|
Alex Gordon letter To: Alex Gordon Dear Alex, Please forgive me for this unsolicited email. Your email regarding trade unions Iraq and the IFTU was copied to me by a friend, and I felt that I must communicate with you, as a representative the RMT, a trade union with a brilliant history of struggle for working class rights and international solidarity with workers across the world. Another apology: my response is long and hurriedly written but I feel that the issues are urgent and very important. Britain’s Trade Unions, the Occupation of Iraq and the IFTUTo: Alex Gordon,
From: Sami Ramadani,
22 October 2004 Dear Alex, Your message regarding the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) was copied to me by a friend, and I felt that I must write to you, in your capacity as a representative of the RMT trade union, which has a proud history of struggle for working class rights and international solidarity with workers across the world. I fully agree with you on two points. Firstly, it was wrong and undemocratic to disrupt the European Social Forum plenary on the occupation of Iraq by an organised small group of hecklers. The second is that no Iraqi was involved in the disruption of the meeting or the shouting down of speakers. I myself was shouted down by the same group of disrupters when I went to the platform to appeal to them to stop the disruption and to stage a quiet and dignified walk-out of the meeting when IFTU general secretary, Subhi Mashadani, starts his speech and to walk quietly back after he finishes. However, I take issue with the rest of your contribution and appeal to you to take a second look at the dire consequences of the war on Iraq and to revise your opinion of the unelected leadership of the IFTU and of the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP), which dominates this leadership with the backing of the Iraqi National Accord, an organisation of former Ba’athist military and security men led by US-appointed prime minister Ayad Allawi, former Saddamist agent in charge of all Ba’ath party organisations in Europe. I am sad to say that the (IFTU) leadership, in its present post-occupation reincarnation, appears to have succeeded in convincing you that it is a staunch opponent of the occupation of Iraq and of the institutions set up by the occupation authorities. Alas, this self-projected image of the IFTU is false, and I will explain why below. Before doing so, I draw your attention that I will list, in the course of my arguments, the crucial questions that the IFTU need to answer in relation to the occupation of Iraq and the Allawi regime. In asking these questions I have in mind the fact that Bush and Blair were also against the occupation of Iraq and wanted to end it “as soon as possible.” Bush and Blair did do their best to end the dreaded occupation by handing “sovereignty” to the Allawi regime, which in turn “invited” them to remain in Iraq as the “multi-national forces.” Bush and Blair are now “fully committed” to withdrawing the troops the “moment” the newly elected government in Iraq asks them to do so. The “presence” of the US-led forces is merely to make sure that Iraq will have free and fair elections. To withdraw the troops now will lead to civil war and the “murder” of all “active trade unionists and socialists.” Delete “active trade unionists and socialists” and replace with “free Iraqi men and women” if Bush is making the claim. And to legitimise this entire process the US and Britain asked the UN security Council to pass resolutions noting the transition from invasion to occupation, to occupation-plus-Bremer-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), to “multi-national forces” assisting an interim, but sovereign, Iraqi Interim Government until elections are... The UN Security Council noted all this in resolutions 1483 and 1546. Unfortunately and despite their best efforts to assist the people of Iraq, Bush and Blair are now facing a big problem, not of their own making of course, of some cut-throat terrorists who must be crushed before elections are held in Jan 2005. In order to crush them, many Iraqi cities, Shia and Sunni, had to be bombarded and thousands of homes had to be demolished on top of their inhabitants. This collateral damage could go up as the free and fair election date approaches... This is not intended to introduce an element of cynicism, but to know what people exactly mean when the say “we are against the occupation of Iraq” and “we are for a free, democratic, secular and federal Iraq” and that “UN resolution 1546 offers the best hope for Iraqis to achieve” these goals. I also have ample and reliable information from within Iraq that the IFTU is not an elected umbrella organisation of all Iraqi trade unions as its name suggests. [The correct translation of the name is: The General Federation of the Workers’ Trade Unions in Iraq]. Indeed, the IFTU itself has not officially claimed that there has been such a conference representing democratically elected trade union bodies across Iraq. However, its self-appointed (or rather party-appointed) leaders, including its general secretary, Subhi Mashadani, and its London-based International Representative, Abdullah Muhsin, have unashamedly given such a false impression to British and other trade unions. But once the role of the IFTU and ICP leaders is fully understood, and the historical parallels are relevantly drawn, it would be patently obvious that it was wrong to invite Mashadani to an anti-occupation meeting. No prominent supporter of the Vichy regime would have been allowed to set foot in Britain let alone get near a trade union platform or a rally supporting the French people’s struggle against the Vichy regime and its occupation masters. Drawing parallels has its limitation, and one might accurately state that Bush and Blair are not Hitler and Mussolini. The retort to that is: yes but try telling that to the people at the receiving end of cluster bombs, helicopter gunships, and tank fire in their besieged cities and Baghdad working class neighbourhoods. Try telling them that Allawi is not another Vichy. Most of the current leaders of the IFTU are ICP cadres. And it is impossible to understand the IFTU’s policies and line without recognising this fact and without being acquainted with the party’s line and policies. A party that was once a proud organisation that had the support of millions of people in Iraq, in the late 1950’s and 60’s, is now at the forefront of perfecting the art of justifying the continued US-led occupation of Iraq. The party’s slogan, before the invasion, was “No to war and no to Saddam’s dictatorship.” The first half of the slogan was not acted upon energetically and the opposition to the invasion was tempered by some equivocal statements in the party’s main organ, Tareeq Al-Sha’ab, and by its