|
Letters on: Iraq, IWW, Unions, Ireland, Note to subscribers
_____________
Weapons Inspections and U.S. War Against Iraq Dear friends, The Guardian (of London) is reporting that Tony Blair has promised
George
Bush that the UK will be on board with an invasion of Iraq if Iraq refuses
to admit
UN weapons inspectors. If no pretext presents itself to justify the US invading immediately,
then we
must now anticipate that the US may fall back on a
weapon-inspection-before-invading strategy. The Bush administration clearly wants to attack and will pounce on any
pretext
to use the war plans that are flying about and urged by many within his most
inner
core of confidants, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney. But despite all the activity now in the Middle East --including now the
resumption of US naval interception of shipping in northern Red Sea after an
8 year
hiatus (reported in a small blurb in the Philadelphia Inquirer in the
International News section 29 July) to add to the constant news of new troop
movements, diplomatic efforts, US bases being expanded, and the CIA doing
its
darnedest to get something started --there may not arise a pretext that
satisfy the
voices that still want more allies and fear domestic fall out if the US
strikes
pre-emptively and then suffers casualties. Israel may be urging the US to
strike
Iraq, but Israel is at the same time making it difficult for the US to act
on its
own. With this developing scenario, we may very soon see "weapons
inspections" back
in the news, with all the lying that accompanies this. Let us all immediately bone up on the evidence of US infiltration of
UNSCOM
[United Nations Special Commission] and of the amount of man-power and money
spent
by Iraq in cooperation with weapons inspections, for which they received
less than
nothing - they received continual lies and no response to the valid
objections they
posed about there being no standard for compliance and attack on Iraqi
sovereignty
as the UN was collecting intelligence for the US air war. These valid arguments against UN violations of international law are even
stronger today, where the UN is expected to send in a "team" to collect
intelligence on Iraq weapons all the time while the US is studying war
plans, is
actively and publicly promoting a coup against Saddam Hussein, and has
publicly
threatened to launched a strike pre-emptively to remove Saddam Hussein even
if Iraq
cooperates with weapons inspection. Even "moderate" Colin Powell has said
publicly
that Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspection will not stop the US from
continuing
its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein. Everyone in the anti-sanctions movement needs to make their objections to
UN
weapons inspection crystal clear, based on the history of UNSCOM which
actively
investigated Iraq from May 1991 to December 1998), so that the UN will not
again
wage war on behalf of the US in the name of disarmament. The new weapons inspection effort, UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring,
Verification, and Inspection Commission) is headed by Hans Blix and he has
honestly
stated that there is no workable compliance standard now defined for weapons
inspections in Iraq, so that he will NEVER be able to say, for the record,
that
Iraq is "disarmed" because this is like saying there is no needle in the
haystack;
it cannot be honestly ever said. The US knows this and refuses to answer
this
pivotal question: how can Iraq see a light at the end of the tunnel? The obvious and cynical manipulation of "disarmament" by the US through
UNSCOM
and through its latest effort at weapons inspection while bombing and
blockading
Iraq undermines all US spokespeople who say they are for "peace" and
"disarmament."
So no one should say yes to weapons inspection until Iraq's points of
objections,
already delivered to Kofi Annan and well-known to the Security Council, are
specifically and publicly addressed. In solidarity, _____________
Iraq war update The current war "debate" within the mainstream
media
has been as predictable as the recent hearings in the US Senate. Instead of
a
debate on why the US is at war with Iraq, the issue has been carefully
framed as a
wide ranging tactical discussion of HOW to wage war on Iraq. Some advocate
full-scale invasion, military coup d'etat, or assassination, others advocate
continuing the policy institutionalized in the Clinton years of
"containing" Iraq.
The US containment strategy consists of the no-fly-zone airwar against Iraq,
the
reintroduction of UN weapons inspectors, and sanctions. It is a dangerous illusion that the critics of the Bush administration
have
stymied the war drive, and saved us from a mad rush towards war in the
Middle East.
