Skip to content or view screen version

Iraq - the way forward post election

Harry Barnes MP | 05.06.2005 12:20

Labour MP Harry Barnes suggest a new left approach to Iraq after the elections
“The decent left should heed the voice and the vote of Iraqis, who have now issued a powerful message by braving the gunmen and the suicide bombers and voting in huge numbers for democracy and sovereignty. We are with them or not.”


Given that the Iraqi turnout was the same or even larger than the last UK election, the left must do some urgent rethinking on Iraq or be morally sidelined whilst our natural comrades there fight for non-sectarian democracy, without the massive and direct solidarity they urgently require.

It was one thing to oppose the war, as I did in every single Commons vote. I don’t regret backing the other superpower – world public opinion against the war.

But history has moved on, with Iraqis trying desperately to salvage a new society after decades of Saddam Hussein’s fascist-type rule and his wars - together with the predictable consequences of UN sanctions, invasion and occupation.

But some left-wingers seem content just to say “I told you so” and fail to respect if not always support the decisions of Iraqi progressives.

After Saddam was overthrown, I contacted the then fledgling Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), which has soared from a small clandestine movement to up to 400,000 members in the last year or so.

I organised meetings in the Commons and joined with others to increase support for the IFTU’s efforts to rebuild a free labour movement as part of a vibrant civil society – what we call “Grassroots Iraq.”

We recently formed a new campaign group for this new civil society called Labour Friends of Iraq (LFIQ). Other parties should establish equivalent organisations.

LFIQ seeks to unite party members who were pro-war and anti-war in favour of supporting post-war Iraq. I joined with Ann Clwyd as Joint President to symbolise such unity.

We back the new unions in Iraq. Such unions were once very powerful. Fresh from the million strong anti-war march in February 2003, I heard of an Iraqi who had participated in the May Day rally in Baghdad in 1959, which attracted similar numbers in a society of around ten million people.

Free unions were, however, crushed after this and under Saddam, so much so that the very term “union” is often associated with totalitarian terror, modelled on both Stalin and Hitler.

But brave working class activists were able to pick up the threads against huge odds.

One problem was the antagonism of US occupying authorities. They attacked the IFTU’s headquarters in Baghdad and arrested several of its leaders in December 2003. The leaders were released without charge but the offices were closed. This caused a worldwide outcry and a year later the IFTU re-occupied its offices. No decent explanation has been given.

They opposed the war but the IFTU decided that the best way to strengthen civil society was to support the electoral and political process sanctioned unanimously by the United Nations Security Council.

The IFTU has rightly been accorded a great deal of support by the British and international labour movement but a small minority of ultra-leftists and armchair revolutionaries has behaved disgracefully by attacking groups like the IFTU.

Unfortunately, sharp words here were mirrored by foul deeds in Iraq where the so-called resistance has attacked, kidnapped, tortured and murdered IFTU members.

Those who fingered the Iraqi labour movement as Vichy forces and hailed the murderous resistance as Maquis should no longer have any credibility or respect in the labour movement.

The decent left should heed the voice and the vote of Iraqis, who have now issued a powerful message by braving the gunmen and the suicide bombers and voting in huge numbers for democracy and sovereignty. We are with them or not.

No one should pretend that the conditions in which the elections were held or the electoral system were perfect. But the turnout, despite intimidation, was superb - perhaps better than the turnout here. And a third of the candidates were women, which is certainly better than here.

The next question is the presence of the foreign troops. It may be unwise to set a precise deadline for withdrawal because that will be exploited by the so-called resistance. The idea of withdrawing foreign troops to barracks is superficially plausible but not if it endangers civil society. But the US and the UK should make it absolutely clear that they won’t overstay and will help Iraqis build political and security capability before leaving.

Whether we supported or opposed the war should not overshadow the central task of the British and international labour movement and that is to pour in direct assistance to Grassroots Iraq and the IFTU and, not least via the TUC’s appeal. Solidarity is the watchword.

Harry Barnes MP is a Joint President of Labour Friends of Iraq

Harry Barnes MP

Comments

Hide the following 9 comments

selective in your info

05.06.2005 14:06

Hmm yes the turnout was high 8million people voted religion. Shias thought they were getting a religious govt that represented them thus voted for the Shias and kurds thought they were getting an independent country (which they might well do) thus they voted for the kurdish party. This election was a cover up for the crimes the coalition of teh willing fascists crimes in Iraq and the crimes they will continue to commit either military or economic by raping the country of its natura and non wealth without the 'government' doing anything about it. Wait there could actually be something important the govt might do. Flag change maybe or change of national anthem I think falls in its juristiction. GOD BLESS DEMOCRACY

Left wing my ass you fascist pricks.

$%#@@


Just think

06.06.2005 08:41

Imagine if we had never invaded - Saddam still in control, no elections, no freedom.

Long memory


Imagine indeed

06.06.2005 14:04

Much fewer deaths, electricity power and water supplies running well, children going to school, less troops in the streets, uranium waste from the bombs dropped would not be a danger like it is now and will be for decades to come. And of course the country would not be filled with western contractors (hope they go to hell along with the troops in there) all looking to take a piece from the new iraq.

Oh but wait a staged election with staged political groups and a government with absolutely no powers over issues in the country is worth all this mess.

Saddam was a prick, you're a dickhead and this occupation is worse than the 2 put together.

ur an idiot


Why O why O why

06.06.2005 14:20

When will the wider population realise the activist community is not interested in providing solutions to the problems of countries like Iraq. Our role is to whine and complain about all the decisions made by the elected government without offering any alternatives or better ideas.

