Dear Johann... posted by Richard Seymour

E-mail to Johann Hari...

Dear Johann,

You say in your article "A leading Iraqi trade unionist has been murdered. Where is the left?" that:

"The Stop the War Coalition passed a resolution recently saying the resistance should use 'any means necessary' - which prompted Mick Rix, a decent trade unionist, to resign from the STWC on the grounds that this clearly constituted support for the murder of civilians."

Three points: 1) This was not a 'resolution' but a public statement endorsed by Andrew Murray and Lindsey German, 2) The statement that was 'passed' by the meeting on Tuesday 19th October (and reported in the WRP paper News Line that same day) did not contain the phrase you cite, not even when it originally appeared on the website on October 11th and was published in the Morning Star, and 3) Mick Rix has not, in any statement I can find, or any statement you adduce, resigned because of such a phrase - albeit it is claimed (I assume correctly) that it was included in an initial e-mail on October 8th to supporters of the StWC. Rix's objections, from what I can gather, were to the criticisms of the IFTU. (If it matters, I think the bulk of them were merited). Incidentally, you note in your response to some interlocutors that the alleged words were removed from the statement after a resignation, a great deal of fuss and an Independent report. In fact, the fuss emerged after the Morning Star article. Harry Barnes MP submitted his Early Day Motion on October 14th. The Independent article appeared on October 20th. Mick Rix e-mailed his resignation on October 19th at 9.16 am.

You must be aware of the significance of these distortions - which I do not say are intentional. To suggest that this phrase was included in a 'resolution' that was 'passed' by the StWC suggests that such a view is representative of the bulk of the StWC activists. It suggests that it is, currently, the public position of the StWC. It suggests, as you surely intended if you believed what you were writing was true, that such a view entails support for the murder of Hadi Salih. I don't need to explain the significance of claiming the StWC only changed this in response to resignations and press criticism, but simply reiterate that it is not true.

On the ESF meeting at which the IFTU representative spoke, you write:

"But he was an Iraqi who didn't restrict his comments to the need for occupation troops to leave once a democratic election has been held. He also insisted on talking about the nature of the Sunni "resistance" - one of the most reactionary political forces anywhere on earth, consisting of homicidal misogynists, homophobes and supporters of Sharia law. The audience at the Social Forum booed and hissed him so loudly that he had to leave the stage."

I don't know who the 'three people' are that you have spoken to about this [mentioned elsewhere], but al-Mashadani did not make any such comments. He didn't get the chance to. The booing and hissing was orchestrated by a group called Iraq Occupation Focus, who objected to al-Mashadani's presence there. They began their protest as soon as the meeting was opened by the chair. From what I can gather, approximately 100 out of a crowd of 2000 joined that protest. Then, as soon as al-Mashadani rose to speak, an attempt was made by a small group to storm the stage. Al-Mashadani was bundled off by his minders and the meeting cancelled. The objection to al-Mashadani's presence at a meeting against the occupation was perhaps understandable since an IFTU representative named Abdullah Muhsin had advised Labour conference delegates to support the continuation of the occupation - which he later, comically, denied. But people I know who were at the meeting agree that the tactics of the protest were childish and basically ruined what could have been an interesting meeting. You may be interested to know that Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition had to make her speech over the heads of the protesters, whom she ridiculed.

In short, you are wrong to suppose that 'the audience' in toto booed and hissed; that the protest was related to al-Mashadani's surmisal of the Sunni resistance; that he made such comments at the ESF conference as you impute to him.

Again, the significance of these distortions is obvious enough. If you were right in what you said, there would have been a majority of delegates who objected to hearing al-Mashadani's views on the Sunni resistance (and therefore, implicitly, were uncritically supportive of it - and perhaps would therefore be supportive of Hadi Salih being murdered...).

[I drew much of my account of the meeting from my old mucker Meaders at Dead Men Left .]

Johann, that ends my challenge to your piece, but I'll add a few comments of my own. I personally agree that it is the legitimate right of Iraqis to resist the occupation by any means necessary. I don't mean that torturing and killing trade unionists is a legitimate part of that. And I have also said previously that groups like Tawhid wal-Jihad are not a legitimate part of the resistance (they are a tiny fragment responsible for a tiny proportion of attacks, and their attacks are typically not directed at the occupiers but at civilians). But attacking the means of repression (army, police etc) by which the occupation sustains itself is legitimate. Indeed, I fail to see how it could be otherwise.

Consider: this occupation has brought with it 100,000 deaths on a conservative estimate; it has brought torture; it has doubled child malnutrition in Iraq; it has involved the deliberate murder of civilians; the destruction of an entire city on a spurious pretext which was later disavowed (Zarqawi); napalm has been used on populated areas. Leaving aside the past heap of misery for which the occupiers can be found guilty, this record alone is an affront to the humanitarian discourse by which the occupying governments have sought to sustain their legitimacy. When Saddam did this sort of thing, no one was in any doubt about what to think of resistance.