Iraqis Trade Unionists Need Your Support

by From Labour Left Briefing Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:57

Who killed Hadi Saleh?

Iraqi exile, writer and teacher Sami Ramadani explores how the pro-war lobby manipulated the murder of a prominent Iraqi Communist.

Hadi Saleh was brutally murdered in Baghdad few weeks ago at the age of 55. He spent many years of his life in exile in Sweden. After the fall of the Saddam regime and the occupation of Iraq by the US-led forces in April 2003, Saleh returned to Iraq as a senior cadre of the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP).

News of Saleh's murder has been cynically manipulated by the pro-war lobby and "keep the troops in Iraq" apologists to attack the anti-war movement, particularly in Britain. One pointer to the unsavoury nature of their campaign in Britain was that they all failed to mention that Saleh was a leading cadre of the ICP, and only referred to his role in the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. Their aims were transparent: to accuse, without producing a shred of evidence, the Iraqi resistance of targeting and killing trade unionists; to undermine the right of the Iraqi people to resist the occupation; and to put the anti-war movement on the defensive.

According to the ICP politburo, "Comrade Hadi, having returned from his exile, participated energetically in rebuilding the Party and widening its base in various Party fields of activity." In May 2004, the ICP assigned to him and other party cadres the task of establishing and leading the General Federation of Workers Trade Unions in Iraq (GFWTUI), which calls itself, outside Iraq, the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). He was appointed as the Federation's international spokesperson.

After initial hesitation, the US proconsul agreed to appoint the IFTU, to the exclusion of all other unions and federations, as the sole trade union federation in Iraq. This was a scam, allowing the IFTU to take over the name, assets and branches of the Saddam regime's GFWTUI - hence its Arabic name being different from its English and other versions!

Though smacking of prevarication, the ICP's initial criticisms of the invasion plans made it relatively immune from accusations of collaboration and of entering Iraq "on the back of US tanks". However, this changed dramatically when the ICP central committee declared on 13th July 2003 that the party was to join the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), which was seen as the occupation's Iraqi face. All its 25 members, including the ICP's leader, Hamid Majid, were appointed by the US proconsul, Paul Bremer. That and subsequent party leadership decisions were decisive in the political work of Saleh and other party cadres, who are renowned for their dedication to their tasks and excessive adherence to the leadership's line. However, some members still found it hard to swallow that their party leader was appointed by the representative of US imperialism occupying their cities.

A few days after that announcement, I met in Baghdad a bitter party member, an impoverished van driver, who described the IGC as the "devil's lump of iron," put there by the occupation to ward off the devil! He described joining it a betrayal far worse than the party's decision overtly to back the Ba'athist regime in 1972 and to have two central committee members join the Government in 1973, following the formation of the the Patriotic and Nationalist Progressive Front. The architect of that Front was the regime's vice-president and strong man Saddam Hussein. The party leadership was in secret negotiations with Saddam soon after he came to power in July 1968.

These were turbulent times, with a powerful mass movement developing within a few years of the 1963 CIA-backed Ba'athist coup in which thousands of communists and democrats were murdered. Saddam and the current US-appointed Prime Minister, Ayad Allawi, were among the young thugs of the coup. It is widely thought in Iraq that the July 1968 "peaceful" coup was also backed by the CIA to crush the rising mass movement, led by the re-invigorated ICP. However, this time there was a majority left faction within the ICP, led by Khaled Ahmad Zeki, who was killed in 1968 by Saddam's regime while leading a Guevarist-style armed uprising in the south.

Saleh, who was a print worker in 1969 and joined in the strike movement, was soon arrested and sentenced to death, along with hundreds of workers and students who supported the left faction of the ICP. So popular was the left faction's politics within and outside the party that some in the leadership, led by Aziz Al-Haj, decided to join the bandwagon and precipitate a split against the wishes of the rank and file militants who were, instead, calling for a party conference to change the "rightwing leadership". The new party, ICP (Central Leadership), attracted most members and supporters.

It is not clear whether Saleh actually joined the new party, but it is significant that his death sentence was commuted and he was released in 1973 after the Saddam-ICP front was formed. Saddam liquidated most of the captured left wing cadres and activists of the ICP and later the ICP(CL). He released only those who "repented" or declared allegiance to the ICP leadership line of supporting his regime. Among those "repenting" was Aziz Al-Haj himself who became a propagandist for Saddam and is now an apologist for the occupation, with a message not dissimilar to that of the ICP leadership.

