On the Iraqi 'resistance' and the road to democracy
By MARTIN SCHREADER
Written: November 6-7, 2003"SUPPOSE THE United States was invaded and occupied by another country. Would we support the resistance organized to kick out the invaders/occupiers?"
This question has recently gained some measure of headway among some sections of the broader left in regards to the actions of the so-called "resistance" fighting the American-led occupation forces in Iraq. But is it an accurate analogy? Or, is there more to the story?
It was not long after the collapse of the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad, and the installation of the American puppet state, that sporadic attacks against occupying soldiers began to occur. At first, the attacks were relatively few and, at best, only claimed the lives of one or two soldiers. However, as time has progressed, the actions by the "resistance" have intensified.
Now, guerrilla attacks on occupation forces occur several times daily. Patrols are ambushed; transport helicopters are shot down; even the Americans' "invincible" M1A1 battle tank has become susceptible to guerrillas armed with penetrating shells.
Vietnam? Not exactly, even though the parallels are understandably frightening. The major difference between Vietnam and Iraq has to do with the kind of armed opposition the occupation forces face.
The Vietminh/NLF (sometimes called "Vietcong") was a popular national liberation movement that had been fighting colonialism for decades. They enjoyed broad support among the population, and their goal was a republic free from domination by the imperial Great Powers.
Can the same be said of the Iraqi "resistance?" No. In fact, it is very much the converse.
Who makes up the Iraqi "resistance" -- that is, those actually pulling the triggers? Put simply, they are made up of three main movements:
- Former members of the old ruling Ba'ath Party. These Ba'athists seek the restoration of their party, and the old regime, to power. They represent the old program of the Saddam Hussein government, which was fascist at its core.
- Supporters of nationalist organizations. These groups want to carve out their own independent states, and be recognized by the occupation regime as the "legitimate representatives" of this or that oppressed minority. Among these forces are Kurdish and Iranian nationalists, as well as Iraqi Arab nationalists that were only opposed to the Ba'athists because the latter were unwilling to share power.
- Supporters of Islamic fundamentalism (Islamists). This is a relatively new movement, owing its current existence primarily to the occupation. The Islamists come primarily from the Shia community in southern and eastern Iraq, and have close ties to their co-thinkers in Iran. Contrary to popular belief, these Islamists have few, if any, ties to the Wahabi sect of Islam, from which Osama bin Laden and the core cadre of al-Qaeda come.
On occasion, these elements make episodic alliances to carry out attacks. But, by and large, they operate independently of each other.
YES, THIS IS the face of the "resistance." And, no, it is not based on propaganda reports from the American or British media. Rather, these are based on reports from Iraqis who are familiar with the composition of these groups.
One of the side effects of the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime was that the country was plunged into complete chaos. To this day, public services are spotty, at best. Some workers go weeks without being paid; those who are paid often cannot afford basic food staples -- rice, meat, flour, etc.
Under the watchful eye of the occupation forces, the re-emerging Iraqi capitalist class has begun its own internal war on working people. Workers who complain about lack or pay or horrific working conditions are sacked, or accused of being "collaborators" with the Hussein regime and taken into custody by the occupation forces. Striking unions are busted by a coalition of Iraqi capitalists and American (or British) soldiers shepherding scabs.
Under these conditions, the minimal aid that the average Iraqi citizen receives from organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (or its partner, the Red Crescent), the United Nations or other private relief agencies is often their only means of survival.
So, how does the "resistance" respond to this ever-growing need? They attack the relief agencies, forcing them to withdraw from the region in order to avoid further bloodshed.
Not exactly the work of those seeking to "liberate" people.
The collapse of the Hussein regime also created a political vacuum. In spite of what people think of the Ba'athist regime, it obviously filled that space and was able to maintain a semblance of stability and order. When it fell after the American-led invasion, the stability and order evaporated.
The Americans have tried to fill the void with their comprador Governing Council. However, that body has little popular support behind it, and was bankrupt in the eyes of Iraqis well before it ever met. This has given the "resistance" groups some lift.
It is not that the "resistance" has any more credibility or support than the Governing Council. Far from it. But, the lack of legitimacy of the Council provides the "resistance" with a rhetorical club with which they can pummel its supporters.
IN A SENSE, the occupiers and the "resistance" have a symbiotic relationship. Each one legitimizes and sanctions the existence of the other. Without the occupiers, the "resistance" would have no basis for their acts of individual terror. Without the "resistance," the occupiers would not have any reason to systematically repress and terrorize the civilian population.
This symbiotic relationship is, in this respect, little more than the continuation of the reciprocal relationship that the American and Iraqi regimes had for the years before the invasion. This can also be extended to the relations between the U.S. government and Iran, as well as that between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism.
