freed

2006-03-04T19:18:00.000Z
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.

letter from tehran bus workers

2006-03-04T17:30:00.000Z
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."

those pesky Jews

2006-02-24T23:48:00.000Z
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.

the issue is free speech

2006-02-17T23:42:00.000Z
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?"

iranian bus workers - international protests

2006-02-17T00:04:00.000Z
Here and here.

THE SHORT WORKING LIFE OF DENG WENPING - from China Labour Bulletin

2006-02-15T21:13:00.000Z
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

socialists as idiots

2006-02-09T14:57:00.000Z
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?

moving on?

2005-02-16T18:50:00.000Z
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.

Iraqi oil union leader speaks in London

2005-02-14T13:07:00.000Z
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".

democracy the aim?

2005-02-11T13:31:00.000Z
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.

hey you, you're jumping the queue

2005-02-10T13:28:00.000Z
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?

down the rabbit hole

2005-02-08T12:07:00.000Z
I had a very depressing experience the other night. My own fault really. It was at a meeting organised by the Scottish Socialist Party. I went along just to give out some leaflets advertising another meeting; a discussion forum on how to best build support for the nascent Iraqi labour movement among socialists and trade unionists here in the UK and what attitude to have towards the resistance. The SSP meeting was supposed to have Rose Gentle and Colin Fox speaking followed by a discussion.

It was a damp, cold night. The meeting was delayed - whoever was to open the hall arriving late. So I gave out my leaflets to the few hardy souls gathered outside the venue. When the doors opened I went away - I dreaded the kind of things that would be said in the meeting and I could guess the sort of reception what I had to say would receive; the chances of frostbite would be less outside the meeting room. For some reason I changed my mind and went back.

The meeting began with an introduction by the chairperson in which he claimed the killing would end when the troops pulled out. (As we all know the 'resistance' has one aim only - the end of the occupation - after which all its members will return to their homes). The best you can say for this attitude is that it's some form of wishful thinking. However there was worse to come. Rose Gentle couldn't make it, instead, we had a contribution from an SWP member. In a quite bizarre speech he firstly discounted the recent elections, dismissing the news coverage as "partial", ignored the fact that the US and its allies had been pressured into conceding the elections by Iraqis, made a reference to the "Israeli" tactics used by the US and its allies (we all knew why that was important), then, in a truly tortuous twist of logic, managed to compare the US and Iran to Iran's favour. It seems the US has a worse record on torture and imprisonment and higher levels of poverty. I was tempted to ask which country he would choose to live in if he had to make the choice and why that wouldn't be Iran.

After generous applause for the SWP speaker, Colin Fox got up. However, rather than leaving the room, embarrassed to be associated with such nonsense, he proceeded to frame the situation in Iraq in purely nationalist terms. "Regime change in Iraq was the business of the Iraqis only, just as regime change in the UK would be the business of the British people". Whatever your view on the attack launched by the US and its allies in 2003, can you realistically compare the kinds of regime change needed in Iraq and the UK or the methods that might be employed to bring about that change? And why would a socialist view the situation in nationalist terms - treat Iraqis as one mass, undifferentiated by issues of culture and history and, most importantly for socialists, by class. Or, at least, suggest that it is the national issue which must take precedence over any other. There hadn’t been a single mention of the newly re-emerging Iraqi labour movement until, right at the end of his speech, Colin Fox told us he wanted to see a socialist Iraq but, for instance, he didn’t know anything about the Iraqi Communist Party, could someone please help him out. Colin’s honesty about his ignorance may have been commendable but it begged the obvious questions.

Following this there were contributions from the floor. These fully backed up the positions put forward by the two speakers. But there were two in particular which caught my attention. One, from a veteran SWP member, urged us to try to get inside the “Arab mind”, to try to see how all this ‘Western’ interference, how all these alien cultural artifacts - like democracy, for example - would be interpreted by the “Arab mind”. The other, from a younger comrade, feted the ‘resistance’ for having put the brakes on US imperialism’s expansionist drive. What actually became of real Iraqis while this brake was being applied wasn’t a concern.

Then, not as well as I could have, I said a few things about the nascent labour movement in Iraq. About how it should be the focus for solidarity for any half-decent socialist; how all the various labour movement organisations opposed the occupation while at the same time denouncing the ‘resistance’; how they all understood the ‘resistance’ to be at least as big an enemy, if not more so, than the US and its allies, and how that same ‘resistance’ being exalted by the majority of people in the room had attacked those labour movement organisations and would annihilate them given the chance.

The reaction (no pun) was immediate and predictable - it wasn’t our job to tell Iraqis how they should resist and it was up to them to “fight back in any way they can” (copyright SWP).

I look forward to seeing these defenders of the ‘resistance’ at the forum, “How can socialists and trade unionists in Britain support the labour movement in Iraq?”, on Saturday 26th February, 10.30 to 1.00, Augustine United Church, George IV Bridge, Edinburgh.

URGENT APPEAL

2005-02-08T01:36:00.000Z
Please take the time to go to this page and answer the appeal to help save the lives of two brave Chinese labour movement activists.

not filling the gap

2004-11-28T16:09:00.000Z
At last a comment from among those who supported the war on Iraq which at least mentions what is actually going on there now, or so I thought. Unfortunately, this is only another laying the blame session, (where it mainly lies, to be fair). However this appears to be, at least partly, a means of avoiding a discussion of the manner in which the coalition is carrying out the conflict.

For example take this;

"One might have thought that, whatever reasons opponents of what I have called the first war had for opposing it, they ought to have been in tune with these objectives (stabilisation and democracy). But because of the way in which blame is standardly assigned in the anti-war camp, with the Coalition always taking the main or only hit, it - the Coalition - is seen as responsible for the fact that stabilization and democratic transition haven't happened yet or aren't likely to"

OK, so the point is the blame lies mainly, almost wholly, even ultimately, with the 'resistance'. As someone who opposed the war I can agree with that on the whole, however it doesn't follow that the coalition is squeaky clean and bears no responsibility? And I don't mean just Abu Ghraib. Yet where is the evaluation of the coalition's campaign.