leaders, who surreptitiously took part in pre-war US administration and British government organised conferences of some Iraqi opposition leaders, some of whom later served as collaborators appointed by the occupation authorities. However, this prevarication was dramatically ended few months after the fall of Baghdad to US tanks, and the collapse of Saddam’s tyrannical regime. Political imperatives, logic and the interests of the Iraqi people would have necessitated bringing into sharper focus the party’s opposition to the war and the subsequent occupation. Instead, the party solemnly declared, on 13 July 2003, that its secretary general, Hameed Majeed Mousa, would join the Paul Bremer appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC). Though anticipated by people familiar with the party leadership’s history and manoeuvres, that statement came as a shock to some of the party members whom I met in Baghdad last year. From that day onwards, the party was seen by most Iraqis as a collaborationist force, with some of its leaders receiving their salaries from the occupation authorities. Under the hammer blows of the Iraqi people’s magnificent struggle against the occupation, the IGC and its US master, Paul Bremer, were so isolated and discredited that Bremer had to disband the IGC last June in favour of passing “sovereignty” to the US-appointed Iraqi Interim Government led by the CIA “asset”, Ayad Allawi. The ICP fully supported the formation of Allawi’s puppet regime, and has one senior and two junior ministers serving under Allawi and his US bosses. US ambassador Negroponte, the mastermind of terror organisations in El-Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, and now bunkered at Saddam’s Republican Palace in Baghdad, is the real political ruler of Iraq with 160, 000 occupation troops and over 40, 000 foreign mercenaries at his disposal. He is hard at it to build an Iraqi force to kill other Iraqis and subdue the people using Saddamist methods. So were does the IFTU stand on all this? You need do no more than read translations of the ICP’s communiqués and Tareeq Al-Sha’ab editorials to know were Abdullah Muhsin and Subhi Mashadani get their political line from. Indeed, an IFTU article by Muhsin in the Morning Star last year was almost an abridged translation of a party statement on the political situation in Iraq. What I am trying to put the spotlight on here is not that a trade unionist is exercising his or her right to be also a party cadre but that the party line the IFTU leaders adhere to is, in practice, a collaborationist line. Their protestations to the contrary, misleading some people abroad, are laughable to most Iraqis. The few Iraqis that you met at the ESF were ICP activists, some from here in London and others flown in with Mashadani from Baghdad. They were mobilised to support Mashadani’s appearance at the ESF conference. I too, being a friend of some of them, was standing near them to the left of the platform and engaged them in discussion later. Some were in a state of denial about the occupation of Iraq, calling the US-led forces a necessary, if temporary, “foreign military presence.” A phrase used by Allawi and the latest ICP central committee communique [dated 26 Auguat 2004]. Others acknowledged the occupation but strongly believed that there was no alternative to joining the occupation-created institutions. The obvious point, of saying you can’t end the occupation by serving in its highest levels of political structures, was answered with strong attacks on the notion of armed resistance. I suggested that they could lead the peaceful struggle to end the occupation by following the great example of Ghandi and boycotting the occupation authorities and all their institutions. The answer was “we don’t have a Ghandi.” People who are reasonably well informed on Iraq will benefit a great deal from closely examining the IFTU website (set up in London) (www. iraqitradeunions. org). Reading the headlines of the website, you would be forgiven to think that there was no war or invasion of Iraq and tens of thousands of people did not die at the hands of the US-led occupation. Nor has there been a US bombardment of Najaf, the working class districts of Baghdad, particularly Sadr City, Falluja, Samarra and many other cities in the past weeks and months... The IFTU, rightly, very strongly and swiftly condemns the atrocities committed by the terrorist gangs. But they always do so in the manner of Bush, Blair, Allawi and the occupation forces. They always try to portray the hugely popular patriotic resistance as “remnants of the Saddam regime” and “secretive anti-democratic” forces. On the other hand, the IFTU and the ICP are yet to launch a campaign against the massacres committed by the occupation forces. Associating the resistance with terrorist gangs is one of the most insidious acts of the IFTU and the ICP. They dare not condemn the resistance openly, in Arabic within Iraq, but they always issue statements, in the wake of terrorist crimes, trying to surreptitiously suggest that Zarqawi and the other terrorists are the resistance in Iraq. In fact the only very strongly worded IFTU statement on its website is dated 3rd March 2004 condemning the murder of worshippers by unknown terrorists who bombed Shia mosques/shrines in Karbala and Khadimyia. The wording of the statement is very interesting in the way it mimics the occupation authorities’ style of condemning such atrocities. Those particular bombings were widely described by Iraqis at the time as the work of occupation forces’ agent provocateurs out to incite civil war between Sunni and Shia. People of the Baghdad district of Khadimya stoned the US forces and accused them of perpetrating the crime. These forces moved in on that day (2nd March) within minutes of the bombing of the famous shrine, thinking that the people would welcome them as their protectors. Obviously, for those who know the reality of IFTU, it is not surprising that the statement does not even mention the occupation. These one-sided, well-synchronised statements on terrorism are designed to apologise for Bush’s policies in Iraq, or for what Blair portrayed as the engagement of the occupation forces in a “second war” in Iraq, the war against terrorism. As it happens, the vast majority of Iraqis reject Zarqawi and his ilk - as do the armed resistance and its supporters in Falluja, Basra, Najaf, Sadr City and across Iraq. Many even suspect that the occupation forces are somehow encouraging the likes of Zarqawi, or at least failing to prevent their crimes, as a way of obscuring the fact that most Iraqis now actively support a patriotic and widespread resistance movement. While rightly condemning Zarqawi, the IFTU and the ICP are keeping quiet about the Israeli-trained American assassination squads. (See reports, undenied