Sami Ramadani on Iraqi trade unions and the resistance

international | anti-war / imperialism | other press

Wednesday April 30, 2008 12:06

by Darren C - none

2008/04/29

The leaders of the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL) argue socialists should not fight for the withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. They claim that were the occupation to end immediately the Iraqi labour movement would be annihilated by reactionary Islamic forces. At a recent AWL day school, leading member Mark Osborne specifically claimed that the movement behind cleric Muqtada Al Sadr had a policy of "killing trade unionists". Curious to know whether there was any truth in this claim Simon Hardy contacted Iraqi exile and academic Sami Ramadani, from Iraq Occupation for Focus, for his thoughts. Sami replied quickly, exploding the argument of the AWL that the occupying forces provide any cover for the Iraqi labour movement. With thanks to Sami, we publish his reply here.

Dear Simon,

Strikes were always crushed under Saddam. But in a fascist-style move, Saddam Hussain in 1987 introduced a new law (known as decree 150) declaring all public sector workers, i.e. the overwhelming majority of Iraq's several million workers, "civil servants". And guess what? Civil servants were banned from joining a trade union. Overnight, most of Iraq's workers were not allowed to join even Saddam's own yellow unions.

After the occupation, Paul Bremer decreed that Saddam's decree 150 was still in force. It is the only Saddam law that was ever specifically declared valid by the occupation regime. Furthermore, no trade unions, yellow or red, are legal in Iraq today, until such time that the government 'enacts a law which will govern the status of all associations'. That some unions are operating is due to the determination of the workers to defend the most basic of their rights. The Federation of Iraqi Oil Unions, headquartered in Basra, is the shining example of such a union.

It is despicable of the Alliance for Workers Liberty to absolve the occupation and accuse the Sadr movement of assassinating trade unionists. It is the occupation tanks, jets and police-state tactics which are trying to crush the struggle of Iraq's working class of Iraq and its trade unions. Like you, I don't have any illusions about Sadr, but one has to base one's analysis of Iraq on the facts and not on a pack of lies.

It was no accident that the province which was least controlled by the US-led occupation and the puppet regime developed into the hub of independent trade unionism. Not a single trade unionist was killed by the Sadr movement in Basra, a city that they mainly controlled. It was the British forces which opened fire last year on a well known union office in Basra. And it was the occupation which was accused by the unions of the assassination of an oil engineer last year.

During the past several months occupation forces have encircled and threatened striking workers, and the oil and port workers' union officials have been threatened with arrest and physical liquidation by the regime and its agents. I do know that these unions have members and officials who support the Sadr movement, though they certainly do not have a majority or control these unions. And while these unions were threatened by pro-regime militias (such as those of the pro-occupation Islamic Supreme Council), they have never reported being threatened by the Sadr supporters. With the occupation and the regime tightening their grip on Basra, trade unionists are fearing the worst and are calling on workers across the world to stand by Iraq's workers in their struggle.

The main aspect of the Sadr movement's activities which did attract a lot of hostility by people in Basra and Baghdad was their attempts to make women wear the hijab. But countless thousands of women in Baghdad and Basra continued to assert and exercise their right to wear or not wear the hijab. Reports in the media that they barred girls from going to school or women to university are false and form part of a propaganda onslaught to justify the killing and crushing of the Sadr supporters. Currently the Sadr movement's most outspoken cadres are their several women members of parliament. Yesterday they led 50-members of parliament into the besieged Sadr City in an attempt to stop the the US planes from bombarding the city.

Last but not least, the US, British and regime forces besieging and bombarding Basra and Sadr City in Baghdad have killed or injured thousands of people in the past weeks alone. Aren't some of these workers or trade unionists? Or, as far as the AWL is concerned, they don't count because they are being killed or maimed by the occupation?

Best wishes,
Sami

save preference

Comments (6 of 6)

good post

by tomeile

Thu May 01, 2008 14:56

A very good article Darren ,but an introduction for Irish readers would have been helpful . The names Sami Ramadani , Workers Power and AWI are not widely known over here . I suspect that the AWI may have Irish affiliates ; their line seems close to the third-campism espoused in Ireland by groups like the Irish Socialist Network , Socialist Democracy and the WSM . It's reassuring to see that there are still some Marxists left in Britain after the deluge of chauvinism we've been getting on indymedia ireland recently from the CPGB .

CPGB On AWI

by pat c

Thu May 01, 2008 15:32

Here is an article by CPGB member Ken Crisp on the AWIs refusal to demand the immediate withdrawal of imperialist troops from Iraq. This is causing internal resistance. Full article at link.

The AWL’s summer school 2007 featured no debate on the Middle East. The leadership have twice gagged David Broder, the most prominent AWL critic of the organisation’s social-imperialist line, who was refused permission to speak on the Middle East both at Communist University 2007 and at the Hands Off the People of Iran fringe meeting at this month’s NUS conference.