What we have instead is a reiteration of the idea that the leaders of the coalition went into the invasion of Iraq primarily to bring about some kind of democracy to Iraq and certainly that that is now the main aim of the coalition's campaign. Should everything the coalition does be seen in the light of that motivation? I don't think that's good enough. Even if you believe the coalition has only the best of motives you would need to examine how the war was being conducted.

I have yet to see any left-wing, pro-war advocate make it clear how they feel about the way the coalition is conducting its campaign, as opposed to their feelings of misgiving in relation to individual or group aberrations (if that is what they are), such as the execution of a wounded insurgent or the torture at Abu Ghraib. And Norman Geras's piece doesn't fill that gap.

running down the hill

2004-10-02T15:53:00.000+01:00
As you can see here the descent of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) into outright nationalist politics continues. In a piece of writing that reminded me of the glory days of 'Red Rose Labour' the 'S' word fails to make a single appearance.

I notice that Alister likes the poster. Well, it is a colourful piece of work, although, for me, too reminiscent of the album covers produced by John Byrne. I don't suppose this is what Alister means; so, Alister, just what is it you like about the poster?

solidarity with Iraqi trade unions

2004-09-02T19:57:00.001+01:00
PUBLIC MEETING - SOLIDARITY WITH IRAQI WORKERS

SPEAKERS -
ABDULLAH MUHSIN: Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions

ALEX GORDON: RMT (Railworkers Union) — member of TU
delegation to Iraq

REPRESENTATIVE of General Council STUC

Thursday 23 September 2004, 7.30pm
Quaker Meeting House, 7 Victoria Terrace, Edinburgh.

How trade unions in Edinburgh and Scotland can help
new unions in Iraq

Organised by the Lothian Iraqi Workers Solidarity Group

THE KHALIL SHAWQI APPEAL
The IFTU is looking for finance to help with the education of
workers. The first task is to equip a bus as a travelling theatre
to tour Iraqi workplaces and communities.
For more info visit: www.iraqitradeunions.org
Abdullah Muhsin meets Gene Bruskin of US Labor Against War in London
recently to receive a $5,000 cheque from US trade unions
The Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions was founded in
April 2003 following the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein
regime. It brings together 12 emerging national unions.
The IFTU is campaigning for the right of workers to
organise freely, to join or form a union, to win trade union
representation, to take strike action and to
influence the way Iraq is rebuilt.
The IFTU wants to fight for a fair deal for workers and women’s
rights in a new democratic society. It is especially campaigning
for the needs of disabled people and the victims of wars.
The IFTU is looking for practical international support.

Contact can be made through Edinburgh TUC, The Basement, 26 Albany Street, Edinburgh EH1 3QH.
Tel: 0131 556 3006. Email: edim-tuc@btconnect.com

It's Scotland's Oil (copyright - SNP)

2004-06-16T11:59:00.000+01:00
The degeneration of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) into just another nationalist party continues.

Further evidence of this drift can be found in this article in issue 179 of the Scottish Socialist Voice.

According to the author, once Scotland had control of 'its' oil,

"we could transform our public services, and the lives of every single one of us".

But the "us" referred to turns out to be "the people of Scotland" (who are, incidentally, "piss poor"). Continually referring to the "people of Scotland" rather than differentiating on the basis of class might seem odd for an avowedly socialist party but as the heading of the article makes clear this article is not written from the perspective of class politics. Of course it would not be only "the people of Scotland" whose lives would be transformed; for instance what about the loss of income to the 'English' treasury following the "Scottification' of the oil, with the resultant loss to public services and the inevitable attacks on the living standards of the 'English' working class? Perhaps it's a clever attempt to radicalise the 'English' working class, forcing them to fight to protect their living standards, while providing a beacon of 'socialism' north of the border to which they may aspire?

Reference is made to the huge revenue siphoned off into private hands and to the need to take away control from the oil bosses; the oil companies

"should be publicly-owned and democratically managed".

However what "democratically managed" actually means is not spelled out, or even outlined, no doubt it will be carried out by the "people of Scotland".

'We' would then be living in a some kind of paradise, although not one powered by oil since

"(some of) the vast revenues would be invested, particularly into research into alternative, non-fossil fuel energy",

which would decimate those oil revenues of course (unless the plan is to keep those new technologies to 'ourselves').

The article, although an incoherent mess, illustrates the SSP's nebulous vision of how to bring about socialism, the vague nature of what that socialism might be, its confusion of socialist and nationalist ideas and its eventual plumping for the nationalist side. It is possibly not worth taking seriously, however it is unsigned, so presumably puts forward official party policy. As such members of the SSP who are not out and out nationalists need to ask themselves if the almost straightforwardly nationalist politics of the article represent their views on this matter.

UKIP come unSTUC

2004-06-08T11:21:00.000+01:00
Congratulations to the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) for their refusal to have anything to do with the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

According to this report in the Sunday Herald

"The Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) snubbed the UKIP by failing to invite a representative to its Scotland Shows The Red Card To Racist Parties event in Glasgow. The event aims to encourage voters to “reject racism and fascism in the political system, and to vote for non-racist candidates” in Thursday’s elections."

As the paper reports

"The UKIP’s manifesto promises “freedom from overcrowding” by pushing for an “end to mass immigration”. It says illegal immigration is out of control and the UKIP would ensure Britain is “no longer the dumping ground for Europe’s problems”. The document’s cover depicts three white babies with the slogan: “Concerned about their future? This is their country, make sure it stays that way.”"

