By
Mahmood Ketabchi
A few weeks ago, I read Oppose the Occupation, an article in the International Socialist Review (ISR) Issue 29, MayJune 2003, a publication ofInternational Socialist Organization (ISO). Because this article, in many ways, reflects the mindset of many anti-war activists and leftists in the US, I felt it necessary to respond to it. The anti war movement unsurprisingly came to a stalemate after the defeat of Saddam Husseins regime and the occupation of Iraq by the US and British forces. In an anti-war meeting at the Brecht Forum, I asked the speakers, Where do we go from here, now that the US-British Forces have occupied Iraq? What is the future for Iraq? One of the speakers told me that it was a $64 million dollar question, but I never received an answer.
The article in ISR tries to provide some directions for the anti war movement. Unfortunately, there is nothing innovative in its thinking that can free the antiwar movement from its confusion, lack of direction, and reactive mode. The ISO says the US must get out of Iraq and the Iraqi people should be left alone to determine their own future. These recommendations do not offer any new direction for anyone; they are simply a repetition of what most of the anti war movement is already organizing around.
It is quite troubling to see people who dont seem to give a damn about what happens to the people of Iraq except for the fact that Iraq has been occupied by the US and Britain. Their one and only concern is to get the occupiers out of Iraq. What happens after that is not an issue for them. Their focus is on the liberation of Iraq from the US occupation, and nothing else matters. I like to call such position Inverse Nationalism. I say Inverse Nationalism because it is nationalism from a different end. It is not the nationalism of the right-wing and flag waving crowd who supported the US war on Iraq. However, it is nationalist, in the sense that, according to them, opposing the Great Satan, (This name was devised by the fascist mullah, Ayatollah Khomeini.) the United States, must become the focal point of any political struggle. Other issues are secondary and practically non- existent.
Despite an internationalist posture, such a position is nothing but a populist position and anti-imperialist isolationism. A position like this on the left to a large extent originates from a very simplistic version of world capitalism. In this view imperialism is equated with the US and the US to imperialism. According to this view, the bourgeois nationalist movements that represent third world capitalists are seen in opposition to imperialism.
This view upholds that imperialism (the US) is the biggest enemy in the world and whoever stands up to this enemy is a friend of people or carries some progressive element. It is for this reason that reactionary Islamic groups in Palestine are portrayed as symbols of heroic resistance to Israeli occupation and US imperialism, or that the Islamic regime in Iran and murderous Taliban government in Afghanistan found some of its supporters among the left. The fact that these criminal thugs are enemies of freedom, civility, and human dignity does not seem to matter at all, even though the rise of Islamism as a political movement was engineered by the US government and western powers to fight against communism, progressive organizations, and freedom-loving forces, a fact that should be of great import to those who consider themselves anti-imperialist or socialists.
Let me now deal specifically with the article. First, I will quote from the article (in bold), and then respond to each.
---------------------
When a racist warhawk such as the New York Times Thomas Friedman argues that Iraqi Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis cannot live together without the "iron fist" of a strong U.S. occupation, antiwar activists rightly cringe in disgust. But many of these same activists who defiantly took to the streets and marched and built teach-ins to protest the war have been mired in confusion and contradictions since the fall of Baghdad about what stance to take regarding the occupation.
----------------------
It is true that Thomas Friedman is a racist war hawk. But it is also true that Islamic fascist groups, Arab and Kurdish nationalists, reactionary tribal leaders, etc. have been at each others throats for many years. Animosity and division among them is so deep that even the iron fist of the US could not bring them together to form a stable coalition. Often they come together as vultures for they see something to feed on. They are bunch of criminals who supported the US policy against the people of Iraq all along.
They supported the 1991 war against Iraq, 12 years of genocidal sanction, and the current war. These groups lack any sense of civic responsibility. They will tear Iraq apart into different pieces and create a blood bath by ethnic cleansing and religious warfare. If ISR thinks these groups can work together and rebuild Iraq, they should make their case rather than brushing aside an important issue by attacking Friedman. ISR needs to take a stand, not dodge the issue.
--------------------------
Unfortunately, not just new activists, but many important leading voices of opposition before and during the war have argued that while the war was a terrible thing, a power vacuum and chaos would result if the U.S. pulled its troops out now. Voices in the Wilderness, a group that has heroically defied the deadly sanctions on Iraq for years and kept members in Baghdad throughout the war, issued this statement in April:
It will not serve the tremendous human need in Iraq for the U.S. military to immediately withdraw without a legitimate international presence to take its place; from what weve witnessed, this would create a power vacuum that could precipitate the implosion of Iraqs civil society. The U.S. military should be pulled back from its role as a foreign occupation power into a protective role sufficient to allow for Iraqs social and politicalconcerns to be dictated by Iraqi parties.
Many people now call for the UN to take over the occupation. This ignores the reality that it was the UN that imposed murderous sanctions on the Iraqi people and, according to recent reports in the New York Times, UN officials hoarded billions of dollars in a slush fund accrued from the oil-for-food programmoney that belongs to the people of Iraq. An occupation that includes other members of the Security Council would still be an imposition of outside armies that are unaccountable to the Iraqis themselves. UN or not, a colonial occupation of Iraq is still a colonial occupation of Iraq.
