SWP support armed resistance in Iraq

by GR Fri Nov 12, 2004 13:25

What will Richard Boyd Barrett or Sinead Ni Bhrion of the SWP/IAWM say in future when questioned by the media on the use of violence? "We support it...but only in Iraq...not the nasty republicans in this country, mind...we never supported them...bad lot. We should the Sheikhs instead"

This is going to cause some confusion for the IAWM!!!

by Hawk Fri Nov 12, 2004 13:52

London decides Ireland follows that is common knowledge,so much for democracy for the Irish cannon fodder. Another year another decision another complete somersault, no change, no surprise.

by Ray Fri Nov 12, 2004 14:14

The trouble is, by offering unconditional support to the resistance, they are offering unconditional support to people who, if they win, WILL attack secular forces.

by Joe - WSM (personal cap) Fri Nov 12, 2004 14:18

I don't think we have written anything on the specific question of the resistance apart from an article pointing out that the Iraqi working class is already fighting for its needs. See http://struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2004/79/iraq.html

If and when we do it would be in line with our existing position paper on globalisation ( at http://struggle.ws/wsm/positions/globalisation.html ) which includes

"9. There are a limited number of countries whose ruling class are unwilling for one reason or another to become partners in this order.  In 2001 Libya, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea were the most obvious examples.  In some cases like Cuba the ruling class are unwilling to open their markets fully to the global economy.  In others regional military conflict has resulted in the hostility of the major powers to the current rulers.

The imperialist powers have militarily and economically attacked those states that try to follow their own agenda.  Today this often disguised as 'peace keeping' or 'peace enforcement' under the UN flag.  While we oppose the imperialist powers we recognise that the states that defy them do so in the interests of their own ruling class rather then their people.  So rather then supporting, critically or otherwise, these local ruling classes we look to support the working class (including rural workers) of those countries in there struggle against imperialism and their own ruling class.  We make this concrete by offering solidarity including material aid to independent working class and libertarian organisations.

10. We argue that to win any permanent improvements anti-imperialist  /  anti-neoliberal struggles have to be transformed into the struggle for the international anarchist revolution.  That said we recognise that short of this any military defeat for imperialism will not only reduce the ability of the imperialist powers to engage in future interventions but is also an encouragement for those involved in similar struggles elsewhere.

11. The National liberation movements of the 20th century were an attempt to defeat imperialism through an alliance of the "progressive" bourgeois and the workers. The bourgeoise always dominated these movements, ensuring that even the 'left' element within them become no more then support for a project of state capitalism.  Where an independent workers movement threatened to appear  which might have seeked an alternative the bourgeoise quickly reached a temporary or permanent agreement with imperialism in order to suppress this movement.

12. Today with the great reduction in inter imperialist  rivalary which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union the room for such National Liberation Movements is greatly reduced.  This is the reason why many made peace with their governments in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Most of the few that remain now call on the US and the other imperialist powers to resolve their local situations on their behalf.  In that context while they may indeed be struggling for a fairer division of the local cake they can no longer be considered anti-imperialist in any sense of the word. Their calls for intervention may reflect a certain 'natural justice'. But the imperialist powers will only intervene where it suits them.  They do so in a way that not only furthers their own agenda but frequently results in far more death and destruction and a far more divided society then that which previously existed.  This of course results in the need for 'peace keeping' and hence direct imperialist control into the indefinite future.

13. Without necesserly supporting each and every project of resistance we see our role as undermining the idea that the neo liberal order is inevitable and that resistance to it is both futile and criminal.  In the case of National Liberation Movement we defend the struggle against imperialism while attacking the nationalist basis of this struggle.

14. In relation to each situation we will seek to discover and promote the anti-authoratarian strands within that struggle, particularly those that seek to organise on a class rather then national, religious or ethnic basis and win these to anarchism.  We will argue that the interests of the ordinary workers of the imperialist countries lies with the promotion of such strands and not with their own rulers.  We will argue for and where possible build working class resistance to the imperialist strategies of their own ruling class and direct links with those in struggle."