by Bush or Blair, published by Seymour Hersh). Does the IFTU mention anywhere that the occupation forces have admitted that the attacks on them by the resistance rose in August to 2, 700? Does it mention how many of these 2, 700 attacks a month were claimed by Zarqawi? Six. Six headline-grabbing, TV-dominating, stomach-churning moments. The mildest, and furtively stated, criticisms are reserved for the US bombardment of the cities. ‘Bombing cities in which civilians die is not the way to defeat the terrorists’ is the best we can hope for from the IFTU and the ICP in the way of condemning the US-led war crimes, being assisted by the Allawi regime, which the ICP is part of. Just as Iraq’s 25 million people were reduced, in the public’s mind, to the threat from weapons of mass destruction, ready to be unleashed by Saddam within 45 minutes, the resistance is now being reduced, with the help of the IFTU and the ICP, to a single hoodlum by the name of Zarqawi. And just as we should have been told, before the war, whether the 45-minutes-from-dooms-day WMD threat referred to “battle field or long range missiles,” to judge whether the war was legal or had a moral foundation, we today need to be aware that the IFTU and ICP assisted “war on terrorism” is nothing but a new deceitful attempt to wage a new war against the Iraqi people, in the interest of the Bush administration and the neo-cons, and to multiply the profits of the transnational companies. So what does the IFTU stand for in Iraq today? On the front page of the English version of their website there is a picture of the leaders of the IFTU seated under an IFTU banner. The words on the banner are worthy of verbatim translation, because they sum up the IFTU’s main demands and platform for Iraq and its working class after the invasion and the occupation of the country: “ The General Federation of Workers’ Trade Unions in Iraq [this is the full and accurate translation of the IFTU’s name] struggles for:
It is unreal. No war, no occupation, no torture and murder of workers, no privatisation, no selling of Iraq’s assets to the US and British transnationals, no Bremer and Allawi re-enactment of Saddam’s 1987 law banning trade unions and strikes, no US bombardment of working class districts, no workers falling victim to radiation emanating from the US and British depleted Uranium shells, no working class children dying of water born diseases stemming from raw sewage (also fed into the Tigris and Euphrates), because the greatest military and economic power in the world can’t bring electricity supplies to the sewage plants to their pre-war levels,... These slogans remind me of the yellow unions under Saddam when they were allowed to talk about everything, and make all manner of demands, as long as they did not criticise the mass murderer and the political nature of his regime. If you dig deeper into the IFTU website you will find ICP justifications for joining the occupation-appointed bodies dressed up as IFTU stands. The IFTU’s Abdullah Muhsin relies on the nimbleness of the party’s phraseology when writing, on behalf of the IFTU, on the Bremer-appointed Iraqi Governing Council: “The UN helped in forging a compromise and the idea of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) was born. Both Iraqis and the UN supported it. The US and UK administrations agreed. In July 2003 the IGC was formed. The IGC, despite the fact that [it] is not the best or the preferred ultimate perfect model of running Iraq post-Saddam, nevertheless remains an acceptable alternative to the US vision. It represents all sections of Iraqi society - including Arabs, Kurds and other nationals.” A Bremer-appointed IGC is “an acceptable alternative to the US vision”? And there is much more where that quotation comes from. Reading the ICP and IFTU literature might keep one in touch with the surreal, but it gives all well-informed people on Iraq immunity against subterfuge, collateral oxymorons, deceit, dissembling and much more. There is a very good reason why the IFTU and ICP have to camouflage their practice with such contortions: they are addressing the left in Iraq, not renowned for their propensity to be easily fooled about their own society, and they are addressing anti-war and progressive opinion abroad. This is their main role. And that is why the CIA, Bremer and Allawi kept the ICP on board all the US-appointed or approved bodies. Why else would the CIA do that to such a small organisation, which doesn’t even register in all the opinion surveys held in Iraq since the occupation? But there is another very good reason: to confiscate the glorious memory, dating back to 1920, of the tens of thousands of Iraqi socialists, secular democrats and, since 1934, communists who died at the alters of British colonialism, Ba’athist fascism and US imperialism in Iraq. There is nothing like renegade, persons or organisations, to accomplish this mean task. Did the trade unions in Britain take such a considerate and caressing stance towards the institutions set up by the occupation forces in Europe? Or, indeed, would the TUC and the unions have been so supportive of an occupation-imposed authority if Hitler’s forces occupied Britain? I am bringing these rather stark examples, because it is sometimes forgotten that the Iraqi people and their land have been occupied by the mightiest military forces in the world and that the Iraqi people expect, and are entitled to, not only sympathy but active support in their struggle for liberation and democracy. They don’t expect the collaborators in their midst to be held up as representatives of the oppressed working class and people of Iraq. They certainly don’t expect it from democratic and proudly free unions such as the RMT. I have no doubt that the misleading picture painted by the IFTU and ICP leaders has had its toll. I also have no doubt that this is a temporary state of affairs. Not least, because US Abram tanks and Apache helicopters on the one hand and the valiant resistance, peaceful or armed in legitimate self-defence, speak much louder than the honeyed words of the IFTU and ICP leaders. The RMT and other unions could also examine the fact that, for eight long years, the ICP leaders played a similar role, in relation to Saddam’s tyrannical regime, to the one they are playing today in relation to the US-led occupation. From 1972 to 1978, they were tireless in their efforts within Iraq, and here in Britain, to convince the unions and the Labour party to accept Saddam’s tyranny as a reformed regime, which was implementing “progressive and patriotic measures,” and to support the party in proudly joining Saddam’s “Patriotic and Nationalist Progressive Front.” They had two party politburo members serving as ministers under Saddam. It was worker, student, and other organisations, which the party