When the "left" campaigns against the workers' movement...

Submitted by AWL on 17 March, 2005 - 9:57

Respect and the SWP in Cambridge have launched a veritable campaign against any support for the Iraqi workers' movement and for Iraqi trade unionists facing murder threats.
By Stan Crooke

At the March meeting of Cambridge Trades Council I moved the following motion on behalf of my Amicus branch:

“1) Cambridge and District Trades Union Council welcomes:

a) the conference organised by the TUC on 14th February in support of Iraqi trade unions, attended by representatives of the Iraqi Railway and Aviation Union (IFTU), the Journalists Union, the Teachers Union, the Federation of Workers Councils and Trade Unions in Iraq, the Basra Oil Workers Union, the Kurdistan Workers Syndicate, and also by a representative of the General Federation of Iraqi Trade Unions;

b) the growing support for Iraqi trade unions from British trade unions, for example, but not exclusively, the CWU, UNISON, FBU and RMT;

c) the launch of the Iraq Unions Solidarity network by union delegates who attended the TUC conference of 14th February, and the support for this initiative expressed by the TUC International Officer.

2) Cambridge and District Trades Union Council further:

a) condemns the ongoing attacks on, and murders of, Iraqi trade unionists (e.g. Hadi Saleh, Ali Hassan Abd, and Ahmed Adris Abbas) and the continuing refusal of the Iraqi/American authorities to repeal the Baathist Labour Law of 1987.

b) re-affirms existing policy of: support for Iraqi trade unions; condemnation of the murder of and attacks on Iraqi trade unionists and workers by the so-called ‘resistance’ and by the occupying forces; opposition to the occupation of Iraq; opposition to the plundering of Iraqi resources by the occupying powers.

3) Cambridge and District Trades Council therefore resolves to continue to campaign in support of Iraqi trade unions by;

a) publicising and urging support for the TUC Appeal for Iraqi Trade Unionists;

b) affiliating to the Iraq Solidarity Unions network and circulating its material;

c) publicising initiatives taken by British trade unions in support of Iraqi trade unions.”

In the half hour of discussion triggered by the motion the following amendments were proposed: delete para. 2; delete the words “by the so-called ‘resistance’” in para. 2(b); delete paras. 2 and 3; delete para. 3; delete para. 3(b); delete paras. 3(a) and 3(b); insert the words ‘bona fide’ before the words (Iraqi) “trade unionists”; replace in para. 3 the words “Iraqi trade unions” by “Iraqi trade union movement”.

Not all the amendments were pushed to the point of a vote. Of those that were voted on:

- The proposal to delete para. 2 was passed by a single vote, although, as accepted by everyone present at the meeting, the contents of para. 2 would remain Trades Council policy, given that the deleted paragraph merely re-affirmed existing policy.

- The proposal to delete para. 3 was defeated by a single vote.

- The vote on the motion as amended (i.e. paras 1 and 3) was tied, and the motion therefore fell.

In terms of tactics, the approach of the delegates who belonged to SWP/’Respect’, one of whom is the ‘Respect’ candidate for Cambridge in this year’s General Election, was to muddy the waters as much as possible – hence the unusual number of amendments.

(Not all of the amendments came from the SWP/’Respect’. But by the time that the last two amendments were proposed, the ‘debate’ had degenerated into a general free-for-all.)

The approach of the SWP/’Respect’ was to throw in an amendment, smell out of the response, and then, if the wind was not blowing in their direction, table another amendment without pushing the original amendment to a vote.

But all the amendments were an exercise in dishonesty. An amendment is an amendment. But the SWP/’Respect’ was opposed to the motion in its entirety: they voted to delete para. 2, and then they voted against the motion as amended (i.e. paras. 1 and 3).

Nor did the SWP/’Respect’ delegates have the honesty to make clear that their opposition to para. 2 differed fundamentally from the argument being put forward by some rather confused delegates (i.e. para. 2 was superfluous because it was already Trades Council policy). They were opposed to sections of para. 2 as a matter of ‘principle’ (if the word ‘principle’ can be used in such an incongruous context).

The arguments put forward by the SWP/’Respect’ delegates in an effort to undermine support for the motion were breath-taking.

The Trades Council could not “support all trade unions (in Iraq) when some have no members.” In Iraq “anyone can call themselves a trade union.” Para. 3 of the motion was “flawed” because it confused “trade unions” and “trade union movement”, which are two different concepts.” If the Trades Council opposes the occupation of Iraq then, it has to “support the people in Iraq fighting the occupation.”

The use of the words “so-called ‘resistance’” was “inflammatory language”, and an expression associated with the “Daily Mail” and the “Daily Express”. The motion was deficient because there was nothing in it about Falluja. And the Trades Council could condemn the murder of Iraqi trade unionists “without getting confused about who’s murdering them.”

(After the close of the meeting I was informed by the ‘Respect’ General Election candidate that Hadi Saleh, International Officer of the IFTU, could have been murdered by the Americans. Evidence? None.)

The political arguments raised by the SWP/’Respect’ delegates dovetailed into the tactic of showering the meeting with amendments: muddy the waters as much as possible, throw out the most ridiculous allegations, and make the situation in Iraq appear so thoroughly confused that it would be better not to take any position at all. Unfortunately, they managed to strike a chord with some delegates.

The SWP/’Respect’ delegates got so worked up about turning their knife into the motion that they failed to notice the two basic contradictions at the root of their stated arguments.

Firstly, if the situation in Iraq is confusing (and it is), then the logical way forward is to find out more – such as by taking the kind of steps proposed in the motion. The approach of the SWP/’Respect’ was the opposite: not to seek out knowledge, but to wallow in ignorance (and lies).