So we are unlikely to line up with the Bush/SWP 'with us or against us' approach to the occupation and the resistance. Thanks for asking

by Ponox Fri Nov 12, 2004 14:23

Against slaughter in Fallujah at 6.00 pm today. Please come along.

by Joe Fri Nov 12, 2004 14:27

According to the Worker Communist Party of Iraq the Islamists are already attacking women and leftists. See for instance the press release of their Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq at http://tinyurl.com/56ay4

Some extracts "Terrorist acts against women in Iraq by Islamic groups have increased dramatically in recent months and reached  an unprecedented level under the rubric of “observing sanctities during Ramadan.” A fascist Islamic group called “Mujahideen Shura Group” has warned that it will kill any women who are seen on street unveiled whether by themselves or with a male companion! 

 In the northern city of Mosul, Christian women are targets of a killing, kidnapping and rape campaign. One such barbaric crime took place in this city where two women were kidnapped and raped by multiple men and then were sold as female slaves to another group of men.  They were again raped repeatedly for four days before they managed to escape!
...
Scores of university girls have been beaten up, often severely, for wearing jeans or for not wearing hijab (Islamic veil). Women who go to hair dressing salons are frequently attacked by Islamists and their hair is cut in a public display of shaming.

Thousands of leaflets are distributed across the country everyday warning women against going out unveiled, putting on make up, shaking hands or mixing with men. More than 1000 female university students have taken leave of their studies to protect themselves against the terrorism of Islamists.

---

The WCPI are a neo-leninist group that seem to be by far the largest of the left groups in Iraq that oppose the occupation. Lots of stuff on them on their English language site at http://www.wpiraq.org/english/

by Peace activist Sat Nov 13, 2004 20:56

I'm a bit surprised by this. The IAWM now supports the use of violence? How will this look for the peace movement?

by ZXBarcalow Sat Nov 13, 2004 22:57

I read the piece on the SWP site. It does not contain a delaration of support for the Iraqi resistance. It merely quotes Iraqis saying that they support it. I don't think there's any need to cause such a fuss over it.

by Truthgiver Sun Nov 14, 2004 19:13

There are SWP stickers on poles throughout Dublin that read 'Support the Iraqi Resistance!' above a photo of armed men with rocket launchers and rifles.

Is that proof enough of their new position?

by Kev Sun Nov 14, 2004 19:58

If the SWP are wholeheartedly supporting the Iraqi resistance, then maybe they will organise an International Brigade? I'd vote for Kieran Allen, Kevin Wingfield and Richard Boy Barrett as the officers, who, of course, will be expected to demonstrate their revolutionary ardour by leading from the front.

Or maybe the SWP are just all hot-air? Remember how they valiantly opposed and undermined advocates of non-violent direct action and civil disobedience in this country. No, the likelihood is that they'll cheerlead from the safety of comfy jobs in UCD and elsewhere. Unlike revolutionaries from the 1930s the SWP believe in leaving the dirty work to the plebs.

by Psymon Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:01

i in a way can see the point of view in the swp's remark.Remember that if it were not for terroists we would still live under english rule.

by Fintan Lane Tue Nov 16, 2004 14:24

So what if the SWP supports the resistance in Iraq? So do I, and I don't see how that contradicts participation in an anti-war movement.

The anti-war movement is not the preserve of pacifists and there is a fundamental difference between a war of aggression and a resistance acting in self-defence (in a situation of military occupation, wholesale killings and repression).

On the other hand, I wouldn't offer 'unconditional support' and think the SWP more than a little wrongheaded if this is the tack they are taking. One can support the principle without supporting every group engaged in resistance. Who would support the kidnapping of Margaret Hassan and other innocent civilians? Who could support groups whose philosophy is centred on narrow-minded religious fundamentalism?

However, as with Palestine, I'm convinced that a goodly number (probably the vast majority) of those resisting are motivated by a simple, and understandable, opposition to the occupation. We can't simply tut tut at such people in a land where 100,000 now lie dead.

by Liam Tue Nov 16, 2004 14:33

"So what if the SWP supports the resistance in Iraq?"

And then:

"Who could support groups whose philosophy is centred on narrow-minded religious fundamentalism? "

So I take it you really do see the - so what?

Iran anyone?

by Joe - WSM (personal cap) Tue Nov 16, 2004 15:00

As already pointed out I don't think the WSM has said anything about the resistance and have said even less about what the SWP have said about them.

Personally I think the whole 'support the resistance' thing is just another slogan to sell papers from. It's not like they are fund raising (never mind sending an international brigade). There is a rather long trot history of using similar slogans simply to differentiate yourself from the more liberal end of the anti-war movement for recruitment purposes. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Right at the start the SWP did the same thing with calling for direct action at Shannon in leaflets, a call that was dropped as soon as others took it serious and a leaflet that was purged from their website.