then controlled, which undertook that task. All these organisations, including the then IFTU, were later disbanded by the party because Saddam ordered it to do so, as part of being in the “same trench,” as he was fond of reminding the ICP leaders. Saddam, who was described then by the ICP leaders as representing the “left wing” of the Ba’ath party, even published a pamphlet entitled “One Trench or Two Trenches?” to remind them of their role, which later included the crushing of the 1977 Karbala uprising. Iraqis, including some ICP members, who continued to expose Saddam’s fascist policies abroad, and even those he killed and tortured at home, were dubbed as “infantile leftists” or “reactionary Kurds” by the ICP leadership. The RMT, UNISON and other trade unions, including my own union, NATFHE, should also take on board the fact that the IFTU wasn’t accidentally chosen by the Bremer-appointed IGC as the sole organisation representing Iraqi workers (albeit outside the banned state sector). There are several other such umbrella organisations led by other parties in Iraq, including Iraqi Kurdistan, and including the non-party controlled Union of Unemployed Workers (which is now part of the Federation of Workers Councils and Trade Unions). The IGC’s sponsorship of the IFTU was born out of a deal struck between the Communist party and the Iraqi National Accord, led by CIA asset Ayad Allawi. [NB: My guess is that the IFTU does not correctly state its full name in English, because the Arabic name is the same as the Saddam licensed federation. This will allow it to lay a claim to the vast resources of the yellow unions, of which many IFTU activists were members from 1972 to 1978 when the ICP was in Saddam’s cabinet. The Arabic name is claimed by others (accused of being Islamists or former Ba’athists). It is also intended to gain acceptance by appeasing unions abroad and international union bodies, by implicitly admitting, at least in English, that they are not the only “federation of unions” in Iraq. ] There are also individual unions such as the Basra oil workers union and the South oil workers union, both of which are strong unions that took part in a widely supported strike, stopping oil exports in protest at the US bombardment of Najaf in August. Both these unions don’t recognise the IFTU leadership as speaking on their behalf. Workers across Iraq are entitled to ask what did the IFTU leaders do to lift the siege of Najaf and Falluja and to stop the bombardment of the cities? One incident that exposed the IFTU’s duplicity here in Britain was its active campaign to support Tony Blair’s move to invite Ayad Allawi to address the Labour party conference. This is what the IFTU told the Guardian only last month:
Who else could defend and try to legitimise the CIA’s man in Iraq, and Saddam’s former thug, with such left and liberal sounding eloquence? Having failed in that mission, Tony Blair and other Labour party leaders made sure that the IFTU and the Kurdish partner of an Iraqi minister were given ample opportunity to spread confusion at the conference and get it to, in effect, support President Bush’s policies in Iraq. For let us not forget that President Bush also says that the US will leave Iraq as soon as the future elected Iraqi government asks to do so! That eloquence in defending the US-chosen prime minister extends to the US occupation itself. Let us read, at length, how the US-led occupation is being “opposed” and, at one and the same time, accepted de facto and de jure by the IFTU, echoing its ICP master’s voice: “As a consequence of the war, the occupation and the failure of Iraqi parties to agree on holding of a national conference April 2003 to elect a transitional government, the occupation authorities (US and UK) became de facto the transitional authority in Iraq. Their authority was further consolidated by the UN Security Council resolution 1483, which internationalised the occupation of Iraq. The US administration interpreted one of UN resolution 1483 articles, which relates directly to the formation of an Iraqi political transitional authority as meaning that the new Iraqi political body would exist merely to advise and assist the occupation authority during the transitional period of the occupation. All Iraqi forces rejected this flawed idea. The UN helped in forging a compromise and the idea of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) was born. Both Iraqis and the UN supported it. The US and UK administrations agreed. In July 2003 the IGC was formed. The IGC, despite the fact that is not the best or the preferred ultimate perfect model of running Iraq post-Saddam, nevertheless remains an acceptable alternative to the US vision. It represents all sections of Iraqi society - including Arabs, Kurds and other nationals.” So, the Bremer-appointed IGC was the fault of the Iraqis 9which Iraqis?) for not holding a national conference, and, in the circumstances, the best possible outcome. The IFTU goes on to list some of the wonderful achievements of the defunct and totally discredited IGC, including: “Preparing the ground to end the occupation, dissolving itself and handing power to an Iraqi interim government (which was achieved on 28 June 2004)” Let us read on to see what a left and liberal sounding defence of the evolution of the US-led occupation looks like, and how one could shelter behind another UN resolution to accept the occupation, in practice, and openly defend the next US-led occupation tactics and the US-chosen regime: “The unanimous UN resolution 1546 on Iraq is an important signal for ending the occupation and regaining Iraqi national sovereignty. It will help to undermine anti-Iraqi terrorism and will assist Iraqi democrats - like the new trade union movement - to help build a secular and secure civil society. Whilst the IFTU is aware that the legacy of Saddam’s dictatorship, war, sanctions and the effect of the recent invasion will not be eradicated on June 28th, the IFTU nonetheless welcomes and endorses the commitment given in the resolution to the ending of the power of the Coalition Provisional Authority on that day and handing the political power to the Iraqis. The interim government is not an end in itself- it is a means to an end. Its role must be to prepare Iraq for full democratic sovereignty. This will include full authority and control over Iraq’s financial and natural resources. The IFTU will play a full part in this process and will seek to ensure that workingmen and women are alerted to the importance of participating in the democratic renewal of their country. The IFTU also support the convening of a national conference to reflect the diversity of Iraqi society. The concrete goal of the national conference is elect 100 seat transitional assembly that will oversee the current interim government until national