Margaret Woods, trade union organiser for the Glasgow Campaign To Welcome Refugees,

"said she was delighted by the STUC’s stance. She expressed concern that the wording of the UKIP’s immigration message was “very close to the wording of the BNP election leaflet”, which has been referred to the procurator fiscal to determine whether it breaks the law."

the "scottish cringe"

2004-06-07T18:58:00.000+01:00
Try to catch the latest Scottish National Party Euro-election Party Political Broadcast sitting next to a reasonably sensitive Scotsperson and no further explanation of the "Scottish cringe" will be necessary.

a missed opportunity

2004-06-03T13:12:00.000+01:00
This week the Scottish National Party (SNP) used some of its debating time in the Scottish Parliament for a motion on the international situation, which meant promoting their call for the US/UK occupying forces in Iraq to be replaced by Muslim armed forces under the control of the United Nations (UN) ASAP.

Whatever the reasons for the SNP putting forward this debate at this particular time, (they were electioneering), it provided an opportunity for the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) to expand the debate on Iraq beyond the usual parameters, which generally resemble nothing more than deciding between the strategic options involved in a game of "Risk" (or Conquest as it's now known) combined with platitudinous references to 'our' wonderful armed forces.

The SSP could have used this opportunity to put forward a specifically socialist and labour movement orientated view of what we need to do in relation to Iraq. Instead they played the Parliamentary game and conducted the debate wholly within the terms laid out by the SNP. Rather than refer to real socialist and labour movement forces in Iraq the SSP's amendment proposed that

"Scotland's name should be synonymous with peaceful resolution of the world's problems and conflicts, and (extending) the hand of peace and friendship internationally".

Tommy Sheridan in proposing the amendment talked about;

"the illegally occupied Iraq" and

"(the) invasion of Iraq (which) was based on a tangled web of lies, deceit and distortion";

(Begging two questions - what if these conditions did not apply and it could be 'proved' the war was legal and there was no "tangled web" and, anyway, what impact do they have on what we argue now?)

Or, as Robert Brown of the Liberal Democrats (LD) intervened to say;

"Two thirds of the way through Tommy Sheridan's speech, we know about the origins of the war and so on, but what do we do with it now?"

Tommy's speech was full of references such as;

"the Iraqi people" or

"the sovereignty of the Scottish people, which is why we believe in the sovereignty of the Iraqi people as well".

It appears no debate is too important that it should not be the occasion for reinforcing the nationalist basis of so much of the SSP's politics.

If only he had done as much for the socialist side of the SSP.

Instead the SSP demanded - immediate withdrawal of the troops; the money being used on the occupation to be given to some named, some unnamed NGOs to use in reconstructing Iraq; otherwise leaving it to the "Iraqi people".

In the abstract these are mostly inoffensive ideas; they only become dangerous and/or laughable when measured against the reality of Iraq.

As to handing over the money currently being used to finance the occupation to NGOs; by what mechanism and hasn't the SSP noticed these organisations withdrawing from Iraq because it was too dangerous for them to carry out their work?

Of course that will all be different once the "Iraqi people" have been left to it. But who are this "Iraqi people? Could it be that for the SSP they are the reactionary armed gangs calling themselves the 'resistance' each battling to carve out their own niche now in preparation for post-occupation Iraq?

But most importantly they show no understanding of how making 'troops out now' the central demand of the anti-war movement will only cut against the interests of the re-emerging Iraqi labour movement. In fact, no mention is made of the re-emerging Iraqi labour movement; of how it is having to fight for its life against the 'resistance' in Iraq; nothing about building support for this movement here in Britain (or even Scotland). The fate of this labour movement should be the number one issue for socialists concerned with Iraq.

haste ye' back

2004-06-01T18:33:00.000+01:00
This is good news for Scottish politics, for the most part. However there remains the promise (threat?) that he will come back. Although when that would be is a bit of a mystery.

This is what he said when he was expelled from the Labour Party;

"I am absolutely, certainly prepared to stand as an independent candidate at the next election."

Who knew then he didn't mean a Glasgow seat? When he talks here about not wanting to stand against his friend Mohammed Sarwar the operative phrase is surely;

"Britain’s first Muslim MP"(emphasis added).

He doesn't appear to think much of his chances of being a Euro MP in the near future (no?). Which is presumably why he's already got the feelers out for a seat at the next British Parliamentary elections; somewhere outside Scotland but with a handy Muslim community he can appeal to (?) - on the basis of their faith identity? What else can we make of these words;

"Blairite loyalists who have sold out their Muslim constituents be warned. I’m coming to get you"?

How can anyone take this preposterous man seriously?

labour movement solidarity and Iraq

2004-05-18T16:12:00.000+01:00
It is to the discredit of the left in Scotland and the UK as a whole that the most prevalent stance on the situation in Iraq can do nothing but harm to the reemerging Iraqi labour movement. Recently the whole of the Scottish Socialist Party's Parliamentary group put their names to this letter published in the Herald newspaper.

The limitations of the letter are set out straight off when the writers state

"It is clear that there is no military solution in Iraq, the troops are fighting an unwinnable war."

Do they mean it would be OK if there was a military solution? I assume they don't but in that case why mention it?

Further on they write

"A political settlement in the Middle East that brings justice to the peoples of the region is the only solution to the nightmare now unfolding, an end to the plundering of the oil wealth by predatory multinationals while millions live in abject poverty, and a settlement that brings justice to the peoples of Palestine."

And who would disagree with those sentiments? Not me, but it hardly advances our understanding of what can be done now.

So what does this group of socialists have to say about what socialists in Scotland can do in relation to Iraq? Nothing, other than demand troops out now.

"THE Scottish Socialist Party group in the Scottish Parliament appeals to every individual and political party in Scotland and the UK who protested against the illegal invasion of Iraq to now unite behind the call to bring the troops home."

