WeeklyWorker

05.02.2009

Stop the slander

Letter from International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran protesting against claims made in the Weekly Worker

In an article entitled ‘No attack on Iran’, written by Yassamine Mather, the writer says: “Former activists of the International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran (IASWI) had gradually moved to the right under the influence of the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) - international labour organisations that are deeply compromised politically. They have been more or less silent on the role of imperialism in the Middle East and have acted as junior partners in implementing the reactionary agenda of the US and its allies …

“So it was no surprise to see exiled Iranian IASWI activists issuing a leaflet in Farsi last year claiming that imperialism and war were not important to the issue of defending Iranian workers. It is ironic that inside Iran these forces encourage trade unionists not to challenge either capitalism or the regime. This statement led to major debates within the Iranian left both inside and outside Iran” (Weekly Worker October 16 2008).

Another article (in Weekly Worker December 18 2008) repeats similar irresponsible and false claims about the IASWI by another member of Hands Off the People of Iran.

We are writing this response for the readers of the Weekly Worker and others that have read the above two articles. The International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran is a campaign of labour activists in different countries that have been working collaboratively since 1999 (formally established in January 2000), to provide news and information and organised international solidarity campaigns in support of workers’ rights and struggles in Iran.

The IASWI is a non-sectarian/non-partisan campaign. We work with labour activists, being Iranian or from any other parts of the world, to raise awareness and solidarity with working class struggles in Iran. Our members and colleagues, in the past nine years, have included labour activists with no political affiliation, as well as socialist and communist activists and progressive labour activists who are members of unions and labour organisations in different countries and Iranian labour activists in exile. Although they all have socialist and leftist tendencies, there is no common political tendency amongst our colleagues. They have only agreed to follow the IASWI’s goals and principles in support of the working class struggles in Iran.

We support the formation of worker organisations in Iran that are independent from the government and capitalists. Therefore, one of our widely known main principles is that we strongly oppose any collaboration with or receiving financial support from any governments, government-sponsored institutions, capitalist organisations and corporations in any parts of the world.

We also have had a strong position against the war on Iraq or against Iran or any other countries by the US and its allies. We have issued numerous statements and drafted numerous resolutions in support of workers’ struggles in Iran and in opposition to war, military intervention and sanctions against Iran (see www.workers-iran.org). The IASWI has persistently highlighted the need to strongly oppose war and sanctions, while supporting the ever growing workers’ struggles and labour movements in Iran.

What is more disappointing about the above articles in the Weekly Worker is that not even once are IASWI documents or statements mentioned or referred to.

Mather’s article claims to address the positions of various opposition groups abroad on the war against Iran - here we are talking about tens, if not hundreds, of organisations and political parties; but one wonders why only “IASWI activists” (and not even the IASWI itself) are repeatedly referred to without any mention of the strong anti-war position and the numerous resolutions which were drafted and promoted by the IASWI - without any actual quotation highlighting IASWI’s strong stance against any military attack or sanctions against Iran.

Is it too difficult to guess only the US and the Islamic regimes’ apologists would benefit from such flawed articles? These articles are also about the defamation of a progressive, worker solidarity campaign that has been organising numerous actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, mostly in partnership with many other progressive and leftist non-Iranian and Iranian groups. These two articles are clear examples of irresponsible and unprincipled sectarianism.

The IASWI was the first labour group in the Iranian labour movement, in Iran or abroad, to issue a strong statement against the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (the Solidarity Centre). Our statement and interviews raised enormous awareness amongst labour activists in Iran and abroad and were a big factor in preventing the Solidarity Centre’s influence in Iran. We made it clear that the Iranian labour movement opposes any support or contacts from instruments of the US administration and other capitalist institutions and governments. Contrary to the implicit accusations by Mather and her colleague, the Iranian labour movement, both inside Iran and in exile, is progressive, independent and anti-capitalist, with strong socialist tendencies.

The IASWI has been promoting genuine and transparent worker-to-worker solidarity campaigns. We have organised, in partnership with progressive labour organisations, forums and discussions to strategise actions/campaigns in support of worker-to-worker solidarity with the Iranian labour movement and to build effective links between progressive Iranian groups and progressive labour and anti-war movements.