elections are held in January 2005.” Can’t be clearer, can it? Even down to using the phraseology of the US generals who officially call all people resisting the occupation as “anti-Iraqi” forces. Every military communiqué, on bombarding Najaf, Sadr City in Baghdad, Samarra, Tel Afar, Falluja and other cities and villages, referred and continues to refer to the eradication of the “anti-Iraqi” forces or terrorists. It is time to call a spade a spade: the leaders of the IFTU and ICP are the left-wing sounding, trade-union ‘friendly’ face of the Allawi CIA-chosen regime and of the continuing occupation of Iraq. It is time to call a spade a spade: the leaders of the IFTU and the ICP are part of a left-wing sounding, trade-union ‘friendly’ campaign to oppose the immediate withdrawal of the occupation forces from Iraq under the pretext of keeping them to prevent civil war and to hold elections in January. It is time to call a spade a spade: the leaders of the IFTU and the ICP are part of a left-wing sounding, trade-union ‘friendly’ propaganda war designed to justify the “new war” to crush the resistance of the Iraqi people by portraying entire cities towns and villages across Iraq as hideouts for mass murderers and terrorists such as Zarqawi. I and many trade unionists in Britain of Iraqi origin, who opposed Saddam’s tyrannical regime for decades, were shocked and dismayed that most of the unions at the recent Labour party conference accepted the message from the ICP, IFTU leaders and other Allawi collaborators and voted against a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the occupation forces. This is tantamount to abandoning the Iraqi people to be crushed by the US tanks and cluster bombs. This is tantamount to abandoning solidarity with the workers and people of Iraq. The Iraqi people’s blood is as precious as that of the people of Europe who resisted the fascist forces, even if today the British Government and the US administration refuse to count the Iraqis they have killed and are continuing to kill. And Iraqi collaborators can be as treacherous and deceitful as any of the collaborators in Europe under the Nazi jackboot. For the Iraqi people in their besieged cities today, and for the thousands of tortured people at Abu Ghraib and other prisons, the US tanks, helicopter gunships and heavy bombs are no different from the Hitler’s forces in France or Albania. I am confident that Britain’s unions and most Labour party members will eventually see through and reject these collaborators, much as the Iraqi people rejected their calls to support Saddam’s regime from 1972 to 1978, and much as they are rejecting their calls today to support the US-appointed Allawi regime. I am also confident that Britain’s trade unions and most Labour party members will, sooner or later, stand by the Iraqi people’s struggle against the US-led occupation and for liberation and democracy. Best wishes, Sami 22 October 2004 PS: Alex, I would like to draw your attention some of my articles on Iraq to give you a fuller picture of my analysis of Iraq before and after the war: 1. Whose interests at heart? 18 March 2003, written on eve of US-led invasion of Iraq:
2. Bring the British troops home. 26 June 2003, on resistance and popular sentiment:
3. Patriots and invaders. 27 September 2003, on my visit to Baghdad:
4. Resistance to occupation will grow. 15 December 2003, on Saddam’s surrender:
5. Iraqis told them to go from day one. 09 April 2004, on spread of resistance:
6. America has sown the seeds of civil war in Iraq. 03 July 2004, on US poisonous role in Iraq:
7. The true face of resistance in Iraq. 30 September 2004. Written on eve of the Labour party conference voting on Iraq:
From: Alex Gordon
Ruhul Tarafder (1990 Trust),
You are factually mistaken. Subhi Al Mashadani (General Secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Workers’ Trade Unions (IFTU) http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/) was agreed as a speaker at the ESF by a process that included both the full European Preparatory Assembly in Brussels and the smaller programme group meeting in Paris which took place a week later.
Subhi Al Mashadani was invited by two British trade unions affiliated to the ESF Organising Committee in the UK, RMT and UNISON and was supported by the British TUC (TUC Aid Iraq Appeal http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/index.cfm?mins=376).
Subhi Al Mashadani had previously spoken publicly at the 2004 National Conferences of both unions, opposing the war on Iraq and the ongoing occupation of his country and explaining the IFTU’s strategy of rebuilding a free and independent trade union movement, and strengthening civil society in Iraq. The British TUC has taken part in a delegation in 2003 to Iraq to see the work of the Iraqi trade unionists in rebuilding an independent trade union movement after the suppression of trade unionism during the Saddam era.
Subhi Al Mashadani is not part of the Iraqi government nor did he hold any post in the previous interim government under the Coalition Provisional Authority. He is a very brave and respected trade unionist who spent 10 years of his life in prison (during which time he was tortured and for one year of which he was in solitary confinement) under the Ba’ath regime for his political activities in continuing the fight for free and independent trade unions. He was elected at the founding conference of the IFTU in May 2003 as their first General Secretary. He is opposed to imperialism, war and the occupation of his country by foreign military forces, as you would have found out if you had been able to hear him speak.
It is quite unacceptable to see at this year’s ESF in London, not once but twice, platform speakers at plenaries being physically attacked in order to prevent them from speaking. You say “Of course we all believe in free speech”, but clearly we did not uphold the right to free speech at this year’s ESF. That is a shame for the reputation of the ESF and the movements in this country. However, it is a tragedy for the many people such as yourself who apparently continue to live in ignorance of the organisations and the authentic voices of Iraqi people themselves and their daily fight for self determination amidst bombing, occupation and terror.
Finally, Javier is as usual completely wrong. It was not Iraqis who were protesting against the IFTU speaker, it was a rotten assortment of members of the British so-called trotskyist group, ‘Workers Power’ and various maoist splinter groups both from Britain and Turkey. The Iraqis who I was standing with during the violent assault by these idiots included a young Iraqi Kurdish asylum seeker and other young people who said that this assault on a trade unionist’s free speech reminded them of the fascist-style tactics of Saddam’s Ba’athist thugs.