When oppositionist David Kirk wrote a letter to the AWL’s paper Solidarity critical of the previous issue’s editorial (which had set out to defend Israel’s right to “self-defence”, before moving on to describe Israel as “one of the most democratic societies in existence”, although admittedly its attacks on Gaza were “disproportionate”), Solidarity editor Cathy Nugent printed a response of her own right next to it - three times longer than the letter!

While it refuses to demand immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the last two issues of Solidarity have had the front pages “Free Tibet!” and “Stop boosting Beijing” and carried the statement: “Self-determination means the withdrawal of Chinese forces from Tibet, and independence if a majority want it.”

Iraqis apparently do not have the same rights because islamists would take power if the western troops left: but the AWL does not similarly ask themselves who would take power in Tibet if Chinese troops withdrew. To claim that the right to self-determination is conditional on who would take power is the worst apologia for the controlling imperialist power and ignores the fact that national oppression overlays class struggle rather than facilitating it.

tomeile

by James - WSM

Fri May 02, 2008 12:24

Main article: The leaders of the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL) argue socialists should not fight for the withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
And…
Tomeile wrote: I suspect that the AWI may have Irish affiliates ; their line seems close to the third-campism espoused in Ireland by groups like the Irish Socialist Network , Socialist Democracy and the WSM .

In fact, the WSM favour the immediate withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and Afghanistan (and French and Irish troops from Chad, for that matter). I’m pretty sure the ISN do likewise. So, the AWL’s line is not at all close to the WSM or ISN.

I am not familiar enough with Socialist Democracy to comment. I would like, however, to see quotes from SD to back up the claim that they don’t support immediate withdrawal, given the mischaracterisation above of the WSM’s and, most probably, the ISN’s position.

clarification

Fri May 02, 2008 15:07

James I meant that those groups’ third- campist line is close to the one taken by the AWL .From the Manifesto of the Third Camp :

“We must stand up with all our power to the US government’s and its allies’ bullying. We must put an end to the crimes of the opposite pole, i.e. Islamic terrorism. We must help the people of Islam-stricken countries to get rid of the menace of Islamic terrorist states and forces. American militarism and Islamic terrorism have brutalised the world. Neither of them has a solution to the present crisis and its resulting problems. Rather, they are themselves the cause of this crisis and its aggravation. Civilised humanity must rise up against both these poles and the suffering that they have imposed on the world. The human and genuine solution to the problem of nuclear weapons, to Islamic terrorism and its horrific crimes against the people of the world, and to the militaristic bullying of the US and Western governments lies in the hands of us people.”

http://www.thirdcamp.com/

WTF?

by People Before Prophet

Fri May 02, 2008 16:12

“We must stand up with all our power to the US government’s and its allies’ bullying. "

"The human and genuine solution to the problem of nuclear weapons, to Islamic terrorism and its horrific crimes against the people of the world, and to the militaristic bullying of the US and Western governments lies in the hands of us people.”

Whats your problem with that? The "Third Camp" are calling for ordinary people to oppose the US and to oppose Islamic terrorists.

Dont you reckon that ordinary people would better off if they werent oppressed by either Christian capitalism or Islamic capitalism?

" Civilised humanity must rise up against both these poles and the suffering that they have imposed on the world. "

US Imperialism isnt civilised and neither is Political Islam. Whats wrong with believing that people have a right to decide they should not be ruled by either christian or islamic clergy?

Remember Imagine by John Lennon:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

third campism

Fri May 02, 2008 19:09

I hope my previous post clears the matter up about third-campism for James. I don't think that it's a mischaracterisation to say that the WSM position is third-campist ,but if I'm wrong on that please correct me James ,it's good to have clarity on such matters. Please note that the previous poster has no problems identifying him or herself as a supporter of third-campism .
The WSM website recently carried an article uncritically from the openly third-campist Workers Communist Party of Iran which said amongst other things :

“ Iran under the Islamic Republic is literally (sic) a huge prison for workers, teachers, women, students and all dissidents” see:
http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/3400

I think that the Third Camp position in regards to Iran was in fact first formulated by the WCPI . Its leader ,Hamid Taqvaee , regards political Islam as a greater problem for Muslim women than US imperialism ,as he made clear in an interview with wcpi Central Committee member Maryam Namazie on Third Camp TV in Sept 2006 . Taqvaee said:

“Political Islam is a massive movement and from their point of view, from the point of view of millions and millions of women, the main problem is not the empire or US imperialism.”
http://www.iranian.com/Namazie/2006/September/ThirdCamp....html

If you believe that , then the AWL 's position of not calling for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is surely only a short logical step away.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Sami Ramadani on Iraqi trade unions and the resistance

Comments (6 of 6)