Of course the troops will have to be withdrawn but any socialist party or grouping advocating that a solidarity movement should make troops out now its primary demand is seriously distorting its priorities. If what was happening in Iraq was a classic case of colonial occupation being resisted by a genuine national liberation movement then the demand for troops out now might have some purchase on reality. But that scenario does not exist in Iraq.

It is true that the occupation forces seem to be doing their best to bring about just such a situation. But, despite their best efforts they haven't managed it yet.

What we have instead are various groups using their sectarian militias militarily to further their own political and religious programmes. These groups, fearful of their future under some kind of bourgeois electoral system, play on the justified grievances of the general Iraqi population. They present their way of opposing the occupation as the only genuine opposition. But this is to an extent self-fulfilling, as their military tactics and physical sabotage both help to maintain the aggressive military stance of the occupiers as well as intimidate and obstruct the longer term, more substantial and more necessary, work being done by the newly emerging labour movement organisations.

It is significant that the call from the SSP MSPs is to all those who opposed the invasion. As socialists you might have expected them to have something to say about the nature of the class struggle in Iraq and how we as socialists could be helping those re-emerging labour movement and socialist forces which exist there.

Fortunately other socialists have their priorities worked out; anyone wishing to show their solidarity with Iraqi workers and socialists can get involved with this campaign. As you will see it is in its early stages and as they say -

"We are an informal group coordinating discussions and activities with a view to assembling a broad solidarity campaign in Britain for the new workers', unemployed and women's movements in Iraq."

the worst kind of sectarianism

2004-04-27T11:59:00.000+01:00
In "Support for Iraqi Democrats" those who only stand and wait resort to their usual tricks of misrepresentation and wild generalisation to rubbish the attempts of some on the left to build support for the re-emerging Iraqi labour movement. Normally I wouldn't link to something that is so feeble it doesn't even 'name the guilty parties', relying on the kind of 'you know who you are' rhetoric beloved of Stalinists everywhere, however, there are some among people who read this kind of stuff who take these wasters seriously - any explanations of why this should be so are welcome.

The wasters write "they still find it hard to dissociate themselves from" anti-war people and groups such as "Tariq Ali, John Pilger, Michael Moore, George Galloway, the SWP and other fellow-travellers of dictators and terrorists". And it's true, of, for example, the CPGB, (have a read of this and you'll see what I mean). However, it isn't true of all the groups and individuals who want to support the renascent Iraqi labour movement; see eg this article from the latest issue of Solidarity.

Again, "they can’t quite grasp the fairly obvious point that opposition to the Coalition in Iraq logically requires support for the Islamofascist/Ba’athist “resistance” in Iraq". Oh dear, it's illogical for socialists to want to support those groups in Iraq which are attempting against colossal odds to revive what was once, could be once more, the strongest workers' movement in the region, while opposing all those forces which would stop them. (Emphases mine)

So, what about the other charges? We are "denouncing any Iraqi - democrat or not - who works with the Coalition as a “collaborator” or a “quisling”". Furthermore we are calling for support for"those groups - namely, the Iraqi Communist Party, the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, and their various “fronts” - (which) originated, not very long ago, as Stalinist sects, and have yet to prove that they have entirely abandoned Stalinist views, methods and goals".

Where do you start with this mess of half-truths, guilt by association and ahistorical nonsense? Although it would be wise to be wary of the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) because of its Stalinist history and past association with the Ba'ath regime, could it really be called a sect? Additionally it has a member on the Interim Governing Council, (the quislings!). The Worker Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI) is a relatively new formation but it has no record of any Stalinist associations. And while it can have too ultimatist a view of other left political formations, it also fiercely denounces the 'resistance'. In the end they are two of the most active labour movement oriented organisations in Iraq untainted by Islamism.

Apparently 'we' are not the only ones willing to back such dubious organisations. After sending delegations to visit Iraq and talk with the various labour movement bodies there the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) has decided to "work together with all groups genuinely seeking to organise independent and democratic trade union organisations, supporting efforts by working men and women to organise" (from ICFTU-Online e-mail). The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has produced this report, where they say, "(t)he ICFTU will need to press for the maximum involvement of all union interests" and "the ICFTU delegation wanted to see evidence of trade union activity in workplaces, and this is one of the most positive signs that we saw".

It may come as a shock to those who stand and wait but some of us on the left still maintain the quaint idea that the working class are central to socialism. As the article in Solidarity puts it -

"Working-class anti-imperialists are against colonialism and imperialism because we are positively for certain things — for the self-determination of every people; for political democracy even if for now it is only the stunted and inadequate pluto-democracy of the bourgeoisie; for the development of working-class movements everywhere.
For us the central value is freedom for the working class everywhere to develop, organise, educate itself, think, and function with the freedom without which it will never become what Marx called a “class for itself”, a class able to remake the world according to the principles of solidarity into a socialist commonwealth where people are free and socially equal".

Never mind the politics, feel the width

2004-04-26T23:35:00.000+01:00
It took me some time to take in fully the meaning of this article in the latest issue of the SWP's Socialist Review.

Is the author, Anne Ashford, really giving good advice to bin-Laden? This is what she writes -

"Yet in the end, Al Qaida's strategy is no more likely to bring real change than Islamic Jihad's assassination of Sadat. Al Qaida's rhetoric of global jihad hides the failure of its leaders to build an organisation which can really challenge the Saudi or Egyptian leaders, let alone the US ruling class. Whenever Bin Laden has had the chance, he has worked from the top, whether that has meant manoeuvring between factions of the Pakistani ruling class, doing deals with the CIA or winning the ear of Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Real liberation can only come from below."

Never mind the politics, feel the width.

heads we win tails you lose?

2004-04-13T15:48:00.000+01:00
Via this perplexing post on Norman Geras's site I found this article; it appears to support the information in this report, referred to in this post below.

'Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful.

"The US troops view things in very simplistic terms. It seems hard for them to reconcile subtleties between who supports what and who doesn't in Iraq. It's easier for their soldiers to group all Iraqis as the bad guys. As far as they are concerned Iraq is bandit country and everybody is out to kill them."'