We in the ESF process in this country have to learn that the right to free speech is not divisible. If someone is invited to speak at the ESF or the WSF and that person complies with the principles laid out in the WSF Charter, then agree with them or disagree with them, they must be allowed to speak and we can argue with them afterwards. That is the point of debate after all.
Comradely,
Mick Rix mdrix@btinternet.com
Please find speeches at Labour Party conference by IFTU, and also Morning Star right of reply by Abdullah, and other matters. If this man is an agent of the state, then we are all in danger of being accused of one. You can link on IFTU website, just by going onto google. I think the situation is so serious, and that the accusations by some, and I repeat some, of the more influential figures in StTW are in danger of wrecking the fragile left coalition that exists in StTW. That would be a sad loss to the peace, and anti war movement, especially with the anouncement that has been made today, over deployment of British troops, doing the dirty work for Bush re election campaign. I think these are the issues that StTW should concentrate its efforts on, rather than its recent tendancy to enter into areas, that are not within its remit.
Mick Rix
Iraqi Federation of Workers’ Trade Unions (IFTU)
The TUC, like most participants in the European Social Forum, believes in the fundamental principles of free speech and pluralism. The TUC is dismayed at this morning’s events that saw a small minority of participants heckling and jostling the leader of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, Subhi al Mashadani, forcing him to leave the session. We condemn the attempts of a few to prevent the views of Iraqi trade unionists from being heard. We call on everyone at the European Social Forum to support the decision of the organisers to allow Subhi to speak tonight as originally planned. The TUC believes that the voice of Iraqi trade unions should be heard. The IFTU is one of several trade union voices in Iraq and the TUC is of the view that all of them should be listened to if we are to help the Iraqi people to rebuild their country. Our Congress reiterated our view that the war was wrong and that troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible. The only way forward is to allow people of differing opinions to have their say.
Iraqi Federation of Workers’ Trade Unions (IFTU) “ Abdullah Muhsin urges all progressives throughout the world to support the IFTU | Main | TUC statement on the treatment of Iraqi trade unionists” October 15, 2004
We are deeply shocked by reports we have received of attacks on the IFTU emanating from the London-based daily “Al-Quds al Arabi” (30 September 2004) and the “Morning Star” (2 October 2004). In an article published in “Al Quds”, George Galloway made the false and dangerous allegation which he repeated in an article published in the “Morning Star”. Alleging that the IFTU collaborates with British government is a blatant attempt to undermine the process of rebuilding an independent Iraqi trade union movement which only can be in the interest of enemies of the Iraqi people who want to sabotage the its struggle to regain full sovereignty and independence, end the presence of foreign troops and empower our people to decide their destiny in free and democratic elections.
IFTU’s policies have attracted widespread support among workers in Iraq and internationally. That is why we have grown from a founding conference of 400 trade unionists in May 2003 to 12 national unions. Despite the terrible security situation, IFTU affiliates are organizing on the industrial and legislative fronts. We have organised strikes, marches and we are entering into negotiation with both public and private enterprises in defence of workers rights to just wages and better working conditions. And we are campaigning for a labour code that adheres to the ILO conventions. We oppose privatisation and, to correct one of the slanders against us, we have ALWAYS opposed the war and the occupation.
On this and other issues, our position, and that of our official representative, Abdullah Muhsin, has been entirely falsified. Firstly, we deny absolutely that the IFTU and Mr. Muhsin have received support from the British State. Mr. Muhsin’s presence at the conferences of both the TUC and the Labour Party was at the invitation of the FBU (& the TUC) and UNISON respectively. No voting advice was proffered at either of these conferences. As we understand it, unions make their own decisions based on their own policies. We were very grateful to receive such warm wishes and practical solidarity from the trade unions at both conferences. Mr. Muhsin spoke on our behalf at fringe meetings at both conferences at which he presented the policy of the IFTU in opposing the war and the occupation, calling for the removal of troops and the transfer of power to a democratically elected sovereign government as envisaged in UN resolution 1546. We are amazed that some have thought fit (for reasons best known to themselves) to wilfully misrepresent the IFTU position on these matters. It should also be noted that some of the hostile reports contain factual inaccuracies as well as vicious slanders. Mr. Muhsin is not the President of the IFTU (as claimed in ‘Al-Quds’), he is our foreign representative and has never received assistance from any State or government.
Contrary to the allegations against the IFTU we must state emphatically that we have never voted or campaigned for the current interim Iraqi government.
We are an independent federation supporting a political process to keep Iraq together and to rebuild a civil society in which the rights and freedoms of working people are respected.
The IFTU will continue to work for organizational, political and social progress of Iraqi working people. We will continue to work with all sections of the International Labour movement that support our aims.
IFTU
Iraqi Federation of Workers’ Trade Unions (IFTU)
October 12, 2004
Right to reply
ABDULLAH MUHSIN urges all progressives throughout the world to support the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU).
I have just returned to England from Amman, Jordan, where I have spent the last seven days at two major conferences. One was called by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the ILO, at which the IFTU was represented by seven of its affiliates and the other by the International Transport Federation, with 2 IFTU transport unions present.
On my return, I was dismayed to read hostile comments about the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) published under the name of George Galloway in the Morning Star (Looking left, October 2). As he should know better than anyone, misrepresentation, exaggeration, lies and abuse are the enemies of truth and are commonly used by those who, for whatever reason, wish to avoid rational and lucid debate on principled issues of difference.
