2005-02-01 - 9:06 p.m.
from calvin: CCDS (the org of the first author) broke off from the Communist Party of the USA but now they pretty much take similar positions on most things. The author of the reply is one of the cofounders of US Labor Against War and one of the leading advocates of union democracy.
----------------
Opinion
The US Left and the Iraq Election
By Mark Solomon
As the January 30th date for the Iraq election
approaches, a dark cloud continues to hover. Because of
unrelenting violence and fear of reprisal, a number of
parties have asked to be removed from election lists;
candidate names remain undisclosed; security at polling
places is questionable at best. Now, large sums of
mysteriously unaccounted for money have suddenly
appeared and are flowing into the coffers of a few
leading candidate lists. An Iraqi electorate is called
upon to both face down terror and vote under the guns
of foreign occupation -- questionable conditions at
best for free and fair elections.
In light of this, one can understand influential voices
on the left which have expressed grave doubts about the
intent and value of the elections as a vehicle for
ending foreign military occupation.
Recent statements by prominent peace activists have
suggested that postponement would be a victory of sorts
over Bush's imperial designs. Demands have been made
that the Bush administration order the its U.S.-
dependent interim regime to "immediately postpone" the
elections while insisting that the vote is little more
than a thinly disguised scheme to provide a veneer of
legitimacy to the continuation of U.S. control over
Iraq.
But Iraqi politics, if anything, is complex. It's safe
to say that peace and justice activists are generally
unaware of Iraq's history and internal politics. The
historic and contemporary role of the Iraqi left seem
especially little known and misunderstood. Yet,
information about the role and outlook of progressive
forces in Iraq has bearing on how the US peace movement
projects its own outlook and aspirations to the general
public for ending the spiraling bloodshed and bringing
the troops home. These thoughts are offered
respectfully for debate, discussion and exchange of
views on the left in the hope of strengthening the
shared primary goal of ending the occupation.
Generally absent from the statements of those on the US
left opposed to the elections is acknowledgment that
while some Iraqi groups have dropped out of the
process, a broad constellation of political and social
forces within Iraq has chosen to participate. (While
some U.S. leftists have acknowledged the electoral
participation of the Iraq Communist Party and other
groups, they have reviled them as selling out to the
occupation and to US imperialism.) Those forces, some
among the most progressive, are currently campaigning
despite the painful constraints placed by the
occupation and by violence and terror perpetrated by
opponents of the elections.
The question of the elections is inseparable from
consideration of the forces within Iraq who are
opposing it. A good part of the armed resistance (we
use the term "resistance" as preferable to the more
tendentious "insurgency" favored by government and
media) in Iraq at least has nothing in common with
Vietnam and other liberation struggles which openly
sought and won the support of the people by clearly
proclaiming their objectives. The Iraq resistance lives
mainly in the shadows without a publicly declared
program. Whatever is known suggests that some elements
are made up of small homegrown units whose motivations
are bereft of an agenda except to liberate their
country from occupation. A part of the resistance is
under the sway of foreign ultra-fundamentalists like
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi seeking to impose a reactionary
theocratic order upon Iraq.
But the majority clearly are former Ba'athists who in
different circumstances willingly served US imperial
interests. They have now fallen out with their former
US partners, but they still remain foes of popular
democratic forces who they continue to attack,
terrorize and murder with a ferocity that is hard to
grasp. Today they are seeking not only to end the
occupation (while also exploiting it to attack their
internal enemies), but to return Iraq to brutally
repressive and reactionary Ba'athist domination. The
assassinations of trade union leader Hadi Saleh and
Communist activist Waddah Hassan Abdul Amir, attributed
by the left to Ba'athist remnants, are viewed among
Iraqi trade union and progressive forces as
continuation under changed conditions of the old
Ba'athist policy of murderous suppression of Marxist,
progressive and democratic movements in order to
rekindle repressive family and tribal rule. While their
attacks today on foreign military forces snarl the
occupation, their main thrust is against Iraqi
civilians, including totally innocent victims of
increasingly lethal suicide bombings, Shiites, and
heretofore jobless Iraqi workers seeking the only
employment available to them in the police and
military.