At the moment the presence of the Coalition can be used by the emerging labour movement and pro-democracy forces as cover while they attempt to plant themselves irreversibly in Iraqi society. However if the attitudes of both the US and UK forces is as depicted in the Telegraph article then the growth in fundamentalism or support for the actions of fundamentalist groups will either continue or they will be subjugated totally and either way that will be end of any chance of viable democratic structures.

The Coalition says it's in Iraq to help bring about democracy, yet on the one hand it uses the brutal tactics we have seen in the last few days in Fallujah, seemingly unconcerned with the threat to non-combatants (for want of a better word) nor with the consequent rise in sympathy for the Islamists, or it undermines democratic forces, as it has in Basra, to the advantage of the Islamists.

Still, it isn't all bad news - see here. Hopefully there will be a British version soon.

where we are now

2004-04-10T14:26:00.000+01:00
Anyone wanting access to various views of how the present situation in Iraq is developing should try visiting Harry's Place, particularly here, here, here, here and here.

a picture paints a ...

2004-04-10T14:05:00.000+01:00
I am concerned by the post titled, "A Uniter, not a Divider", here on Ken Macleod's blog. What does the title of this post mean? If it is hailing this action by Sunni and Shia Islamist groups as a progressive move then it seems indicative of a superficiality too prevalent in comments on the present situation in Iraq.

What is shown in the photograph, seems to me, very similar to the practice of Hamas in Palestine - using an ability to substitute for inadequate social services to build support for your organisation; making your organisation 'more' than just a military faction. In this case the supporters of two Islamist factions of Iraqi society combining for, probably temporary, convenience.

This is not to minimise the dire nature of the situation in Fallujah, nor the criminality of the response of the Coalition forces. But what is shown in the photograph needs to be understood in context.

Update:

Ken Macleod has pointed out to me the ironic nature of the title of his post and its origin among the slogans of George Bush during his election campaign, for which I am genuinely grateful.

ever wonder why the British have such an easy time in Basra?

2004-04-06T23:10:00.000+01:00
Well according to this, here's why;

"The social and cultural regression all over Iraq is striking, but nowhere more so than in the south of Iraq. The Iraqi southern city of Basra which in the 70s and early 80s, was one of the most free and open cities in the entire region, today looks very much like another Iran. Images of the most reactionary clerics dead and alive are everywhere. The controversy in the Governing Council to make Islam the only source of law or one of the main sources of law is meaningless in Basra. The local police are engaged in enforcing the strictest Islamic ways of living. Women are rarely seen outside in the streets. Even those who dare to leave their houses for very important reason are covered with Abayia and veil. There is zero tolerance toward all manifestations of secularism. More than 200 liquor shops were destroyed or confiscated and many of their owners, majority Christians were killed or forced to leave in the immediate aftermath of the war.

Videocassette shop owners are likely to be assassinated at any moment. Nightclubs and even restaurants have been shut down. Music is banned. The Islamic groups, backed by Iran, are in a race with time to prepare the ground for the growing of their traditions, values and lifestyle and thus build a base for themselves. Violence, including summery killings, is the main method of these groups. Their cadres and activists are mere mercenaries.
Effectively, these Islamic groups are running the city and British troops, who control the region, do not lift a finger to stop their constant and systemic violation of civility, or to stop their atrocities against secular people and the population in general. Major David King, the British official spokesman justifies this lack of action by saying “ We are not here to impose our lifestyle on others.” This excuse is used, despite the fact that one western poll after shows that only 25% of population want an Islamic state in Iraq. For the US-led coalition, the values, traditions and lifestyles imposed by Islamic groups through terrorism are the traditions, values and lifestyle of the people in Iraq. In Basra, there are three major Islamic groups; these are al-Daawa party, the supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq and the followers of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadir. There are more than 150 smaller groups heavily engaged in crime. These groups have started talking about an Islamic emirate in the south in face of Kurdish Federalism in the north. The Coalition Authority is not concerned by the situation. The prosperity and happiness of the masses and defending them against Islamic violation and terrorism is the least concern of the coalitions troops. They are only concerned about Islamic terrorism when it is directed towards them".

There's also an explanation of why, when the hard-line Islamists are clearly a minority, the majority remain cowed;

"However, because the people of Iraq have had no role in the overthrow of the Baath regime, in the subsequent events or in running their affairs in the aftermath of war, they feel helpless. They do not have the mechanisms to come to the fore, be involved in the administration of their own daily affairs and defend civilization, life and humane society, all at once".

no time to hang around

2004-04-05T17:48:00.000+01:00
Posts here and here by Juan Cole make worrying reading. At the same time there is this report in The Guardian.

There is so much information, contradictory and partial, coming out of Iraq that uncertainty about the future seems to be the only certainty. Consequently it's wise not to always put two and two together, as Juan Cole writes in reference to the possible machinations of the Occupation authorities;

"There is a classical logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc (Z happens after X, therefore Z is caused by X), and I keep revising this posting this evening because I don't want to fall into it".

Whatever the reasons for their actions, the behaviour of the Occupation authorities and the 'resistance' makes old-fashioned solidarity work with the newly emerging labour and pro-democracy forces essential and timely.