I am grateful, therefore, to the Morning Star for the opportunity to set the record straight.
First, the highly personal attacks on me must be answered not for my own gratification, but because the integrity of the IFTU and its support among British trade unions is at stake.
The charges that Mr Galloway levels against me are entirely without foundation. He alleges that I was invited to the Labour Party conference as a guest of the British state. This is untrue - I was there as a guest of UNISON.
My purpose was to address a fringe meeting sponsored by UNISON, War on Want and The Observer.
I was joined by speakers who supported the IFTU position against the war and the occupation, from the TUC, FBU and UNISON, and others who did not.
My speech at the meeting called for the removal of foreign troops and a genuine transfer of power to the Iraqi people. In this context, I explained the IFTU policy of support for UN resolution 1546.
Mr Galloway’s assertion that I offered voting advice to trade unions on the Iraq motions is also untrue. The big four trade unions made their own decisions and, for my part, if and when asked, I confined my remarks to urging solidarity with Iraqi workers.
The IFTU has many reasons to be extremely grateful to the TUC and many of its affiliates for the great support that we have received during the last 17 months in our historic task of rebuilding the once mighty Iraqi trade unions. Such solidarity is invaluable at this critical time.
Mr Galloway’s sectarian and misleading account of the IFTU political and organisational developments since its foundation in May 2003 at an open reunification conference of genuine trade unionists in Baghdad can only be described as a slander against those who fought and worked patiently for 25 years, both clandestinely and in exile, to preserve an independent trade union tradition from Saddam’s brutal death squads. As such, we genuinely wonder in whose interests it is for Mr Galloway to spread such calumnies about the IFTU.
Our country is bleeding, shattered by a quarter of a century of fascist-type dictatorship which instigated three wars in less than 20 years - at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives - and waged internal wars of genocide against the Iraqi people.
Now, we suffer the national humiliation of continuing occupation by foreign armies and a wave of horrific terrorist attacks on Iraqis - as well as Arab and foreign nationals - by shadowy sectarian forces masquerading as a patriotic national resistance.
The IFTU is opposed to the occupation of our country by the military forces of the US, Britain and other countries.
The IFTU calls for a democratic and federal Iraq, with full civil and political rights for women, workers and all social and ethnic groups. The federation calls for freedom of religion, but does not believe that any religion can be the sole source of legitimacy for the constitution of a democratic Iraq.
It remains opposed to the illegal war on Iraq and to the horrendous decision of the occupying powers following the invasion to effectively dissolve the functions of the state in Iraq, rather than cleansing it of Saddam’s henchmen.
Instead, they are trying to introduce free-market-oriented policies of privatisation, carried out by incompetent corporate plundering functionaries whose aim is the economic occupation of our country. Our trade unions are the main impediment to such policies. UN resolution 1546 will assist us in this fight.
Why does IFTU strongly demand the full implementation of the United Nations position? First, because it is the only guarantee of fair elections, followed by removal of foreign troops.
Second, it is our view that the forces of extremism and terrorism responsible for the daily murder of Iraqis and the barbaric murder of foreign nationals like Ken Bigley deliberately spread a climate of fear in order to disrupt the forces of progress.
These secretive and dangerous forces cannot be defeated by F16s and helicopter gunships attacking Iraqi cities. They can only be overcome by a democratic process that will allow civil society to develop and rid our country of foreign troops. At the moment, UN resolution 1546 is the best means of achieving this.
Our young federation is one of the most important civil society organisations in Iraq today working to prevent Iraq descending into civil war.
We oppose the forces of imperialism and sectarianism attempting to break up Iraq into rival ethnic or religious-based client states of regional or superpowers and consigning her people to a new era of backward colonialism.
The IFTU stands on the side of democracy and for the rebuilding of our civil society. We demand earnestly and respectfully that all those in the labour movement who love peace and freedom, both in Britain and internationally come to our aid.
• Abdullah Muhsin is a British-based representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions.
Copyright Morning Star, all rights reserved
Iraqi Federation of Workers’ Trade Unions (IFTU) “ Scottish unions to help Iraqi workers | Main | Abdullah Muhsin urges all progressives throughout the world to support the IFTU” October 02, 2004
The Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) hosted a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton on 29 September 2004, chaired by Harry Barnes Labour MP who is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs and who opposed the war on Iraq.
The speakers were Abdullah Muhsin IFTU, Bill Ramell MP, Owen Tudor TUC International Secretary, Keith Sonnet Deputy General Secretary UNISON, Brian Joyce NEC (Treasurer) Fire Brigades Union.
Abdullah Muhsin’s address to the fringe meeting follows:
“I would like to extend the warm greetings of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions to each of you. Thanks you for coming here tonight. I believe all of us have very important work to do together. I want to say that supporting grassroots Iraq, supporting the Iraqi democrats, is today the most important work there is.
“Comrades, along with many of you the IFTU opposed the war. With many of you IFTU marched through London. And, with many of you IFTU still think it was right to do so. And comrades, like many of you, IFTU fights for democratic elections and a self-governing and fully sovereign Iraq. Nothing less is acceptable.
“This is what I want to talk about tonight. But first let me tell you my own history.
“26 years ago I was forced to flee Iraq. I was an elected officer of the student union that Saddam had banned. My experience as an Iraqi refugee in Europe was of Saddam’s murderous state security apparatus exporting terror wherever we raised a dissident voice against his regime. In Rome in 1978 a group of 5 thugs dressed in black from Saddam’s Mukhabarat attacked me and stabbed my friend while we handed out leaflets in a student canteen.
