To the Editor:
BARRY FINGER IS CORRECT to insist that the only possible stance for socialists to take towards Iraq is to call for an end to occupation and for solidarity with the Iraqi trade union and women's movements. This perspective is sadly lacking in sections of the international antiwar movement who do not recognise their significance and in some elements on the left who support the occupation. His article reminds us that opposition to the occupation is not simply a question of reflex anti-imperialism -- a reflex that can lead to support for the "resistance" -- but arises from a consideration of the actually existing situation. Such considerations make the question of active solidarity with progressive forces in Iraq an urgent one.
The dual horrors of
a brutal occupation and reactionary resistance movements put immense pressure on the
autonomous working-class voices of opposition in Iraq. The only brake on this is the "Provisional
Authority" in Iraq whom the occupying powers imagine (or at least attempt to convince us) are
the seed of a future democracy. In order to sustain a semblance of democratic decorum the
occupiers and the PA are forced to leave space for the growth of a trade union movement. In his
article, Finger explains the inherent suspicion developed by the imposition of "democracy" from
outside-and-above. If, as seems possible, the moves towards imposing "democracy" and the
development of a client regime crumble in the face of opposition, the United States and her allies
will be forced to fully colonize Iraq or withdraw completely. Either of these two moves will spell
very hard times for the only forces in Iraq capable of bringing about real democracy -- from
inside-and-below.
Already, trade
unionists and progressives have been murdered by fundamentalists and fragments of the Ba'ath
regime or in some ‘accident' by occupying troops. If we do not build solidarity, highlight the
atrocities taking place now, and give material assistance then things can and will get worse. Iraq is
not virgin territory in terms of the existence and combativeness of trade union and socialist
organisations. From strikes over pay and conditions in the oil fields to mass demonstrations
against repression on university campuses, Iraqis are standing up for workers' rights and
democracy across the country.
The antiwar
movement needs to make a turn from pure objection to the continued occupation -- a strategy that
either explicitly or implicitly advocates "victory for the [reactionary] resistance" -- toward
solidarity with democratic forces in Iraq. The question needs to be raised in trade union and labor
organisations, in antiwar groups and in the wider press. In so doing, socialists will fulfil their
obligations as internationalists and democrats and re-emphasise the centrality of the working class
to our perspective. The fact that we have to carry this message into such movements is an
indication of how far some have drifted from the ideas of socialism towards a reactionary anti-
imperialism.
TOM UNTERRAINER
Nottingham, England
![[colored bar]](../images/Spectbar.gif)