Secondly, Iraqi trade unions could not be supported because we did not know enough about them. But the heroic ‘resistance’, which does not exactly have a high public profile and the nature of which was not clarified by the SWP/’Respect’, could not be criticised.

The fact that the SWP/’Respect’ delegates were attending the meeting as delegates from their union branches, not from the SWP/’Respect’, almost pales into insignificance in the overall context of their behaviour at the meeting.

But whether Cambridge NUT and UNISON branches really oppose building support for Iraqi trade unions is certainly a valid question.

The hostility displayed by the SWP/’Respect’ to the motion at the Trades Council meeting was not an uncharacteristic blip. A week earlier, at the final meeting of Cambridge Socialist Alliance, they had voted on grounds of principle against giving any of the terminally ill organisation’s money to the TUC Appeal for Iraqi Trade Unionists.

And the day after the Trades Council meeting the following e-mail appeared on the Campeace (‘Cambridge for Peace’ – but in name only) e-mail list:

“On Monday, a message was sent to the Campeace list from Christine Titmus, asking members of Campeace to register their support for “Labour Friends of Iraq” and the “Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions” (IFTU). Unfortunately neither organisation lives up to its name (as many Campeace members will know); both try to provide a respectable cover for the occupation of Iraq, and are therefore no friends to the vast majority of Iraqis who suffer the dangers and deprivations imposed by the occupying forces. Nor can IFTU be regarded as a legitimate trade union movement.
In an interview last autumn, Sami Ramadani, a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University and a former political refugee from Saddam Hussein's regime, explained “Historically, the IFTU generally played a good role within the Iraqi working class. But it was effectively dismantled once the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) joined Saddam's regime in 1972 because the ICP was the leading organisation within the IFTU. Saddam established yellow unions [monopolised by the state] that workers were told to join. Most genuine Iraqi trade unionists continued to work in secret, but not under the umbrella of the IFTU. … The IFTU remains a historical notion rather than a reality. It hasn’t held a democratic, representative conference for more than a quarter of a century.”
The Iraqi Communist Party joined the Iraqi Governing Council and its successor the “interim government”, the two puppet bodies set up by the US occupation forces. The IFTU has served as a useful front organisation for these bodies.Just how useful the IFTU was should not be forgotten by the anti-war movement in this country, when Abdullah Muhsin, a spokesman for IFTU, was invited by Blair to address the Labour Party Conference last year.
Muhsin and Blair conveniently omitted to mention that the IFTU leadership was never elected by Iraqi workers, and that it has effectively transferred its loyalty from one murderous tyrant to another, from Saddam Hussein to George W. Bush. Nor was there any praise to be heard for the action of genuine Iraqi trade unionists in the Southern Oil Workers Union, whose strike last August struck swiftly brought oil exports to a halt in the south of Iraq, and additionally helped to stop the US bombardment of Najaf.
A motion had been put forward at the Labour Party Conference calling for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with support from unions and from many Labour constituency parties. The rank-and-file members of many unions, including the “big four” (TGWU, GMB, Unison and Amicus) had already succeeded in committing their unions to calling for withdrawal. In a sad moment for the anti-war movement, Blair succeeded in using Muhsin and IFTU to dupe the leaders of the big four unions into voting against the motion. Blair was thereby saved from the grave embarrassment of seeing his party conference vote to oppose the occupation of Iraq.
Campeace members have an admirable record in supporting the Palestinian cause and defending the right of the Palestinian people to resist the brutal occupation of the IDF. This principled stance has never meant that Campeace members would wish to applaud every individual act of resistance, some of which we see as misguided and highly regrettable.
We should take the same approach to the Iraqi resistance. Since it is the government of our country, and the army of our country that have played a large part in bringing death and misery to countless Iraqis, it is our job to call for an end to the occupation, and to support the right of Iraqis to resist. At the Labour Party Conference, Muhsin of IFTU, always referred to the “so-called Iraqi resistance”. We can only ask Campeace members to repudiate the so-called Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions and their supporters in the so-called Labour Friends of Iraq.
Let’s ensure the largest possible turnout for the national demonstration against the occupation this Saturday. As mentioned on this list before, a coach to London is being provided by Cambridge Stop the War Coalition, leaving Queens Road at 09:30 (£10/£5 concessions). The march will leave Hyde Park and end at Trafalgar Square, where a rally will be held.
Jonathan Walker (Press Officer, Cambridge Respect; Tom Woodcock (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, Cambridge Respect); Jo Robbins (Chair, Cambridge Respect)”

The e-mail referred to in the ‘Respect’ e-mail had not called for support for Labour Friends of Iraq or the IFTU. It had appealed for support for the petition being circulated by the former in defence of IFTU member Nozad Ismail against assassination attempts and death threats.

The ‘Respect’ e-mail, while covering a lot of old ground (e.g Abdullah Muhsin’s role at the Labour Party conference, and the union bureaucrats turning into putty in his hands, with the inevitable result that that they ignored their conference mandates), certainly does not mince it words.

The IFTU is “not a legitimate trade union movement.” The IFTU has transferred its “loyalty” from Saddam Hussein to George Bush. And Campeace members should “repudiate” the “so-called” IFTU (even if the IFTU is not known to have many members in Cambridge).

To fail to campaign in support of Iraqi trade unionists is bad enough. To seek to frustrate at every turn those attempting to do so is even worse. But now the SWP has gone that extra mile. It campaigns to prevent support for Iraqi trade unions.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.