Blair and Bush attempting to divide labour from those opposed to occupation
asdf | 23.10.2004 02:40
The Guardian is starting to run claims by an Iraqi union that they want US troops in Iraq until the election next year. What's strange about this call is that is designed with two purposes in mind. On the one hand Blair hopes that he can weaken opposition to his rule by splitting the antiwar left from the unions. On the other hand, both Bush and Blair don't want unions organizing Iraq and hope that if it settles down it can be a source of low cost labour. Directly attacking the unions would backfire but linking them to support for the occupation is a sure-fire way to destory them... hence the stories written for the Guardian
see
Union fury at Stop the War coalition's sectarianism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1334265,00.html
and
Iraqis need international solidarity, not support for violence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1334289,00.html
Whats really sick about these stories is the effect they will have on Iraqi unions. By associating organized labour with the occupation, unions will be made targets of the Iraqi resistance and many Union organizers and members will likely be killed. The Guardian at times swings proBlair and perhaps a little neoliberal but stories that endanger labour organizers lives is sinking to a new low. I know most Anarchists oppose organized labour but ask your self this question "do union organizers in Iraq deserve to die for a small increase in Blair's popularity?" Being associated with the occupation is a death sentence in Iraq. Even if they wanted US troops to stay, no Iraqi union organizer in their right mind would write to a British newspaper claiming that Unions need US troops (unless of course their motiviation was linked to some other cause like the US election or getting some payoff from the British government).
Union fury at Stop the War coalition's sectarianism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1334265,00.html and
Iraqis need international solidarity, not support for violence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1334289,00.html Whats really sick about these stories is the effect they will have on Iraqi unions. By associating organized labour with the occupation, unions will be made targets of the Iraqi resistance and many Union organizers and members will likely be killed. The Guardian at times swings proBlair and perhaps a little neoliberal but stories that endanger labour organizers lives is sinking to a new low. I know most Anarchists oppose organized labour but ask your self this question "do union organizers in Iraq deserve to die for a small increase in Blair's popularity?" Being associated with the occupation is a death sentence in Iraq. Even if they wanted US troops to stay, no Iraqi union organizer in their right mind would write to a British newspaper claiming that Unions need US troops (unless of course their motiviation was linked to some other cause like the US election or getting some payoff from the British government).
asdf
Comments
Hide the following comment
anarchists oppose organised labour?
24.10.2004 17:19
I can imagine they'd be against the hierarchical top-down model of unions, with over-paid out of touch union bosses who get too cosy to the management and thus tend to sell out their members. But being against unions themselves? Surely not.
Ozymandias