-----------------------------------
To my knowledge, almost all anti-war groups are calling for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Since the war started, the demand to Bring the Troops Home is strongly voiced in all antiwar meetings and actions. So, I do not understand why the ISR is complaining that there is confusion among anti war activists around this issue. There is confusion, but the confusion exists around other issues, a confusion which the ISR is not free from.
Those, including the ISR, who limit themselves to the call for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq need to explain what may happen after the US pulls its forces from Iraq. Here is the mire that they are stuck in. Here is the confusion. Nowhere in the article does one see any clear articulation by the ISR that would shed some light over the future of Iraq after the US withdrawal.
I agree that the anti-war movement should demand the total and unconditional withdrawal of US-British forces from Iraq. But at the same time, the concerns raised by Voices in the Wilderness are real and have to be taken seriously. Iraqs infrastructure has been destroyed and the civil life of the country is on the verge of total collapse. Three wars, 12 years of genocidal sanction, in addition to downfall of Saddam Husseins brutal and extensive bureaucracy, looting and ravaging of the country and the rise of ethnocentric, nationalist and fascist Islamic forces are confronting Iraq with a bleak and dreadful scenario. In such situation, what is the alternative to the withdrawal of US forces? What will take its place? Who will run Iraq? What is going to happen to basic survival needs of people, food, clothing, shelter, water, electricity, health, safety, etc., let alone political freedom and equality? What role will the countries surrounding Iraq play in the future of Iraq? These and many other questions are things that need to be answered, and not one is dealt with by the ISR. It is one thing to say what you dont want, but it is different thing to say what you want. ISR does the first, but fails to do the second.
Wishful thinking that once the US forces leave Iraq, the Iraqi people will magically solve the existing problems, is not enough. The people of Iraq, at this point, are dealing with survival issues and the basic necessities of life. Socially and politically, they have very little or no voice at all. They lack mass, civic, and political organizations through which they can represent themselves. A bunch of murderous hooligans (Islamic and nationalist) with guns and money from the USA, Iran, and other reactionary governments are running amuck, claiming to represent the people of Iraq. Fetishizing the people and the masses is a populist disaster that infects much of the US left. It is great to have confidence in people, but it is also important to analyze the situation specifically.
The Iraqi people need a break for a period of a few months during which they can meet their daily survival needs and can get sometime to organize. They need space from the violent and unsafe situations caused by the occupation as well as by armed criminal organizations. At this point in time, a temporary administration of Iraq by the UN could provide the Iraqis with some relief and opening. Yes, it is true what the ISR says about the UN. But it is equally true, that under intense pressure from world public opinion, the UN did not endorse the war against Iraq. Reactionary governments and institutions under mass pressure can be forced take positions that could be favorable to people and provide some opening and space for organizing.
Just imagine a different scenario-- one where the anti-war movement continued with the same momentum they generated before the war, to demand an end to occupation, to call for a temporary administration of Iraq by the UN, to actively support freedom and equality for the people of Iraq, by reaching out with full force to support progressive movements of women, workers, etc., What if it demanded the rebuilding of Iraq with the money coming from those who destroyed it, and so on. Where would we be today as a movement, in terms of power and effectiveness, in changing not only the direction of Iraq but also combating the US murderous war machine and militarism? The core issue here is not United Nations intervention. I have no illusion about it. The crucial point is organizing a massive and consistent international support for political freedom for Iraqi people and to build solidarity with progressive, secular and socialist movements in Iraq. This movement could not only force the US out of Iraq but also bring about a humane life and a viable future for the Iraqi people. Instead, there exists this perverted mentality that as more US troops are killed in military skirmishes, Americans will turn against war, and therefore the US will be forced to leave Iraq. As a result, many on the left are counting on the hope that military resistance against the occupation will increase. How many Iraqis die in the meantime? And what is this resistance? Who is heading it? How does it impact mass movement by Iraqi workers, women, etc.? Suppose the American troops are forced to leave Iraq, then what? These questions do not seem to matter for ISO as long as the US is out of Iraq.
While the US government is busy supporting and getting its cronies together in Iraq so that they can determine the future of the country, leftist and liberal/radicals in this country are standing on the side lines saying, lets leave Iraqi people alone so that they can determine their future. Such a passive position can only allow the US and its Iraqi allies (fascist Islamic groups, etc.) to crush any hope for freedom and equality in Iraq. (As I edit this article, today, the Workers Communist party Of Iraq has issued a statement that armed thugs from various fascist Islamic groups have attacked the partys office in Al-Nasriya and clashed with party members. The WCP succeeded in forcing the attackers into retreat, but the Italian police in the city intervened and arrested four members of party who were attacked by the Islamists. These are the routine activities of Islamic murderers acting like fascist squads.)