The scheduled election on January 30 to write a
constitution is the product of a complicated process.
In large measure it reflects risky tactical compromises
by the Bush administration in the face of nearly
universal opposition to the occupation, the refusal of
major U.S. allies to dispatch troops to Iraq, and the
resistance of the UN to providing unqualified cover for
Washington's operations. Last spring, the White House
failed to get the Security Council to authorize a
"multilateral force" to relieve pressure on US and
British troops in Iraq. Bush and company emerged from
intense negotiations only with a tenuous UN imprimatur
on the occupation - barely fending off French demands
that the interim government have sole control of its
own forces and the right to refuse to participate in
US-led military operations. But in exchange for that
imprimatur, Bush and Tony Blair had to agree that the
mandate for foreign forces on Iraqi soil will expire
with the formation of "a constitutionally elected
government by 31 December 2005." Confronting mounting
global, domestic and Iraqi opposition to the
occupation, Washington chose January 30, 2005, as the
date to elect an assembly to write a constitution --
thus presumably easing growing political pressure.
Doubtless, Bush and Blair calculated that a government
formed to write a constitution under military
occupation by 160,000 troops would "request" that
foreign troops remain, thus providing "legal" cover for
long-term troop deployment and the construction of a
ring of permanent bases.
But calculations contain risks and can go awry. Those
on the U.S. left who condemn the election as a ploy
ignore the dynamic interplay of imperial machinations
and the determination of significant sectors of Iraqi
society to utilize every opening to mobilize a mass
nonviolent movement for progress and democracy. Simply
put - there is a crucial disconnect between the Bush
group's intentions and the intentions of popular
movements to use whatever means are available to
establish a progressive civil society. Washington sees
the elections as a way to legitimize its invasion and
occupation. Popular and democratic forces see the
elections as a channel -- no matter how flawed and
limited -- to effect mass mobilization and thus to take
steps toward exercising power, steps hitherto denied
them by the occupation and before that by Saddam
Hussein.
Given the brutality of the occupation which every day
heaps disaster on innocent Iraqis, it is no wonder that
the resistance appears to be gaining support. However,
ultimately the liberation and democratization of Iraqi
society will hinge on the political galvanizing and
unity of its vast majority. Today, large numbers,
despite terror and a legacy of sectarian division
spawned by Saddam Hussein, are committed to use the
electoral process to advance ideas and programs aimed
at solving Iraq's urgent social, economic and political
problems.
The Iraqi Communists and other left forces, in forming
a 257-member "Union of the People" list are seeking to
shape a constitution that ends the occupation, achieves
full sovereignty and cements democracy; a constitution
that establishes citizenship devoid of sectarian
criteria, advances religious freedom, restores public
services, respects human rights and the rights of
nationalities, boosts women's rights, combats
unemployment and improves living standards, establishes
social security, free health care, free education,
trade union rights, a strong state sector and builds a
democratic, progressive culture. It is hoped that a
contest of ideas and values among the various lists
(Shiite, Kurdish, left and remaining Sunni) can help
rebuild shattered unity across ethnic lines and inspire
movements of solidarity and commitment to building a
just, democratic society.
There is a long and honored history of socialist,
radical and left political forces choosing to fight in
parliaments and on other political terrain controlled
by their adversaries. Such efforts often risk negative
consequences. But they can also lead to effective
political education, mass participation and significant
gains in the struggle for a better life.
Iraq's Communist, left and independent political forces
for decades have fought Saddam's repression, paying an
unimaginable price in torture and sundered lives while
miraculously maintaining an organized underground
apparatus. While no group can claim infallible
political wisdom, the deep roots of the Iraqi left in
their country's soil commands respect and recognition
that its analysis of the present situation is perhaps
more firmly grounded than that of its far away critics.
