Left engagement with Iraqi people

Mike Cowley

There is a debate emerging on the Left (in which the Citizen has thus far had little intervention), around the issues arising out the continued occupation of Iraq by 'Coalition' forces. This objective reality has resulted in a fragmenting of the Left's position over the future of the country, a schism that is mirrored domestically in the anti-war movement's inability to construct a post-invasion common front in support of the Iraqi people.

A fundamental question arises out of this confusion, a question that the left ought long ago to have resolved -what the hell are we for anyway, and what, in the final reckoning, are our non-negotiable values?

We need to raise this problem because of the emotional spasms, which, for some months now, have been masquerading as intellectual rigour. For instance, have the Left lost so much confidence and self-belief that we exist merely as a biddable choir, eager to bellow abuse at every bloody adventure that appears to go wrong for our own ruling classes? Is the apex of the Labour Left's ambition to give Blair a sore nose at Party Conference? I ask these questions because, after casting a weary eye over the varied positions of the Left in the anti-war movement, it would require an industrial dose of revolutionary optimism not to conclude that some basic socialist ground-rules are slipping from their moorings.

Ken Livingstone, George Galloway's Respect Party, the anti-war movement and elements at the recent Social Forum in London, seem to be intent on trajectories which, it seems to me, fly in the face of the most basic socialist tenets. Muslims are being courted as Muslims (including electorally) and not as a beleaguered minority culture under attack abroad and at home who deserve our critical support. I emphasise the critical aspect here without qualification. The Left is humanist and secular or it is nothing. Our solidarity is not conditional, but the nature of that solidarity is predicated on belief systems that are antithetical to religious systems of thought.

If our first and most fundamental priority is establishing the conditions -as far as our agency can establish those conditions -whereby working people can effect their own emancipation, the public vitriol heaped upon, for example, the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions displays a worrying lack of clear-headedness and principle on the part of those who would, it seems, prefer clerical-fascism to take root in Iraq than a trade- union who are insufficiently left-wing. Are we as the British Left really that opportunist that it is now our default position to support anyone -anyone! -who can deliver a by-proxy bloody nose to US and British forces? On the home-front, this 'ask-no-awkward-questions' rallying to the self-appointed leaders of the Muslim community is a chastening spectacle indeed. Couple this alongside our intemperate idealising of far-right Individual Terrorism in Iraq, and the Left has (again!) some serious soul-searching to contemplate. It is time we soberly faced the situation that actually presents itself.

It shouldn't require restating, but -deep breath -here goes: it is the Left's duty (particularly in light of the relative comfort zone of liberal democracy inhabited by 'First World' Leftists compared to the conditions which many comrades in the developing world have to contend with) to, in all circumstances, demur from apolitical, tribal anti-imperialism in favour of bottom-line orientation to working class self-emancipation. The IFTU is politically bereft, and may well be objectively colluding in the Occupation, as well as the sell-off of Iraqi assets. In this, it reflects the political position of its main sponsor, the Iraqi Communist Party. Both organisations represent their constituencies with little credit, but they do have a constituency. Whether we like it or not, the struggle of the Iraqi people to create the public vitriol hea~ upon, for example, the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions displays a worrying lack of clear-headedness and principle...

a secular civil society (even under an elected Islamic government of whichever shade) within which autonomous working class politics can take root, cannot happen either under the present murderous conditions, much less the circumstances likely to prevail in the aftermath of a victory for a Baathistllslamic Fundamentalist victory. Where amongst the insurgents are the representatives of the organisations who might happily work with socialists, trade unionists, feminists, and secular liberals? It would appear that the Left would rather see someone wreak havoc amongst our ruling classes, even if their defeat would result in the worst possible circumstances for anything but the most clandestine labour movement politics.

So what should we say? More importantly, what should we do? One option is a position of 'defencism' -critical support for the establishment of liberal democracy allied to a consistent exposure of the real and ulterior motives of the war and occupation -and a concrete recognition of the circumstances under which a troop withdrawal must take place.A clear date must be set for just this eventuality, a date around which the anti-war movement could mobilise demands for Iraqi autonomy in industry and commerce, as well as politics. It is the duty of every socialist to combine our exposure of Coalition mendacity with practical fund-raising and solidarity work on behalf of genuine Iraqi trade unions, irrespective of whether we approve of their politics or not.

The alternative is a 'defeatist' position -the hope that a force more able than our sorry -selves might inflict some bloody confusion on our domestic bourgeoisie. We have to make up our collective mind here. I remain against the invasion. I oppose the barbarity of the occupation, the war-profiteers, and the ideology of Permanent War emanating from the White House. But I am for the self-emancipation (and preservation) of ordinary Iraqis.

Our choices are slender; though, unlike ordinary Iraqis, we are hardly at the business end of the consequences to which a wrong perspective may expose us. We either demand that the troops come home now, sit back and watch any sliver of light fade in the fury of civil war and reaction, or we demand free and fair elections, a date for withdrawal, the restoration of full economic and political sovereignty, and most crucially, assert our solidarity with each and every manifestation of working class self-organisation within Iraq.

We can and must reconcile our anti-war reflexes with a sustainable outlook that prioritises those spaces that can best be exploited by the Iraqis themselves. The Left, as so often, has to define itself in circumstances not of our choosing. In doing so, we should suppress the psychology that wills defeat on our enemies, regardless of whether, in the fire of such nihilistic hubris, the very people we seek to support are engulfed in the flames.