“Together with other Iraqis both in exile and clandestinely within the country, I worked during the 1980s and 90s to preserve an independent labour and student movement from the state-controlled yellow unions established by Saddam. In 1984 the Workers Democratic Trade Union Movement organised a strike of 4000 tobacco workers in Iraqi Kurdistan. The strikers were brutally suppressed by Saddam‚s security apparatus.
“In May 2003 we emerged for the underground and created the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). And against all the odds the IFTU has achieved some great things. 12 national unions‚ in key sectors of Iraq economy have been established. The IFTU includes the Oil and Gas Workers’ Union, the Railway Workers’ Union, the Transport and Communication Workers Union, The Mechanics, Printing and Metalworkers’ Union, and the Construction and Woodworkers Union. During June 2004, 6 IFTU constituent unions held their first open and free conferences in Baghdad.
“But we are climbing up a steep mountainside and it is not a climb that we can make without your support. Saddam was truly a catastrophe that crashed down on the heads of the once mighty Iraqi labour movement. In 1959 the unions mobilised over half million working people for the May Day from a population of about 7 millions. Today the IFTU have to raise money to send a travelling theatre bus on tour in Iraq, performing plays that tell Iraqi workers what trade unions are. Why is this necessary? Because Saddam transformed trade unions into brutal agents of the state police and recruiting sergeants for his wars. Under Saddam that’s what trade unions were. All the independent unions were crushed and their leaders killed, imprisoned or exiled. Stooge unions replaced them. So we are starting again. We are rebuilding. And we desperately need your help.
“Together we can rebuild the labour movement in Iraq. A powerful trade union movement could bring Iraqi together regardless of their religious, ethnic or national origins. The IFTU is not Shia, Kurd or Sunni, Assyrian or Christian, but brings all Iraqis together to improve working conditions, pay and social provision and to achieve a democratic and pluralist Iraq of social justice and economic prosperity.
“The IFTU campaigns on many fronts for the needs of ordinary Iraqis.
* IFTU campaigns for workers rights to organise freely, to join or form a union and have the right to strike and enjoy trade union representation.
* IFTU campaigns for workers right to be actively involved in influencing economic and social policies.
* IFTU campaigns for an increase in the role of women at all levels within the unions and in wider civil society.
* IFTU campaigns for special attention to the social and economic needs of disabled people of whom there are many after Saddam’s internal and external wars of genocide and aggression.
* IFTU campaigns for Jobs, more than 50% of our able working people remain unemployed.
* IFTU campaigns for a Labour Law - and I need to say few words here. We want a labour law that incorporates the International Labour Organisation declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. The IFTU regards the ILO Declaration as a statement of fundamental human rights and freedoms universally applicable. The IFTU is in consultation with the ILO, the Iraqi Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and representatives of Iraqi businesses and professional associations like the teachers’ union, pushing hard for a labour law that will guarantee workers basic rights to employment, health and safety and legal compensation for injury at work.
“Those demands are much the same the world over. But we are not anywhere in the world. We are in Iraq. And that means we also have to deal with the overall political situation.
“We want foreign troops out of our homeland as part of a political process that enables the Iraqi people exercise fully our right to decide our destiny and political future.
“We want free and democratic elections, which are supervised by the UN.
“We want to ensure a real transfer of power to the Iraqi people and regain full sovereignty for Iraq. This was the demand of the Iraqi people after the collapse of Saddam’s regime on 9th April 2004, and their voice and legitimate demand should been heard, rather than imposing an occupation.
“This is also the way to build a unified democratic Iraq, laying the basis for democratic institutions, and preventing, once and for all, the return of dictatorial and authoritarian rule.
“Now, in Iraq, the majority of the Iraqi people, the democrats and trade unionists, battle to end the occupation and build democratic foundations for a free and independent Iraq. In this work, we are hindered by reactionary, anti-social forces and terrorists.
“There are grave security problems in Iraq but those causing them are not as some have wrongly said, ‘the resistance’. They are nothing like the macquis, who bravely resisted the Nazis during the Second World War, but rather a mixture of Saddam’s loyalist and foreign terrorists, who for the first time in Iraq history, have imported the terrible weapon of the suicide bomb.
“Today Iraq is on fire. Those in Britain who fight for universal human rights and freedom have two options.
“One: You can add petrol to the flames and fuel violence, which will certainly lead to bloody civil and the end of Iraq’s territorial integrity (whether those who urge support for this so called Iraqi resistance are conscious of it or not).
“Alternatively, you can offer solidarity and support to Iraqi democrats, socialists and trade unionists. There are civil organisations of women, trade unionists and students in Iraq who present a real political opportunity to end foreign militarisation of Iraq and to isolate the forces promoting sectarian and religious violence.
“To support those fighting for a democratic, sovereign Iraq the UN resolution 1546 must be fully implemented. The transfer of power to an Iraqi interim government was a crucial step forward for Iraqis to regain full sovereignty. But the road to full sovereignty and self-determination is signposted ‘free and democratic Iraq’. Nothing less is acceptable. Nothing less will undercut the appeal of so-called resistance.
“Iraq is potentially a very wealthy country. But we are crippled by debt. It would help a great deal if the debts run by Saddam and his cronies were cancelled or substantially reduced. This money was borrowed not for the development of Iraq but for its destruction. We may be an oil rich country, but Saddam squandered much of that wealth on wars, arms and personal enrichment.
“With the help of international solidarity and yours the IFTU can play an important role in helping a sovereign and democratic Iraq to emerge from the long nightmare of Saddam.
“In all these tasks the IFTU is appealing urgently for your solidarity.
“Thank you.” - ENDS
Posted by abdullah at October 2, 2004 01:54 PM
|