Agree or not, whatever the choices made by the Iraqi
left, they deserve our solidarity. If ever there was a
time for modesty by critics far from the scene, this is
it. Perhaps for those on the U.S. left who oppose the
January 30 elections, they can at least consider
withholding public judgment and condemnation. The Iraqi
left faces daunting problems; how much progress can be
made in a situation with so much stacked against it
remains to be seen. But here in the United States peace
movement, we can and should offer solidarity and our
own unity in the essential struggle to end the
occupation and bring the troops home.
Mark Solomon is a national co-chair of the Committtes
of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS)
-----------------------
Mark Solomon's "The US Left and the Iraq Election" is a
commendable contribution to the discussion and debate he
invites. It presents a perspective that is too little heard, one that deserves reflection and consideration by the antiwar forces in the U.S. However, it suffers from some of the same weaknesses of analysis it criticizes.
Just as the U.S. left is not adequately described by those
who uncritically applaud the Iraqi armed resistance and those who endorse efforts by portions of the Iraqi civil society to participate in what all acknowledge to be deeply flawed elections, the Iraqi left is also more complex and nuanced than he describes.
For example, Mark references the Iraqi Community Party (ICP) and "Communists" as if they are synonymous and reflect the only Marxist viewpoint in Iraq. The situation, however, is far more complicated. The ICP is divided by differences within it over its strategic approach to the occupation and elections, and there is more than one Marxist party in Iraq. A splinter from the ICP founded the Iraqi Workers Community Party which is totally opposed to the occupation and to participation in the interim governing body and U.S. designed election, while also it strongly condemns the armed resistance. There are at least two political parties in the Kurdish-dominated areas which also do not have a common view (though recently they have been edging toward greater
cooperation).
There are non-party civil society formations which also
differ. There are two labor federations, each influenced by a different communist party, which have widely different attitudes toward the occupation. Though both have stated their opposition to U.S. and other occupation forces and a desire to be rid of foreign armed forces on Iraqi soil, the Iraq Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) is willing to work within the occupation structures to attempt to influence the shape of a future government and labor code, while the Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI) is sharply critical of such participation and calls for an immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops an d non-cooperation with the interim governing authority.
Neither labor federation is part of the armed resistance, and the FWCUI is as critical of the Islamist fundamentalists and retrograde Ba'athists among the armed fighters as they are of the U.S. occupation. They see these as twin evils (fundamentalists seeking to impose a reactionary religious government and Ba'athists seeking to restore some form of the old order, and a foreign occupation army seeking to impose imperialist domination of whatever government emerges). There are other independent unions and civil society organizations and movements with equally conflicting perspectives which Solomon's analysis does not capture.
While it may be true that "peace and justice activists are
generally unaware of Iraq's history and internal politics,"
some know more than others. U.S. Labor Against the War has
from its inception called for immediate and unconditional
withdrawal of all occupation forces from Iraq, for the right of Iraqis to work out free of foreign domination the future of their country, and full respect for labor and human rights and the rights of women. USLAW has maintained contact with and supported both federations politically and financially and has opened communication with some of the independent union formations, despite the differences between them and despite criticisms from some on the left in this country who favor one over the other. USLAW has steadfastly maintained (a position reconfirmed in December by its National Labor Leadership Assembly) that it is not for us in the antiwar movement in the nation most guilty of violating the human, labor and civil rights of Iraqis to decide who is and is not a legitimate labor organization in Iraq. That is a matter for the Iraqi working class to resolve free of all foreign interference. Our duty is to get the U.S. government and
military off the backs of Iraqi's civil society forces so
that they are free to work out what the form and direction of a new government ought to be.
We know that in the U.S. it would be misleading and
inaccurate to portray the left and antiwar forces in terms
that capture only two or three political positions. The same is true for Iraq - both among the forces opposed to U.S. occupation (armed and unarmed) and those working within structures created by the occupation. Both societies are far more complex and varied in their composition and the political perspectives. We need to recognize and learn to understand that complexity. As yet, we are a long way from both recognition and understanding essential to fully appreciating the difficulties Iraqi democratic secular forces
confront in their struggle to build a new social order. What we do know, however, is that the U.S. is an aggressor whose armed forces must be withdrawn. That recognition does not require deep knowledge of Iraq's history or present political complexity.
