IFTU turning against the occupation? posted by Richard Seymour

Following the recent controversy over the IFTU's tour of the US, a joint statement has been issued by US Labour Against the War, the IFTU, FWCUI and GUOE:

The principal obstacle to peace, stability, and the reconstruction of Iraq is the occupation. The occupation is the problem, not the solution. Iraqi sovereignty and independence must be restored. The occupation must end in all its forms, including military bases and economic domination. The war was fought for oil and regional domination, in violation of international law, justified by lies and deception without consultation with the Iraqi people. The occupation has been a catastrophe for both our peoples. In Iraq, it has destroyed homes and industry, national institutions and infrastructure - water, sanitation, electric power and health services. It has killed many thousands, and left millions homeless and unemployed. It has poisoned the people, their land and water with the toxic residue of the war. In the United States, more than 1700 working families have suffered loss of loved ones and thousands more have been wounded, disabled or psychologically scarred in a war that serves no legitimate purpose. The cost of the war has led to slashing of social programs and public services. It has militarized our economy, undermined our own liberties and eroded our democratic rights. We believe it is the best interest of both our peoples for the war and occupation to end and for the Iraqi people to determine for themselves.

This is quite a crucial statement, coming as it does when President Bush has just insisted that the occupation is not about to end , and has defended the war with the usual string of lies and non sequiturs, gelled together by unadulterated bullshit.

However, call me a wily old trustless cynic if you will and if you really must, but I doubt that the IFTU is about to physically dissociate itself from the occupation which it has benefited so much from. They have always pretended to oppose the occupation, but have acted to prolong it. They have rarely had a word to say about coalition violence, while disingenuously denouncing the resistance as 'Ba'athists' and 'Taliban'. Their usual line on the occupation is that of course it must end, but only when the Americans have secured order - which, as Donald Rumsfeld has said, could take another twelve years.

I would be delighted to see the IFTU deploy its immense resources and its status as the sole legal union in Iraq against the occupation. I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss anyone for life simply on the basis of past disagreements. But I'll just posit a guess that the IFTU's co-signing of this statement has more to do with the pressure it has experienced to demonstrate its bona fides than a genuine change of heart. The criticisms of New York City Labor Against the War and others are likely to remain intact.