Something else! No Sweat is participating in efforts to set up a solidarity movement, in the meantime, here are a few things they think you might do;

"What you can do
_ Invite a No Sweat speaker on the Iraqi labour movement to your antiwar group, student society, or trade union branch,
_ Send a message of support. Union of the Unemployed in Iraq:
union_u_iraq@yahoo.com, with copies to admin@nosweat.org.uk and the
UUI British rep at d.jamal@ukonline.co.uk. Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions: abdullahmuhsin@iraqitradeunions.org. Seek to establish direct links between
your trade union or student union and similar organisationsin Iraq.
_ Check out information at Union of the Unemployed in Iraq and at IFTU
_ Send a donation. (UUI bank account in Britain: no,11610268 at Lloyds
TSB, 30-94-51).
_ Run stalls and stunts to inform students and the public about the realities
of the US/UK occupation regime in Iraq and the existence of a labour
movement in opposition to it
_ Protest at your MP’s surgery, and ask him or her to raise these issues
in Parliament."

anecdotal evidence

2004-04-05T16:05:00.000+01:00
In this post Norman Geras once more sticks a pin in Jonathan Steele for his inability to get past stock ideas about the 'resistance' in Iraq. While on the whole I agree with Mr Geras' criticism, it should be noted the condemnation of the treatment of the bodies of the dead mercenaries from the Iraqis quoted by Jeffrey Gettleman is accompanied by other sentiments which are less apologetic;

"they were torn between pride in the attack and shame over the mutilations". (my emphasis)

Jonathan Steele also wrote, in the article referred to;

"The American response is heavy-handed and indiscriminate. "The US is indirectly supporting the resistance by targeting innocent people. It makes us more sympathetic to the resistance," Shaban Rajab, 45, a taxi-driver, told me". (my emphasis)

This reminded me of a story on Baghdad Burning;

"On a cold night in November, M., her mother, and four brothers had been sleeping when their door suddenly came crashing down during the early hours of the morning. The scene that followed was one of chaos and confusion… screaming, shouting, cursing, pushing and pulling followed. The family were all gathered into the living room and the four sons- one of them only 15- were dragged away with bags over their heads. The mother and daughter were questioned- who was the man in the picture hanging on the wall? He was M.'s father who had died 6 years ago of a stroke. You're lying, they were told- wasn't he a part of some secret underground resistance cell? M.'s mother was hysterical by then- he was her dead husband and why were they taking away her sons? What had they done? They were supporting the resistance, came the answer through the interpreter.
How were they supporting the resistance, their mother wanted to know? "You are contributing large sums of money to terrorists." The interpreter explained. The troops had received an anonymous tip that M.'s family were giving funds to support attacks on the troops.
It was useless trying to explain that the family didn't have any 'funds'- ever since two of her sons lost their jobs at a factory that had closed down after the war, the family had been living off of the little money they got from a 'kushuk' or little shop that sold cigarettes, biscuits and candy to people in the neighborhood. They barely made enough to cover the cost of food! Nothing mattered. The mother and daughter were also taken away, with bags over their heads".

In an earlier post there's this;

"One example of an arbitrary detention we heard about the other day was of a man who was arrested in Tikrit. They raided his home and gathered the 25-year-old man, two brothers and an elderly uncle. They got the usual treatment: a bag on the head, and hands behind their backs. They were taken to a place outside of Tikrit and thrown into a barn-like area with bags on their heads- still tied up. For 3 days, they were kicked and cursed by the troops. In between the kicking and cursing, a hefty soldier would scream questions at them and an interpreter would translate, "Are you part of Al-Qaeda?! Do you know Osama bin Laden?!" On the third day, one of the young men struck up a deal with who he gathered was their 'head'- the man who gave all the orders. They agreed that one of the soldiers would accompany the man back to the city and wait while he came up with $300/detainee. The rest of the men would be freed a couple of days later.
And it worked. Two days later, his three relatives came walking home after being dropped off on the side of the road. Basically, they paid a ransom for their freedom. Just one of the many stories about life in the 'New Iraq'- no wonder Chalabi was so jubilant while signing the Transitional Law document. The country is currently like an unguarded bank- especially for those who bear arms".

the world turned upside down?

2004-04-04T19:13:00.000+01:00
Put this Jew at no.1. Here's why.

moving on not shutting up 2"

2004-04-02T22:54:00.000+01:00
This debate is so far above the usual nonsense produced by other sections of the anti-war left it seems a pity it's stuck away on the backpages of what I am sorry to say is a very infrequently visited website.

For me Alan Johnson has it pretty much right (I have reservations about the views expressed in the quote from Jean Bethke Elshtain). I think the conclusions arrived at by Daniel Randall tend towards substituting a form of abstract propagandising for engagement with the political realities confronting working class organisations in Iraq. He also tends to counterpose ideas/positions in very stark fashion without reason, eg;

"Isn't a belief in self-determination incompatible with anything other than calls for the end of imperialist occupation which totally surpresses it? Or are we now in the business of prioritising the US' struggle against Ba'athist-Islamist insurgents above the Iraqi people's right to self-determination?"

A "belief in self-determination" is certainly not "incompatible with anything other than calls for the end of imperialist occupation which totally surpresses it". There will be/is a lot more to say if you are involved in a struggle for self-determination; how, for instance, would you conduct the campaign to end the imperialist occupation? What factors would determine how that campaign could be conducted? Who, if anyone, could you ally yourself with? Who are 'you'? Addressing these problems means dealing with reality rather than reaching for the revolutionary handbook of stock responses.

Although I would have criticisms of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI), mainly to do with their sectarian attitude to other left and democratic political formations in Iraq, they are more right than wrong regarding their attitude to the 'resistance', the occupying forces and the type of movement needed to complete the liberation of Iraq. While their call for troops out is prominent, their day to day practise is about doing very basic building work which goes toward establishing the movement which can end the occupation without ushering in reactionary forces. In fact their attitude to occupation is relaxed enough to advocate the replacement of the US/UK forces by a UN force. Their basic positions on the occupation and the 'resistance' can be read here and here, as well as here.