All of these "opponents" of the Bush war plan steadfastly insist on their
overall
support for the war on Iraq. For supporters of the human and sovereign rights of the Iraqi people the
central
challenge before us is posing an alternative to this current pro-war
"debate." We
need to look for opportunities to raise a clear alternative to the
twelve-year war
by demanding for an immediate end to the airwar over Iraq and ending of the
sanctions. 2) Recent war moves Israel supports war on Iraq August 16, 2002, AP reports Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Prime Minister
Ariel
Sharon, urged U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against
Iraq. Israel
has also stated the willingness to launch a nuclear attack on Iraq if
attacked. US threatens Saudi Arabia to support war on Iraq The 7 August 2002 Philadelphia Inquirer reported "A briefing
given
last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an
enemy of
the United States and recommended that U.S. officials give the country an
ultimatum
to stop supporting terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its
financial
assets invested in the United States." And "The decision to bring the
anti-Saudi
analysis before the Defense Policy Board also appears tied to the growing
debate
over whether to launch a U.S. military attack to remove Iraq's Saddam
Hussein from
power." Besides threats to seize Saudi assets from Washington, the Saudis have
been
accused in a civil suite of supporting terrorism that seeks billions in
damages in
the name of victims of September 11 attack. The threatened Saudi investments
in the
US are estimated at $750 billion. (Philadelphia Inquirer Aug 19, 02) US steps up economic war on Iraq Last year the US purchased 8.5% of its imported oil from Iraq. The
August 20
Philadelphia Inquirer reports that over the last five months US oil
companies are
purchasing less oil from Iraq. "A UN expert on Iraq's oil industry, Michel
Tellings, told a UN Security Council committee in a closed door session
yesterday
that US imports had fallen from about one million barrels a day five months
ago to
between 100,000 and 200,000." An expected shortfall of $20 million a day
will hit
the funding of UN "food-for-oil" program that uses Iraq's oil income to
seeks
provide a bare subsistence for millions of Iraqis. And the bombing of Iraq continues... The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), headquartered in Tampa, Florida,
on 17
August released news of another bombing attack in southern Iraq. This is the
second
airstrike against Iraqi radar installations this week. The other attack was
on 14
August. The Central Command claims the bombing attacks are "in response to
recent
Iraqi hostile acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly
Zone."
The "Coalition" is Britain and the US.
[As this issue of SeeingRed is
sent off
for posting [1 September], bombings have stepped up --8 attacks in less than
two
weeks. --editor] _____________
The War on Iraq The debate in Washington rages on, but the
debate
isn’t about war: war with Iraq is a given, as far as Washington is
concerned.
Where are the voices who say: the US does not have to be at war with the
people
of Iraq--this is a choice, not a destiny? Who within American ruling circles will stand alongside Nelson Mandela,
appalled
by the US leading the world into international chaos and war? The US war on Iraq is now out in the open, and so those foreign leaders
who
ignored the war for twelve years, by confining their criticisms of
sanctions,
embargo, and bombings to diplomatic channels, are now forced to say openly,
yes or
no, to US war on Iraq. The answer is resoundingly no. Yet the Bush
administration
forges on, confident it can make its case to the American public, once the
President himself finally decides exactly how to do the deed. And Kissinger
reassures us, that IF the US speaks with one voice, the allies will fall
into
place. A united future lies ahead. The scenario is playing out in a hauntingly familiar form. When we
remember the
post 9/11 build-up to war in Afghanistan, it’s like revisiting the
present.