The ICP politburo issued a statement mourning Saleh's murder but, significantly, refraining from any mention of his arrest in 1969. Here, those who have a political agenda to defame the Iraqi resistance to occupation have been quick to accuse them of this crime and denounce them. Pro-war writers like Johann Hari and Nick Cohen were quickest off the mark, demanding that the left should renounce the Iraqi resistance. In Hari's case it is easy to see why he failed to mention that Saleh was an ICP cadre, for he would have had to compare him to someone with Nazi tendencies. In a discussion on his website regarding Saleh's murder, he admonished a contributor: "Why you are still defending Galloway when even you … admit he has Stalinist tendencies is beyond me. Do you support anybody with 'Nazi tendencies'? Given your decency on other topics, I'd be astonished if you did."

Saleh's murder, and that of another ICP leader few weeks earlier, were widely reported in Iraq. The reports referred to his party affiliation, but almost entirely ignored his role as an IFTU official. This is merely a reflection of the insignificance of the IFTU and awareness that it is not a free trade union.

Who murdered Saleh? If we exclude the possibility of being collaterally damaged and bombed to oblivion by the US-led forces, there are four other major ways of getting murdered: by more than 50,000 contracted foreign mercenaries answerable only to the US-led occupation authorities and governments; by hundreds of post-occupation robbery, drug and ransom gangs; by US special forces trained by Israeli and US experts in assassination and liquidation methods; or by the resistance if you work for or co-operate with the occupation forces. Most Iraqis routinely blame the occupation authorities and the Allawi regime for inciting civil strife and using the Zarqawi-type gangs, Saddamist hoodlums and US assassination squads to murder civilians and foreign aid workers.

Furthermore, John Negroponte, US ambassador directing the scene from Saddam's Republican Palace in Baghdad, has a proven history of association with death squads that murdered active trade unionists in Central America in the 1980s. If Saleh had views different from his party's leadership and actively campaigned against the occupation and the US plans for privatising Iraq to the US transnationals, then the occupying authorities would have found his presence highly inconvenient. Those who want to use Saleh's heinous murder to deny the Iraqi people the right to resist the occupation forces should study Negroponte's history and Operation Phoenix in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972.

by Michael Wed Feb 02, 2005 13:54

The quotation by John Pilger seems to be from the Australian newsletter Green Left weekly. Though what he said was a little different: "While we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq, we have no choice now but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the “Bush gang” will attack another country." ( http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/568/568p10b.htm )

When you include the full quote it becomes clearer what he was saying: Terrorist acts against innocent civilians and other neutrals* are abhorant, but armed resistance against the foreign military occupation is okay. (An unarmed, injured soldier is also neutral for example.)

That's basically the same position which the UN General Assembly adopted when it voted a resolution in 1982 to define terrorism (The US and Israel voted against it). You can condemn the loss of all life, of course, but I think it's clear that Pilger isn't taking that radical pacifist position on this conflict.

Alas, if we want to stop the violence we'd do better to spend our time trying to reduce Ireland's part in it. That means dealing with Shannon Airport, the government, the Irish soldiers in Afghanistan, the arms trade and the war profiteering corporations. As pacifists or non-pacifists, we need to try everything nonviolently possible here to make a change.

by redjade Wed Feb 02, 2005 14:26

I started blogging about the case of Hadi Saleh last Jan 10

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68176

-- -- --

more recent info:

A letter of support from the Irish Congress Trade Unions (ICTU)
http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/000154.html

Letter: Hadi's brutal murder
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1390044,00.html

Hadi Saleh
A leading Iraqi trade unionist, he fought for workers' rights and opposed the rule of Saddam Hussein, as well as the recent war
January 20, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1394127,00.html

more controversy...

A leading Iraqi trade unionist has been murdered. Where is the left?
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=544

http://georgegalloway.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=485

Hadi Saleh

by Dan Wed Feb 02, 2005 18:19

"there are four other major ways of getting murdered: by more than 50,000 contracted foreign mercenaries answerable only to the US-led occupation authorities and governments; by hundreds of post-occupation robbery, drug and ransom gangs; by US special forces trained by Israeli and US experts in assassination and liquidation methods; or by the resistance if you work for or co-operate with the occupation forces."