Activist


Imagine indeed

06.06.2005 14:54

Yes before Saddam was ousted Iraq was a paradise where the people loved their leader and were not at all bothered about his building of palaces while they starved, about his Son's occasional raping of woman, about the lack of Democracy, about being used as cannon fodder for his war with Iran.

try talking to some Iraqis you fuckwit before posting again

I


speaking of fuckwits

06.06.2005 15:56

a) I never supported Saddams regime, taht was left for the UK and US to do when they were selling weapons to them

b)Even though Iraq was shit then, it is shittier now. People dont have power, clean water, are more likely to suffer violent deaths, are likely to suffer diseases from the Uranium contained in the bombs that were dropped, have a puppet govt which was placed there by the US, are occupied, have become slaves of the IMF, and have lost all their wealth to the west

So before you suggest Im a fan of Saddam why not read properly at what Im saying

1 Saddam has been replaced by another one, who is even worse.

FUCK THE OCCUPATOIN VICTORY TO THE RESSISTANCE DEATH TO THE TROOPS AND CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ

YOU NAZI FUCKERS

learn before you talk


The fuckwits not to bright is he ?

06.06.2005 17:34

a) I never supported Saddams regime, taht was left for the UK and US to do when they were selling weapons to them.
WOULD THESE BE THE RUSSIAN TANKS, RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT, RUSSIAN MISSLES, RUSSIAN GUNS, RUSSIAN RADAR SYSTEMS, RUSSIAN LORRIES THAT THE UK AND US SOLD THEM ?

b)Even though Iraq was shit then, it is shittier now. People dont have power, clean water, are more likely to suffer violent deaths, are likely to suffer diseases from the Uranium contained in the bombs that were dropped, have a puppet govt which was placed there by the US, are occupied, have become slaves of the IMF, and have lost all their wealth to the west

BEEN THERE RECENTLY ? NO I DIDN'T THINK SO. POWER OUTSIDE OF BAGHDAD IS NOW NEARLY 24 HOURS A DAY. SOMETHING NEVER ACIEVED UNDER SADDAM. THE POWER OUTAGES IN BAGHDAD ARE THE RESULT OF THE INSURGENTS ATTACKING POWER STATIONS BUT EVEN WITH THAT THEY ARE SEEING 10 TO 12 HOURS A DAY AND GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME. DEPLEATED URANIUM SHELLS WERE NEVER USED NEAR POPULATION AREAS AND THE UN AND MSF HAVE NEVER REPORTED DISEASES BEING ON THE INCREASE. WHICH GOVERNMENT WOULDD YOU PREFER - HOW ABOUT AN IRANIAN THEOCRACY ? I THINK WE'LL LET THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ DECIDE RATHER THAN YOU, AS THEY DID IN THE RECENT FREE ELECTION

So before you suggest Im a fan of Saddam why not read properly at what Im saying

I DID READ IT - YOU'RE AN IDIOT

1 Saddam has been replaced by another one, who is even worse.

WHAT YOU MEAN SOMEONE YOU DON'T LIKE. WELL I'M SORRY THE IRAQI PEOPLE DIDN'T CHOOSE YOUR MAN - WELCOME TO DEMOCRACY

Read a book


When u say teh Iraqi people

06.06.2005 19:10

You mean the Shias and Kurds right?

Lets see what the people really think

1 99% of Iraqis be they Shias Sunnis or Kurds view foreign troops as occupiers

2 This election was about religion. Shias voted for their religion and kurds for their own as well as for an independent state. This was not about politics parties who in their manifestos wanted to oust the foreign troops were not allowed to run for elections, and more importantly the elected govt is not even free to make any decissions on the country. Contract have been given elsewhere by the U.S, the IMF is forcing the country to privatise therefore more contracts to go to the west.

3 The Uranium was not dropped in populated areas. So I gues it remains stagnant right. Heres a story about yet another Fascist attack on a country by the US/UK/EU
1999 Yugoslavia depleted Uranium bombs thrown again in 'unpopulated' areas. a few months later a cloud with heavily contaminated rain reaches Thessaloniki in Greece. Even if they did drop these bombs in unpopulated areas this thing will move and it will contaminate other places.

So heres what i think of ur dumbass analysis. 1 there is a govt voted for by the 'people' (something like 40% voted for it from 60% of the voting population so its not even a majority) which can take no actions to etermine the countrys future.
2 there are permanent bases built by the US to maintain troops there foreve 14 is the number so far allover the country and moer to come. 3 the vast majority of Iraqis do not want the troops there. 4 Iraqs wealth is being pillaged by the west, 5 these diseases im talking about will start showing in about 5-10 years, increased cancer, deformation in babies etc. DO i want an Iranian theocratic state? No but I dont want an American capitalist state either and neither do the Iraqis. And if u think that it should be one or the other ur an even bigger dumbass than first thought. IRAQ to teh IRAQIS FUCK THE US/UK coalition. just a message for ppl like u. Your fucking country is not a cowboy. No1 wants your stupid troops, no1 gave them the right to invade anywhere but theyve been doing it since the start of your pathetic history. So fuck your shitty little fascist island and leave the world alone. They would welcome it, trust me this is a non briton who's not been on this island long enough to be brainwashed by your shitty little news channels. No wonder Hitler showed admiration for Britain. Theres not many differences.

some idiots never learn


...

06.06.2005 19:15

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

"High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."


Here are some other nice excerpts

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

AND

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

and

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

and

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.



And that's just the Washington Post.

Have you seen these
 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm

This is the National Security Archive, which publishes all the declassified documents and analyses way back when. Do some research.

Hermes