I think you can 'oppose the occupation' in an absolute manner but the slogan to 'support the resistance' makes little sense even in political terms. The obvious question is 'which resistance' because its not simply a question of different groups but of different groups who are opposed to each other as much as they are the US occupation forces. The Whabbi Islamists see the al Sadir Shia as heretics, al Sadir see the Ba'athists as apostates, the WCPI see all of the above as the enemy and the Ba'athists want a return to Saddams somewhat secular state where al 3 of the others would be in prison or the graves. And thats just the four most obvious divisions (and leaving out the Kurds). These are not minor divisions, they have already been busy bombing and shooting each other.

So the slogan is meaningless unless you mean 'support the concept of resistance' but quite what this adds to 'oppposing the occupation' I'm not sure. I suspect its not meant to add anything, except to the over growing list of meaningless trot litmus tests.

by Fintan Lane Tue Nov 16, 2004 19:18

Yes, Liam, I do see the 'so what' with regard to the unconditional support offered to the 'resistance' by the SWP (if that is their position). I have no interest in supporting the type of groups and individuals mentioned by our anonymous WSM friend. However, one can defend the right of Iraqis to engage in armed resistance without supporting fundamentalists. To say otherwise is to lump all Iraqis (and Muslims, perhaps) into the fundamentalist camp, which, of course, is the Bush propaganda position.

In short, I don't believe the Bush/Blair lie that all those resisting are 'foreign fighters' or 'former regime loyalists'.

by Joe Tue Nov 16, 2004 20:38

You should check out one of the groups mentioned, the WCPI which have evolved a neo-leninist council communist type position based on the experience of the Shoras in Iran '79 and Iraq '91. Mind you although they have an armed defence organisation I don't think they are actively fighting anyone (but from this distance who can tell). Their English language page is at http://www.wpiraq.org/english/

Apart from that I agree with the jist of what you say. The problem with the western left if that they conflate all the Iraqi resistance groups into a single blob which given the differences is daft. Iraq once had a strong left and although parts are now simply collaborating with the occupation others are trying to chart their own course.

In other words the choice is not simply between Bush and bin Laden even if that if what both of these characters would like us to believe.

by Fintan Lane Wed Nov 17, 2004 14:44

I agree with you, Joe. It's a complex situation and the resistance/opposition within Iraq is diverse. Unconditional support makes no sense in that context, but one can still the support the principle that one has the right to defend oneself against an aggressive military occupation.

by redjade Thu Nov 18, 2004 16:57

I haven't bothered to comment as yet just because this seems to be yet another SWP bash, and that kind of bores me to be honest.

but it got me thinking about media portrayals of the 'iraqi resistance' and what that phrase means.

if an iraqi and resisting the occupation the media calls him/her an 'Islamic Fundamentalist'
(or as the US CBS news says 'anti-Iraqi forces' - figure that one out!).

I've lost the link now, but I read one US news source interviewing an Iraqi fighting the US occupation and mentioned he was an Iraqi Christian - yeah, we forget that Iraq has a lot of Christians too.

But if this Iraqi Christian is fighting the occupation the media doesn't call him a 'Christian Fundamentalist'

Why? I suppose people would wonder why Christian Fundamentalists would be shooting at US Troops led by a Christian Fundamentalist!

Would an Iraqi Christian Fundamentalist be from a Red Iraqi Province or a Blue Province?! Is the Sunni Triangle Red or Blue?

Or, even more confusing, would the SWP support the 'Iraqi Resistance' if it includes 'Christian Fundamentalists'? ;-)

The only 'Fundamental' that needs support is getting the US out of Iraq and Shannon.

by Ged Thu Nov 18, 2004 17:25

"I haven't bothered to comment as yet just because this seems to be yet another SWP bash, and that kind of bores me to be honest."

But the IAWM is recognised as the Anti-War Movement in this country and let's face it anybody with a gram of wit knows that it is an undemocratic front for the SWP. It's not always bashing. Their unconditional support for Islamic fundamentalists is damaging to building a proper anti-war movement. Silence is not always golden.

by SA Thu Nov 18, 2004 19:14

The IAWM is recognised as 'the' anti-war movement in this country?? Not by anti-war activists, it's not. Everybody knows its an SWP front at this stage.