14.07.2004

Marxism 2004: Iraq: imperialism and the politics of resistance

Peter Manson reports on a very one-sided meeting, in which leading SWP member Alex Callinicos expressed his support for "the resistance", "whatever its political form, whatever its banner"

In the session, ‘Iraq: war, resistance and revolution’, SWP comrades were rushing over themselves to restate their one-sided and therefore highly problematical attitude towards the occupation.

The session was introduced by two Iraqi comrades - Sabah Jawad of Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation; and Ibrahim Allawi, editor of The Future, a Baghdad weekly. Neither comrade explained their political background, but I got the distinct impression that they were former ‘official’ communists who had left the Iraqi Communist Party, disgusted by its collaborationism.

Although both comrades are now based in Iraq, neither was able to provide anything approaching a worthwhile analysis of the various forces on the ground. Comrade Jawad’s speech was largely unremarkable, concentrating on US imperialism and its supposed reasons for invading Iraq - for oil, US power and Israeli interests, he said.

While he gave some details of the extent of the breakdown in the infrastructure of Iraq - the complete absence of public transport outside Baghdad and one or two other cities; the signs of looted state property everywhere - as far as the resistance to the occupation was concerned, he contented himself with the allegation that, when there were bombs that caused large civilian casualties, they were very likely laid by the US occupation forces themselves.

Comrade Allawi’s description of the internal political situation also left a lot to be desired. He told of the widespread disillusionment with the ICP - first for its former attachment to Ba’athism and now for its participation in the ‘interim government’. As a result, he said, even some “materialists” had turned to religion. However, he declared, the religious parties were now losing support - but he did not offer any evidence for this or attempt to suggest which secular forces were allegedly replacing them.

Comrade Allawi described how imperialist sanctions had led to the disappearance of the middle class - so much so that today in Iraq “there are only two classes”. He did not elaborate on this puzzling statement. Presumably he divides Iraq into the mass, both in the cities and countryside, who are barely eking out a living, and the new elite of collaborators, gang masters, security experts, speculators and general rip-off merchants.

An Iraqi comrade claimed from the floor that the imperialists had brought with them mercenaries whose job was to orchestrate the looting and smuggling of assets across the border. The occupation forces were trying to foster divisions, but “There will be no civil war. The Iraqi people are aware of American and British tricks.”

In this he was backed up by Alex Callinicos, who stated that the occupation forces were “encouraging communal strife”. While, of course, we too are “aware of American and British tricks”, these assertions, for comrade Callinicos, served to cover up the often antagonistic divisions amongst the anti-occupation forces.

“We support the resistance, whatever its political form, whatever its banner,” he said. This was later echoed by other SWP speakers. One said: “The success of the resistance, whatever its nature, will be a victory for us. The important thing is the defeat of the imperialists.” Jonathan Neale bloodcurdlingly added that, although he might weep for the relatives of those western contract workers shot or blown up in Iraq, “Every time one is killed, it is a victory for the resistance.”

But Callinicos went further: while we should “hope” that “the restoration of the left can take place” in Iraq, we in Britain “don’t have the right to tell [workers] who to support”. Leave aside the nonsense about telling - ie, ordering - workers who they should support (of course, Callinicos himself acts as the overbearing emperor within the SWP’s own International Socialist Tendency), communists and revolutionary socialists in Britain, and for that matter throughout the world, have a duty to support, encourage and if need be fearlessly criticise the left and workers’ movement in Iraq.

Yes, we are for the right of Iraqis to self-determination. That does not imply in the slightest, though, that we should be, or are, indifferent as to how this right is exercised. The struggle for socialism and human liberation is global and involves all countries.

Hence it is vital to differentiate between the various strands of the anti-occupation resistance. Not that we in Britain should only call for our troops to be withdrawn when they are likely to be replaced by the ‘good guys’ - a seemingly leftist stance adopted by the comrades in the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty which actually amounts to a barely disguised form of social chauvinism. No, on the contrary, communists in Britain - authentic communists, that is - unconditionally demand the end of the occupation. Neither US nor British forces have any right to be in Iraq - and that is the long and the short of it. So, to put things in their starkest, most easily understood form, we can say we would prefer the victory even of an out and out reactionary like al Sadr to the victory of US-UK imperialism.

Within Iraq itself we can safely say that, with due consideration of the material balance of forces, it can be perfectly principled to enter into non-aggression pacts, temporary agreements and joint actions with islamist forces, Kurdish nationalists and even elements of the old Ba’athist regime in order to send the main enemy packing. Indeed without such an infinitely flexible approach political progress is all but impossible.

Yet it must be emphasised at every stage that, while we are trying to maximise and concentrate the blows directed against our main enemy, though many of them are delivered by thoroughly obnoxious allies, there is every possibility that tomorrow these very same people will seek a deal with imperialism, run away from the struggle or, just as likely, turn on us. Were imperialism to be driven out of Iraq by a mass popular movement led by islamist reactionaries, we need only look to neighbouring Iran to get some idea of the kind of fate workers, trade unionists, secularists, women and democrats would suffer.

It is not enough to “hope” that the left can revive. We must do everything in our power (even if, at present, it is only the power of words) to ensure that it wins leadership of the anti-occupation movement - at the expense of the islamists and Ba’athists. Our internationalism is of the proletarian kind, not the uncritical ‘the Iraqis know best’ diplomacy that the SWP now seems to share with the Stalinites.