Solidarity work with the nascent labour movement in Iraq is dependent on there being a labour movement with which to solidarise. Fixating on the call for troops out now plays no part in that work. We can hope that through solidarity work the labour movement in Iraq grows strong enough to challenge the presence of occupying forces but what gives us the right to demand they take on that challenge now?

more on Yassin

2004-04-02T16:01:00.000+01:00
Following on from the links given below concerning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the on-line magazine, Bitter Lemons, has four very interesting articles, from different perspectives on the possible repercussions in its No 12 issue.

they are not on our side

2004-03-31T16:29:00.000+01:00
Some things are so well put they deserve to be as widely known as possible; this for example. I particularly like the following part;

"There are a few things that can be said about these perpetrators of the random murder of the innocent in the last few years - in Manahattan, in Bali, in Istanbul, in Madrid - and these are three of them. They aren't democrats even in the loosest sense, wedded as they are to a belief system that is profoundly anti-democratic. Morally, by their deeds, they show a contempt for fundamental human values, as embodied in universal codes of rights and prohibitions. Culturally, their commitments are backward-looking and anti-egalitarian, to put it mildly - reserving, for example, a less than ideal place in the world for women. All of this is integral to the deliberative moment in the crimes they commit, to what moves them to choose and act as they do....What has become common today with far too many liberals and socialists, however, is the type of Pilgerite characterization I've highlighted:

... the latest stage in a long struggle against the empires of the west,
their rapacious crusades and domination.

The terrorist murderer thereby becomes an expression - albeit, perhaps, a misguided or distorted expression - of a global struggle against oppression and injustice. It puts him on 'our' side of the line if this is what his motivation really derives from - despite those three aforesaid deliberative features, which in fact make him a deadly enemy. To adopt the modern cliché: this is the bottom line in pinpointing the monumental excuse today being made by the more deluded sections of liberalism and the left.".(emphasis added)

nearly isn't enough for a lifetime

2004-03-25T17:25:00.000Z
nearly isn't enough for a lifetime - discuss.

moving on not shutting up

2004-03-22T23:09:00.000Z
This article from the Guardian contains the following quotes;

"I've been against it from the beginning," said Caroline Bailey from Greenwich, south-east London. "But I think that the British troops should stay put. I think we are going to have to keep pouring money into the country until the problems are solved."

Kadie Kaneh, a 17-year-old from Birmingham, disagreed: "This war is a huge mistake. There were no grounds for it. We should pull out now and let the UN take over."

You might wonder what they were doing on the demonstration with these views but surely what it means is that for some people - who can say how many - the war was wrong, nevertheless it happened and, while they don't want the Government to forget they opposed it, they recognise the need to deal with the new situation and not necessarily by just demanding troops out now.

That's not to say these particular proposals provide a solution to the problem; but that these people feel the new situation needs to be addressed imaginatively surely gives hope that other people involved in the anti-war campaign are looking for alternatives to the reactionary "support the resistance" line pushed by the leaders of the Stop the War Coalition.

Sharon is a war criminal

2004-03-22T17:56:00.000Z
What good will come of this. Some people don't seem to care. Thankfully there are some who do.

boys' games

2004-03-22T17:26:00.000Z
For a perfect example of how not to understand the bombings in Madrid, try
this. You will look in vain for an outright condemnation of the outrage, instead you might get the feeling the writer is impressed by the likely success of Al Qaeda's tactics;

"This was a chillingly spectacular victory for al Qaeda.
The wave of bombs that ripped through packed commuter trains in the heart of Madrid last Thursday morning might have appeared like a random and desperate act of revenge.
But this was more than just a haphazard operation designed to inflict maximum death and destruction.
It was also a carefully calculated action meticulously designed to inflict political damage on the Spanish government in the run up to Sunday's general election.
Now one of Europe's most fanatically pro-Bush governments has been toppled. Spanish troops will be pulled out of Iraq.
The Western war machine has been weakened."

The hysterical nature of the commentary, particularly bad in a socialist journal is further exemplified by these descriptions of the US strategy; "this 21st century crusade against the Muslim world" and "Bush's messianic war on terror".

So, now Al Qaeda are representative of the Muslim world and the 'war on terror' is fuelled by Bush's born-again views?

no, no, no...

2004-03-15T21:50:00.000Z
In another passage from the Frontline article referred to below, in “you say yes, I say...”, we find these sentences;

"The SNP leadership attempted initially to duck the issue of independence altogether concentrating instead on their manifesto for Holyrood with the promise of a referendum on independence in four years time.
They were incapable of counteracting the campaign of the press and New Labour about the consequences of independence on jobs and living standards. The SNP are a capitalist party with a vision of a free market Scotland, it would and will take a socialist campaign and a mass movement at that to win national independence for Scotland."

What does this mean? In particular, "it would and will take a socialist campaign and a mass movement at that to win national independence for Scotland" appears to mean that the might of a “socialist campaign” and a “mass movement” would be directed towards the aim of establishing “national independence for Scotland”. Why would a socialist campaign, at the head of a mass movement, want to direct that movement along the path of national independence? Or is it that a mass socialist movement will arise in Scotland only as part of a movement for independence?

Underlying all this is the idea that a mass movement for national independence is latent among Scottish people and in particular the working class; the SNP, because they are in bed with big business, cannot lead it, therefore the chance is there for the socialists, ie SSP, to place themselves at its the head. (Is opportunism too strong a term for this?)

But what about these questions.

Firstly, even given a genuine feeling for independence among the Scottish working class, does it follow that socialists would automatically go along with it and advocate independence? There is a clear difference between supporting the basic, democratic right of nations to self-determination and actively promoting national independence as, at the very least, part of the solution to problems faced by any section of the working class. What are these problems which have specifically Scottish solutions and yet threaten the integrity of the British nation state and take us along the road to socialism?

Secondly, where is this mass feeling for independence, even in latent form? All the evidence points to it as a minority phenomenon. There is no section of Scottish society in general which shows a majority for independence; more importantly no section of the working class as a whole nor any sector within it. There is a significant minority within sections of the working class defined, by some, as the most militant, but, nevertheless, a minority. Even where the evidence for this is most strongly expressed, as in Gregor Gall's pamphlet "Socialism, the 'national question' and the Independence Convention in Scotland", there is no 'natural' majority in favour of independence.