All the talk of debate, all the good talk about alternatives to war, until
it
became obvious that war was the only possible outcome. Here today, war is
still the
only possible outcome. War without end, amen. The Bush Doctrine. We have long been warned that war on Iraq would be Phase Two of the US
war on
terrorism. As a friend remarked during the Labor Day Parade in Philadelphia, the US
is not
going to transfer all that fire power to the Persian Gulf, build a new air
base in
Qatar, send two billion dollars worth of helicopters into Kuwait, and not
make use
of what it has. The Saddam Must Go rhetoric has gone too far, it is too
backed up
by superior force, to allow Bush to back away, and he has the long-time
support of
Congress behind the goal of regime change. Things are going to get worse
before
they get better. That's our prediction. Within Congress we can expect no opposition to war on Iraq. In its
hostile
stance toward Iraq, Congress has been led not only by Republican hawks, but
also by
pro-war Democrats, notably Joseph Lieberman, Gore’s running mate, whose
adamant support for immediate US war on Iraq segues with his vehement
approval of
Israel’s war on the Palestinians. America is being primed for Congress to return to Washington and vote on
war,
knowing that the vote will be a yes vote. We are now primed for the
President to
lead us into war, with a solid case and a battle plan for success in finally
uprooting the evil Saddam Hussein. Nothing less will satisfy the political
and
military build-up. The hoopla. Nothing less could match the outpouring of
emotion
that will accompany the first anniversary of 9/11. With the world openly standing against it, the Blair/Bush pro-war
arguments, if
accepted politically within the US and acted on, will cry havoc and unleash
the
hounds of war, with a civil war in Iraq poised to erupt on a scale
completely
different from the inhumane and de-developing chaos the US has insured in
Afghanistan. The Arab states, Turkey and Iran have critical interests at risk, as does
Israel, who can be expected to act preemptively once the US acts
preemptively (if
not before). The US will not allow the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt to
be
neutral; their pivotal bases and armaments are only nominally in their
control, and
these will become vitally necessary for the US to occupy and operate
directly, in
the case of regional war. If Iraq is to be attacked and taken over in the name of exclusive US
control
over weapons of mass destruction, then what we face is a United States
ideology in
favor of imperial war, openly espoused and acted upon. I cannot imagine that
there
will not be worldwide resistance to the playing out of this ideology, within
and
outside the United States. In solidarity, _____________
IWW, Unions
J. writes:
Eckardt responds:
It's a diversion. A tiny group continues to carry the name today
of the
venerable old organization and has organized a few small locals. It means
nothing
--actually, less than nothing-- for reasons I'll get into. There are a number of historical lessons worth relating. One involves the failure of the IWW (back 80-100 years when it meant
something).
The IWW [Industrial Workers of the World] was an anarcho-syndicalist
organization --in other words, an anarchist union that attempted to gloss
over the
distinction between a fundamental working class self-defense organization
(the
union) and a political organization with its own program (in this case,
anarchism).
Though of course the IWW anarchist leadership would object to being
called
essentially a political party, truth is that they had a political program
... and
therefore were a political party, deny it however they might. Forming an organization whose program opposes organizing political
organizations
is nothing but ... organizing a political organization. Anyway --both in regard to the IWW and the party-based labor unions built
in
France, Germany, and a variety of Latin American countries-- party-based
unions
have been nothing but failures that serve only to divide the working
class. No
surprise given that the concept of a union is to unite workers in the face
of the
competition forced upon them under capitalism. Unions are the fundamental
unit of
working-class self-defense. Any limitation on unity -- like agreement with a political program, or
limitations on race, gender, nationality, or citizenship-- only undermines
the
unity that must lie at the heart of a union. The second point (a related one) has to do with the importance of
relating to
the existing mass organizations of working class self-defense -- in other
words,
the unions that actually exist. To ignore these formations of millions of workers (not to mention the
fact that
most of the absolutely key industries are still unionized) is like ... I
don't
know, trying to change China by building a commune in New York's
Chinatown. A
complete misunderstanding of scale, location, and of the importance of what
has
actually been WON already (no matter how awful its flaws). In other words, the Chinese Revolution exists ... the product of titanic
battles
involving hundreds of millions of people. No matter how rotten its
leadership, no
matter how much they would like to become capitalists themselves, truth is
capitalism hasn't been restored in China. China is not ruled by
U.S. imperialism
(to Washington's great frustration and wrath). Yes, there needs to be a revolution in China to remove the rotten
counter-revolutionary bureaucracy --which is increasingly openly
pro-capitalist--
but it won't be a revolution to OVERTHROW the original Chinese revolution,
but to
ADVANCE it. Same thing goes with the unions --real organizations built in big battles
whose
very existence limits/vexes U.S. capitalists. There's a world of difference between a union-organized workplace and an
unorganized one (and the only reason the difference isn't far greater is
that the
existence of unionized workplaces tends to pull up the unorganized ones [and
likewise, the unorganized pull down the organized]). So no matter how rotten and pro-capitalist the leadership of the existing
unions, the unions themselves need to be defended -- and built. In fact the
battle
to transform the unions into class-struggle fighting organizations is at the
center
of the fight to both transform/save the unions, and to overthrow U.S.
capitalism. Obviously this can't be accomplished by building minor parallel
organizations
that are counterposed to the existing unions, let alone an organization
doubly
doomed by adherence to a political ideology (plus rendered even more
worthless by
being outside of basic industry). All this has been subject to a great amount of discussion in the history
of the
workers movement, so there's a lot of good stuff to read. Trotsky's "Trade
Unions
in the Era of Imperialist Decay" is probably the best single one
(www.PathfinderPress.com).