It should come as no surprise to people that this relationship exists. From the beginning of the so-called "war on terror" in 2001, people were aware of the relationship between the ruling circles in the United States and the leadership of organizations like al-Qaeda.
The business relationships, for example, between the Bush and Bin Laden families are well documented. The millions in aid that Americans gave to the Afghan Taliban government have been talked about on numerous occasions. The close, friendly ties between the American and Iraqi governments (back in the 1980s) are often summed up in the photo of a smiling Donald Rumsfeld warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein.
The dialectical "unity of opposites" seen in these relationships certainly makes for interesting conversation. However, we always need to remember that these relationships are built on top of the pulverized bones and flesh of previously living human beings -- Afghan, American, Iranian, Iraqi, etc.
"OK, SO WHAT is it you are saying here?" Inevitably, the question has to be asked. "Are you suggesting we take a neutral position on the occupation?"
Certainly not. This author has, time and again, stated his unequivocal opposition to the imperialist occupation and re-colonization of Iraq. From the day that American soldiers stepped foot on Iraqi soil, I have called for their immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the country.
But it is important that we also think about what happens after the occupiers leave. What will that new political vacuum yield?
This is where the question of "supporting the resistance" comes in. Depending on the relationship of forces, the victory of the "resistance" forces -- as they are currently constituted -- would lead to one of three results: 1) the restoration of the fascist Ba'ath regime; 2) the formation of a new nationalist regime, fundamentally no different from the Ba'athists; or 3) an Islamist state in alliance with Iran.
These results are not only intolerable to those who believe in democracy and human freedom, they are also a certain death sentence for the millions of Iraqis who have fought for years to keep their country one of the most socially progressive states in the Middle East.
Based on this understanding, we can now rephrase and expand the question asked at the beginning of this article.
"Suppose the United States was invaded and occupied by another country. Now, suppose that the main resistance forces were a coalition of rightwing militias, Republican Party, KKK and NRA operatives, and Christian fundamentalists. Would we support the resistance?"
Given what the likely outcome of their victory would be, the answer is a definite and emphatic "No!" Instead, I would look for an alternative to the imperialist occupation and the rightwing "resistance" ... or organize one myself.
But what about Iraq? Does such an alternative exist?
PUT SIMPLY, YES. There is an alternative in Iraq -- a "third camp" opposed to imperialist occupation and rightwing "resistance." It is the increasingly militant, and increasingly organized, Iraqi working class.
The entry of the Iraqi Communist Party, by far the largest political party in Iraq after the fall of the Ba'athists, into the American-sponsored Governing Council led to a series of crippling splits among its leadership. As a result, the ICP has begun to hemorrhage and its former members are looking in new directions.
Splinter leftwing organizations of various political backgrounds have developed in some areas. However, most of these groups are little more than confessional sects, and have tacitly accepted American occupation as something about which they can do nothing.
And yet, the Iraqi working class becomes more and better organized daily. Is it spontaneous, or is it conscious? Who is leading this effort?
The best answer to that question comes from the report of American trade unionists that visited Iraq recently.
At the same time, younger activists -- including members of the Worker Communist Party -- carried out their own initiatives, which led most notably to the formation of the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq (UUI). Both groups of activists are opposed to the U.S. occupation, says Thomas.
The main difference, he says, is that unions associated with the UUI "are not at all hesitant to support labor action in the face of the various decrees that are in place that prohibits labor organizing and strikes." The older unionists, Thomas says, "don't think that it is prudent to organize job actions and demonstrations, because they think that these can be exploited" by elements of the old regime who are resisting the occupation.
Though almost entirely ignored by the international media, the desire to take a stand for decent conditions and better wages at work has touched every part of the country. In a recent report, Ewa Jasiewicz described the struggle of workers at a brick factory that is part of a major industrial complex 30 miles east of Baghdad.
After enduring terrible conditions -- and a wage of 3,000 dinars a day, the equivalent of $1.50, for a 14-hour shift -- three quarters of the workforce walked off the job in October. They marched on the management's office and demanded a wage increase, a formal contract, on-site medical facilities and retirement payments.
"The owner had no idea that a union had been formed and told them, 'Fine, strike, go, I will dismiss you, others will come to take your place,'" Jasiewicz wrote. "The workers responded by going to their homes, bringing out their guns and spontaneously forming an armed picket line."