The progressive movement in the US, if it intends to stay alive and become effective, must take a pro-active role, intervene, and support the struggle for freedom, equality, secularism, and a better world in Iraq. This struggle is very much present and alive in Iraq. The Worker-Community Party of Iraq is courageously organizing this movement. It is the voice and the hope of Iraqi people. It has been the only revolutionary party that from its very inception opposed US policy against the Iraqi people, fought against the fascist regime of Saddam Hussein, and adamantly exposed reactionary Iraqi organizations that hand in hand with the US committed numerous crimes against the people of Iraq. They deserve our support and solidarity.
---------------------------------
Lurking beneath these concerns that Iraqis cannot or should not determine their own future, is fear of the possibility of an Islamic state in Iraq. First, we must argue that the Iraqis, like any free people, must have the right to determine the government of their own choosingeven if it means one with Islamic clerics in power.
-----------------------------------
This is where things get very sticky, because one can see where ISO stands on the future of Iraq. Yes, people should have the right to choose their own system of government. First of all, this right should not stop us from voicing our concern about the type of decision being made. For example, if tomorrow the French people decide to put a fascist and right wing party in power, what are we suppose to do, stand by and say nothing, claiming that we are respecting French peoples right to determine their future? In fact, the ISO correctly condemned Le Pen and his right wing party in the last French Presidential election. What are we to say about Germany where in the heart of the bourgeois democracy, the Nazi party came to power through constitutional means? Here too, one can argue, the Germans had the right to bring the fascists to power.
When in the year 2000, the Freedom Party of Austria (a right wing fascist party) was coming to power, the whole world opposed it. Should we have sat aside and said, let Austrians decide their destiny.? Of course not.
I will even go one step further, what if someone decides to jump from a high rise building to commit suicide? Are we supposed to sit by and say we respect that persons choice? Or do we have to stop him or her from doing that. I dont know what the ISO would do, but I personally think we need to stop that person. How far will we stretch the idea of self determination? Where do we stop? Where and under what conditions might it be a good idea? Where is it harmful? As I see it, there is no one answer. There are many answers based on specific conditions.
Moreover, any time there is a danger of right wing political parties coming to power, for example, in Europe, everybody screams and shouts. But, if the same thing happens, for example, in the Middle East, no one seems to raise any objection. On the contrary, everyone becomes non- interventionist and defenders of the right to self-determination. Why is fascism bad for Europe, but good for us? Why do they deserve freedom and liberty, but people in the Middle East have to suffer the most brutal inhumane regimes? What is so special about them, that they deserve a better life while millions are suffering in Islamic stricken countries? This is a racist double standard. Freedom is universal; it knows no boundary; no religion, and no culture.
Finally, where does the ISO stands on the issue of political Islam? They have to deal with this issue. They cant just run away from it and hide themselves behind anti imperialist and anti racist rhetoric. First of all, I saw nothing in their article that makes me believe that they stand against Islamic criminal regimes and murderous Islamic organizations. Second, I just cannot understand how they can say that we have to respect the Iraqi peoples right to bring criminal Islamist organizations to power without thinking that they either dont understand what Islamic regimes are (which I doubt) or they think whatever Islam is-- it is better than the US occupation of Iraq. It was this kind of populist and reactionary mentality that led most of the Iranian leftist organizations to view criminal Khomeini and his fascist cronies as anti imperialist and progressive force.
Islam today is more than the opium Marx once attributed to religion. Political Islam in the contemporary world is an extremely brutal, savage and medieval force against human dignity, freedom and communism. It is the second largest capitalist backlash against communism after the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 30s. Of course, only racism prevents western intellectuals and leftists from viewing it in this manner. If it had happened in the west, westerners would have no problem to see it the way I described it.
Without any doubt, the anti war movement in the US must struggle and continue to mobilize public opposition to the US occupation of Iraq. The war and occupation not only had brought immense misery for Iraqi people but also because it is feeding into the flames of Islamism, nationalism, and ethnocentrism. However, we must go a step further. We must not brush aside the future of Iraq as if we has thing to do with us. Nationalist isolationism is a reactionary mentality that we must cast aside. While we oppose occupation, we must stand up clearly and openly for freedom in Iraq. Freedom and human dignity have no boundaries. To this end, we need a platform on political freedom that enables and empowers the Iraqi people to choose their own system of government freely. Such platform has already been produced by Workers-communist party of Iraq. The anti war movement must adopt these basic principles of freedom as presented in WPIs Declaration on Political Freedom (see below) and organize solidarity movement with secular, progressive, and socialist movement in Iraq.
*This article was written on July 8, 2003. Later, on July 22, it was edited for publication.
*************
Worker Communist Party of Iraqs Declaration on Political Freedoms
In order to bring about a situation where free political activity for all people and political parties is ensured, political parties must be able to present their alternatives and solutions and the people must be able to practice their will in choosing a government of their choosing freely. For such an environment, the following measures must be introduced and imposed on all political forces:
1.Full and unconditional political freedom, freedom of belief, expression, press, assembly, demonstration, organisation, strike and the freedom of formation of political parties.
2.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.
3.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.
4.Full and unconditional equality of all residents regardless of sex, nationality, religion, race, ethnicity and citizenship.
5.Abolition of the death penalty.
6.The public and especially parties must have free access to the mass media. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Pugliese