J replies: when i read through the IWW history between 1905-1924 i tend to
feel
warmth in regards to their language. it seems they were a political
appendage of
the working class people who decided to refuse capitalism's golden prison
bars. wage increases and short hours are great but what does it really mean in
terms
of the overthrow of capitalism? anyway, it sounds much better that the AFL-CIO business bullshit i've
been
dealing with. i really have little idea of what these people are trying to
do. they
seem ultra-nationalistic. Eckardt responds: No question about the goals of the IWW. Their aim was to bust out
of the
trap of "better working conditions" (i.e., continued slavery), plus they
there were
100% when it came to solidarity with other struggles. Heroic, grand, and worth learning from. But the rap about being clear what a union is and what a party is still
stands. As for the ultra-nationalistic AFL-CIO (jeeringly called the AFL-CIA by
some),
you're right. But you can't let the leadership's politics turn you against
our
class's enormous accomplishment of unionizing basic industry -- in other
words, to
allow them to hijack all that we've fought and died for. Bad analogy, but
suppose
the hierarchy of the Catholic Church converted to Mormonism ... if you're a
Catholic are you gonna just say OK and start over with a storefront and let
them
keep the 7 million churches and parochial schools -- all of which
real
Catholics spent trillions of hours and dollars building??? Meanwhile you've got to realize that the reactionary leadership of the
unions
reflects a REALITY. Now, I'm always the one to point towards the positive,
insurgent developments in the U.S. working class --the increasing weight of
immigrants, the few actual battles that occur, etc. etc. In fact SeeingRed has two key messages/functions --on the one hand to
alert
workers in the imperialist world (especially the U.S.) to the horror that
their
fellow workers face in the rest of the world ... in other words, to promote
the
idea of international working class unity against the foul dead-end pit of
patriotism. But the other key thing --and in a certain sense it's the rarer and more
important thing-- is to send the word to the rest of the world that
U.S. workers
aren't wealthy ignorant flag-wavers ... to convince Cubans and Iranians and
Argentines etc. etc. to orient towards and try to win U.S. workers to their
side. This is also absolutely critical for changing the world. U.S. workers can (and will) be won to the international struggle for
justice. OK. Now that that's said, it's still true that the existence of the
AFL-CIO
leadership isn't some alien-imposed anomaly. If the union leadership were
Islamic
fundamentalists (or even hardcore revolutionaries), believe me, the ranks
would not
put up with it. Fact is that it reflects the low political consciousness of
the
U.S. working class. On the other hand, the ranks are not hopeless reactionaries. Working
people
strive constantly to stand up and defend their interests. The union
bureaucracy's
main function is to keep the ranks quiet however it can (usually with
promises that
the professionals will take care of whatever beef people have). How to function in this situation? What's called for is a flanking
action. On the one hand you can't turn your back on our class's biggest
achievement in
the United States --mass trade unions. But neither can you embrace the union
bureaucracy." --or deal with them simply traitors to our cause that are
imposed
against the will of the vast majority. You flank. You BUILD the unions, you do everything to encourage the ranks to get
active
while simultaneously backing anything that increases their consciousness AND
self-confidence. You put your arm around the leadership and smilingly hold them to their
(you and
I know EMPTY) promises to be pro-union. And then you leave them no exit
--because
you got the ranks moving and thinking-- but to go ahead and do the job
they're
supposed to be doing. Fidel did exactly this with the counter-revolutionary leadership of the
Soviet
workers state. You can dirty yourself --and HAVE to dirty yourself-- because you're
dealing
with reality .... but meanwhile your eyes are on the ranks and you're doing
everything you can to build a movement --not an untimely doomed movement
aimed
against the union tops -- but a movement against the capitalists. A movement
under
the umbrella of past accomplishments (the union) ... an umbrella that you
try to
corner the anti-union, pro-capitalist union leadership into holding up
themselves. Remember, much as you want to get rid of them, their existence is a
reflection
of reality ... and you DO want them to do the job they're supposed to
do
--defending workers. Of course you're still building a movement that will ultimately sweep
them
aside. Got it? Not the clearest explanation, but it's a complex situation. Best thing to do is to read the Teamster series by Farrell Dobbs
(available at
PathfinderPress.com) and you'll see it in exquisite action. It's the
riveting story
of the 1930s transformation of the Teamsters Union from a small craft union
into a
large industrial union, a struggle led by real Reds (members of the [U.S.]