So, according to Ramadani, the only people who have been killed by the resistance are those who "work for or co-operate with the occupation forces" (or "collaborators" as he usually calls them). Does he really expect anyone to believe this? Does he actually believe it himself?

For one thing, it's time everyone acknowledged that there's no such thing as "the Iraqi resistance" - at least not in the sense that there was an Algerian resistance in the 50s, a Vietnamese resistance in the sixties, or a South African resistance in the eighties. There's no national organisation, no national leadership, no coherent programme. What you have are many different groups with different agendas and tactics.
Calling for "victory to the Iraqi resistance" isn't so much wrong as totally meaningless.

The most we can really say is this: we support the right of Iraqis to use force against the occupation armies. We won't call them "terrorists" if they attack US soldiers (although we can ask whether or not armed resistance is the best strategy). But under no circumstances will we support attacks on civilian targets. If it's wrong to kill Iraqi civilians in the name of "liberation", it's equally wrong to kill them in the name of "resistance".

Ramadani would have us believe that all the murders and terrorist bombings carried out over the last couple of years were the work of the US and its accomplices. Now, in fairness, you couldn't put it past them - they're certainly ruthless enough, and they have a track record. It wouldn't be at all surprising if, years down the line, we find out that some of the bombings were carried out by US agents to stir up chaos.

But it's stretching credibility too far to claim that ALL the murderous attacks can be blamed on the US. Ramadani should know perfectly well that at least one of the "resistance" groups, the Sunni ultra-fundamentalists, proudly boast that they have carried out attacks on civilians. To acknowledge this is not to "slander the resistance", as he claims; the "resistance fighters" in question are
quite happy to admit what they have done. Not everyone who has taken up arms against the occupation is a terrorist or a fanatic. But there's no question that some of those involved are nothing more than blood-thirsty, fascist scum. The left should offer them nothing but hatred and hostility and wish them a speedy passage to the next life.

Ramadani, George Galloway, the SWP and others have just inverted George Bush's crude, one-dimensional style of thought - instead of presenting the situation in Iraq as "democracy vs. terrorism", they call it "occupation vs. resistance". There's more truth in the latter formulation than in the first one, but it's still far too glib and misleading.

This has all been a huge propaganda gift for pro-war hacks, especially ex-leftists like Hitchens, Cohen, Aaronovitch and others. Now that all their other arguments have been discredited, they've taken to plucking quotes from Galloway or the STWC to "prove" that anyone who opposed the war must be soft on fascism.

What the left SHOULD be doing is building support for the secular left in Iraq, who are in a desperate position and need help badly. It doesn't carry the same adolescent thrill as chanting "victory to the resistance". But it's the only worthwhile contribution we can make.

by Nasser Wed Feb 02, 2005 20:34

I agree with Dan but we should be careful to distinguish between those on the 'left' who collaborate with imperialiam and those who try to organise workers independently of the imperialists and fundamentalists. The Iraqi Communist Party are a corrupt, stalinist outfit who fully collaborate with the US occupation and their neo-liberal policies. All that keeps them together is the funding they receive from the occupiers. They have undergone numerous splits since joining the puppet government because their craven collaboration has alienated even their own members. All this should not stop us from condemning attacks on members of the CP or their trade union fronts by the zealots but no serious socialist could support such a bankrupt outfit.

The only party that is really trying to organise independent trade unions, defend womens rights and oppose the occupation forces and the islamists is the Worker Communist Party of Iraq. That is why their members are targeted by both the so-called resistance and the sectarian/islamiscist forces who are controlled or allied to the US occupation. Have a look at their website at: www.wpiraq.net

by Dan Thu Feb 03, 2005 17:56

Yeah, I agree that the WCP are probably the best group active in Iraq. The ICP's decision to join the governing council was a disaster for the Iraqi left; instead of providing a fig leaf for the occupation, they should have tried to organise a left opposition, giving people the option of opposing the occupation without supporting the Islamists.

I wouldn't be too hopeful about the prospects of the WCP (even for survival, never mind anything more ambitious). But anti-war activists should look into whether we can do anything practical to help them out - even something fairly minor would probably make a difference.