"Manned with machine guns and Kalishnikovs, workers guarded the factory and defended their strike from demolition by scab labor. The owner, overpowered, ended up granting the workers a raise of 500 dinars — 25 cents — and agreed to enter into negotiations regarding social and health benefits. The strike was regarded all around as a massive success." (Alan Maass, "Rise of Iraq's new labor movement," Socialist Worker, October 31, 2003 -- http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/474/474_06_IraqiUnion.shtml)
THE WORKER-COMMUNIST PARTY of Iraq, like its sister organization in Iran (of the same name), emerged in the early 1990s as a result of the rightward lurch of the "official Communist" organizations. Since the fall of the Ba'athists, the WPI has been the leftwing pole of attraction for those who want genuine democracy and oppose the occupation.
One of the first documents issued by the WPI after its leaders returned from exile was their "Declaration on Political Freedoms" (
http://www.wpiraq.org/english/hizb240052003.htm). The six points of the declaration are:
- Full and unconditional political freedom, freedom of belief, expression, press, assembly, demonstration, organization, strike and the freedom of formation of political parties.
- Separation of religion from the state and education. All religious inspired laws and regulations must be repealed. Individuals must have freedom of religion and atheism.
- Full and unconditional equality of rights of men and women in legal, social and individual domains and the repealing of all laws and regulations that violate this principle.
- Full and unconditional equality of all residents regardless of sex, nationality, religion, race, ethnicity and citizenship.
- Abolition of the death penalty.
- The public and especially parties must have free access to the mass media.
For the WPI, there are two interrelated problems that the people of Iraq have to resolve. The first, of course, is how to end the ongoing occupation. The second is the establishment of conditions that allow for real, revolutionary democracy to take hold in Iraq.
The work of the WPI over the last period has been aimed at completing both of these tasks. They have set out to organize trade unions among Iraqi workers, replacing the old corporatist Ba'athist unions. They have also organize a union of unemployed workers that has been successful in winning better relief for those left without jobs due to years of war and destruction.
Most importantly, though, the WPI has been organizing local bodies that are a legitimate alternative to the Governing Council and the alternatives presented by the rightwing "resistance" groups. These bodies, organized at the neighborhood and workplace level, not only unify the workers in a given area, they also have the ability to assume the functions of a municipal or regional government.
These bodies -- workers' councils, based on the Russian
soviets, the German
Räten and the British
Councils of Action -- now exist in every major city and town in Iraq, including Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Nasiriya, Basra and Fallujah. Some of them developed relatively spontaneously; others developed out of the organization of trade unions and the unemployed.
The workers' councils are organs of mass democracy in Iraq, and should be supported by all those wishing for Iraqis to achieve a real independence and liberation. They represent the only viable alternative to the American-sponsored puppet state (the Governing Council) and the possible return of despotism (at the hands of the "resistance").
FOR ANTIWAR ACTIVISTS in the United States, it is important to remember that, in the case of Iraq, there are
three sides in the dispute, not two. Thus, the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply.
Unquestionably, many people have an instinctive reaction -- due to their disgust at the actions of the Bush regime -- when they see or hear about the clashes between the occupation forces and the "resistance." Some people are even tempted to look positively on the actions of the "resistance," since they seem to be, after all, the main forces actively working to push the occupation troops out.
But this is not accurate. The armed volunteer workers' militias that have sprung up across Iraq, which are fighting both the so-called "resistance" and the occupation, have had more effect on eliminating the basis for the occupation than all the carbombings and ambushes carried out so far.
As I write these lines, there are dozens of detachments of these workers' militia patrolling neighborhoods in the major cities of Iraq. They are there because the occupation soldiers are too busy guarding oil pipelines; they are there because the “resistance” is targeting residents of Iraq and the relief services they are forced to rely on, and the Americans won't lift a finger to protect the people.
These are the kind of actions that will end the occupation, not random sniping or suicide bombings. The sooner a real political alternative to the occupation and its Governing Council are established and win the support of the majority of Iraqis, the sooner the occupiers will be forced to withdraw -- by force of arms, if necessary.
There is a growing situation of "dual power" developing across Iraq. The workers' councils are more and more acting as the organized representative of the Iraqi working class (and the Iraqi people in general), while the Governing Council becomes less credible. The growing number of spontaneous attacks by ordinary Iraqis against the Council and occupation troops -- sometimes attributed to the "resistance," but often not reported -- is a sign of that.
Antiwar activists and political oppositionists in the United States can best serve the interests of the Iraqi people by lending their support to the actions of the working people of that country, and by translating that support into a movement
for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all occupation forces.
We should
demand that the WPI's "Declaration on Political Freedoms" is implemented across Iraq. Further, in those places where they have been organized and are supported by the majority of the Iraqi people, we should call
for the immediate transfer of power from the occupation forces to the workers' councils.
For those who not only want an end to the occupation, but also are concerned about what happens afterward, this is the only rational and comprehensive plan that can make it happen.
-30-
ON THE INTERNET: Worker-Communist Party of Iraq --
http://www.wpiraq.org/english/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