Socialist Workers Party). Similarly, go over everything that Cuba did, especially vis-a-vis the
Soviet
Union (and note that they've now reached the point where they can open
greater
distance from the Stalinists; quoth Fidel this past January: "Today I feel
like I
should erect a monument to the collapse of the Soviet Union because it made
us
stronger and made us free. The ideas we sustained are much more noble than
the
ideas developed over there.") Complex stuff --but also fairly simple. Get your hand on the Dobbs books
and
you'll get it nice and clear..... _____________
Holy Cross: East and North Belfast are in dire need of help.
Pamela writes a friend about growing sectarian violence
Of course the RA
[Irish Republican Army, mass-based
national
liberation
organisation --editor]
is being blamed for most of this, and
NOTHING
could be
further from the truth! Believe me! They are doing NOTHING! And if that
sounds a
bit facetious, it is. I can see in Ardoyne that they come on the street when
something happens, but they do nothing to help or protect the people. So
that crap
about blaming them for "orchestrating" riots...pure rubbish! Attacks are getting more vicious here. The UDA
[Ulster Defence
Association,
racist paramilitary organisation --editor]
is using guns and blast bombs
at
this point. They used petrol bombs last night, and a child was taken to the
hospital because he/she was injured. THAT didn't make the papers...because
it was
on Alliance and the family was Catholic. Two houses were petrol-bombed, and
both
now have the backs pretty well gutted. Not a word of that hit the news
here. The cops are getting worse. Today they are suffering from the dreaded
"I-Want-To-Be-An-Asshole" Syndrome. They are stopping the black taxis from
North
Belfast and hassling the drivers.
[The black taxis are run by the
national
liberation organisation --editor]
Sometimes demanding the passengers get
out
for one reason or another. Troop levels are on the increase definitely. The nightly attacks on
Alliance
have begun again. They stopped for a few days, but they started again. As an
interesting turn of events, this time they are attacking Nationalist areas
in
multiple locations, not just one at a time. That should ensure nicely that
even
more troops be brought into play, and more cops be brought back. The attacks
are as
bad as the 60's according to most of the people. But more vicious now. Politically they (unionists
[supporters of union with Great
Britain
-editor])
are still trying to drive Sinn Fein out
of the assembly, which
they
will
not be able to do, but they are able to walk themselves and cause problems
that
way. But as of today, they have not done so. I think it won't be long - will
be a
stupid move on their part tho. Holy Cross parents are going thru hell. But these people are going thru hell trying to prepare themselves for God
knows
what. How do you prepare a child for hate? Not a pretty picture is it? Not a
lot of
hope here. Fr Troy is trying his best to reassure the Holy Cross families and the
others
who live in Ardoyne, but even he says he's at a loss. All he can do is offer
support, and when it comes time to fight against the wall, he'll do that in
court. The wall...they want it to go in front of the first 3 protestant houses
on
Ardoyne Road, then a see-thru-type fence after that up to the
school. Neither side
wants that. The unionists want the entire road realigned, and a fence put
up, the
nationalists want no such fence.
Hope you and the family are doing well, and hope the weather is
cooler. Take care. na Saoirse, "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace"
KELTIAD _____________
Editor's note People who subscribe to the SeeingRed mailing list should expect
to
start actually getting some occasional mail --things like key articles, and
important speeches by Fidel Castro. Fear not a slew of email. Do welcome a way around our numerous problems
with the
current server. Anyone who'd like to be added to the list can click on the 'subscribe'
button,
or email me at Seckardt@aol.com
(careful on the spelling of 'Eckardt'). The
privacy
policy is simple --names on the mailing list are never divulged to anyone
for any
reason. By the way, anyone who emails me is always answered (ok, sometimes it
takes a
little while). If you don't hear back, I didn't receive it. Re-check the
spelling
on the address ... and you can also try emailing through this site. Steve Eckardt
_____________
home
|
subscribe
|
talk
|
help-about
|
back issues
|
resources
|