Left with no natural majority for independence in the working class it would need to be created. So how would that be done? What advantages of independence would socialists sell to the working class? For instance, would socialists portray Scotland as an 'oppressed nation', forced by historical necessity to demand self-determination from its national oppressor, before it can fully develop its capitalist self, nevermind bring about socialism? Is that too crude, harsh or absurd a way of characterising the position of the SSP? Does Scotland really fall within the grasp of the theory of combined and uneven development?
But the ISM say Scotland is not an oppressed country, so what *is* the argument in favour of a campaign for independence?

Twenty years on from the last great British strike of the twentieth century

2004-03-08T11:22:00.000Z
The miners' strike is often seen as the dying breath of the class struggle labour movement, as, for instance, in an article by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald. If not this then the strike is portrayed as Seamus Milne reminds us;

"And in the run-up to this week's anniversary, the propaganda that became so familiar in 1984-85 has come flooding back. Once again, we are in a world where miners' flying pickets are "stormtroopers" and "hit squads", and their leaders' tactics a "blitzkrieg" (all terms used in the commentary in Channel 4's recent strike documentary); where Arthur Scargill, not Margaret Thatcher, was to blame for the shutdown of the industry and the hardships of the miners (who bafflingly still re-elected him); where the miners' cause was "futile" - but would have surely been won if only the NUM leaders had called a national ballot or strikers had not fought running battles with strikebreakers and the police."

The TUC's History Online website has an 'interesting' angle. What can be made of this;

"A huge support network sprang up across the country, led particularly by Women Against Pit Closures in the coal communities. It had a radicalising effect on its participants but other trade unionists, in an official or unofficial capacity, were unable or unwilling to give the level of support that had been so effective in 1972 and 1974 in besieging the power stations and forcing the government to back down."

It would be comforting to think that it is embarrassment that prevents the TUC from expressing a less oblique view of their role in the miners' defeat.

Even for someone who played an active part in the support groups at the time there is still a feeling of shame for not being able to stop the Thatcher Government comprehensively defeating the miners and ruining so many lives.

Some idea of the human cost of the strike can be found in Allan Glen's account.

Tactical mistakes were made during the strike but no socialist could possibly argue that those errors of judgement made the values expressed in the aims of the strike unworthy of support and yet during the strike the Labour Party and the TUC were lukewarm at best and used any excuse to disassociate themselves from the strikers.

Roy Hattersley owns up here, however grudgingly, while here Tony Benn points out the vicious nature of the Government campaign and the feeble response of the official labour movement;

"Arthur Scargill and NUM general secretary Peter Heathfield were the subject of the most disgusting campaign of media vilification, suggesting that they had received money from Libya and had used it to fund their mortgage payments. False bank accounts were opened in their names to give credibility to these charges.

The BBC played a disreputable part in the dispute.

At Orgreave, the film shot showed the police cavalry charge and some miners responding by throwing stones.

However, the news team was instructed to reverse the order of events so that the evening bulletin showed miners throwing stones followed by the police charge.

At a subsequent riot trial, Scargill demanded – and got – the police video with a time code on it that proved the facts.

The miners were acquitted."

More information on the campaign to undermine the miners' leadership can be had here.

For all its deficiences the miners' strike of 1984 remains inspirational; the Iron Lady and the 'iron laws' of capitalism were defied and very nearly overturned; we saw the true beauty of solidarity and hope for the future.

sweatshop employers

2004-03-04T22:35:00.000Z
This report is a must read for anyone who wants to know the horrific truth behind the glossy ads and multi-million pound PR operation which sells the healthy lifestyle of companies such as adidas, Nike, Umbro, etc..

"If hypocrisy and exploitation were an Olympic sport, the sportswear industry would win a medal," said Junya Yimprasert from the Thai Labour Campaign and member of the Clean Clothes Campaign network. "The industry is sacrificing human rights in the search for profits. Should the race to outfit athletes mean a race of the bottom for these workers?" (From International Confederation of Free Trade Unions online press release.)

For more information you should visit this site.

you say yes, I say...

2004-03-04T09:21:00.000Z
For as long as the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) has existed a debate has raged, in and out of the party, over the question of how socialism and nationalism might or might not be reconciled.

A small minority has persistently questioned the accommodation to nationalism made by, principally, the major organised grouping within the SSP, the International Socialist Movement (ISM), once part of the Committee for a Workers International (CWI), aka Scottish Militant Labour (SML).

On a visit to the website of the CWI's magazine, Frontline, I came across this piece in Frontline's forerunner, International Socialist. I was particularly struck by this part,

"The International Socialist has consistently argued that the interests of capitalism in Scotland and Britain will lead big business to being dedicated opponents of Scottish independence. They will fight tooth and nail to keep Scotland as part of the British union. Both from an economic and a political point of view the big business interests of the major industrial and financial multi-national corporations will lead them to oppose the break up of Britain.".

There is a debate to be had about the 'objective' truth of this statement, however what interests me is the part it plays in the ISM's decision to support Scottish independence. Because underlying, although not too deeply, the attitude of the ISM to the supposed hostility of business to independence as such, is the approach that says where you say "yes" then I say "no".

Now that's not an approach that supposed Marxists should give any credence to. Surely we are animated by strategies for pursuing the interests of the working class and for making our ideas part of the everyday life of the labour movement. Wouldn't life be simple if all we had to do was decide what we thought the ruling class wanted then do exactly the opposite.

2004-02-26T17:17:00.000Z
Since the issue of the war in Iraq and its aftermath isn't going away any time soon these links will save a lot of space and let people know where this site stands -

Iraq and the Third Camp - Alan Johnson

Help Iraq Workers Organise - Colin Foster

Ewa Jasiewicz, Occupation Watch, Occupied Basra

There's a lot more to be said of course but this is a start.