Without any proper referencing, Mather writes: “IASWI activists issuing a leaflet in Farsi last year claiming that imperialism and war were not important to the issue of defending Iranian workers.” We do not know which statement or “IASWI activists” Mather is referring to. As an academic, Mather probably knows that her article falls short because of lack of proper citation and references and unsubstantiated arguments.

For the record, all of the IASWI’s statements carry a signature and are posted on our Farsi and/or English websites (please refer to some of our statements against war and sanctions). Therefore, even if some members of the IASWI had issued a leaflet in Farsi with their own names and in their individual capacity about war or any other subject, they should be held accountable for their own statements - of course, with proper citation and documentation. It seems that Mather and her colleague, who wrote the above two articles in English, were counting on the ‘limited knowledge of non-Iranian readers’ about the dynamism of the left and labour movement in Iran - and also on the fact that very few Iranian labour and left activists read their articles. It is absolutely clear that these antagonistic claims about the IASWI are neither true nor ethical.

Again, which “forces encourage trade unionists not to challenge either capitalism or the regime”? Despite its relatively small size as a non-sectarian labour solidarity campaign, the IASWI has been a persistent force against the Islamic regime of Iran and against the government-sponsored Workers’ House and Islamic Labour Councils. The IASWI has organised various campaigns or actions in defence of workers’ struggles and against the Islamic regime and employers and capitalists in Iran. One can agree or disagree with our actions, demonstrations and campaigns, but cannot deny them.

Even in their individual capacity, many of our colleagues have written numerous articles against the regime and capitalism; against the Solidarity Centre and the rightwing and reformist central labour bodies; against the ILO and pro-capitalist tripartism; and against the US and its allies’ war and sanctions against Iran, Iraq and so on. Of course, all these activists put their own names on their articles and should take responsibility for their personal writings. If anyone intends to critique their work, they should accurately quote their writings or interviews, clearly mention their names and challenge them in whatever capacity they introduce themselves in their articles.

As the IASWI, we defend statements and actions signed/endorsed by the IASWI only and that is all. Therefore, we ask Yassamine Mather and her colleague to stop the slander against the IASWI.

Finally, it is very disappointing to see that the Weekly Worker has published such accusatory articles, with falsified information, without even checking the authenticity of their allegations or even asking the writers to be more factual and substantiated in their arguments. We therefore cordially ask the Weekly Worker to also post or publish our response to these articles.

Yassamine Mather replies

Many of us in the Iran solidarity movement have shown a lot of restraint when it comes to exposing the International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran - mainly to save further embarrassment for this ‘alliance’.

However, as those involved seem keen to endure total exposure, let us give facts, dates and links which reveal their true politics - we have, however, decided to identify IASWI activists using only their initials, although many Farsi readers will be well aware of who they are. Of course, the Farsi reader is already familiar with IASWI’s history and no research is necessary to delve into it: over the last three months our mailboxes have been full of resignation letters from activists of this organisation, each exposing yet another aspect of the group’s shady politics and lack of principles.

None of this is new; the IASWI soft line on imperialism was publicly exposed in 2004 during open discussions held to set up a unified campaign in solidarity with Iranian workers and plans for a fund to support them. During those discussions, some of us were adamant that the campaign and the fund should take a principled stance in opposition to imperialist war and that the activities of a campaign in solidarity with Iranian workers should not be tarnished by association with rightwing unions such as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the American Federation of Labor/Congress of Industrial Organizations - which have a history of collaboration with successive US administrations. This line was opposed by leading IASWI activists, who defended ICFTU texts - audio files of some of these meetings exist online and can be verified.1 Indeed they disrupted all attempts to set up a united campaign and continued with their own ‘alliance’ precisely so they could continue with such collaboration.

At the same time a number of leftist activists in Canada were telling us that ICFTU and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) were working closely with Solidarity Centre (set up by the AFL/CIO) and we should be wary of approaches by these organisations.

The joint campaign did not happen. In the open meetings held in Iran Socialist Forum, Torab Saleth and myself argued against any collaboration with pro-US organisations and criticised IASWI, amongst others, for failing to take a consistent anti-war position. They did not respond. When they eventually wrote a short statement opposing the war, it was not published in English.

If we are to believe their protestations, throughout 2006, 2007 and 2008, when there was a constant threat of war against Iran, when sanctions were getting harsher every month, IASWI managed a total of three leaflets on the vital issue of war and imperialism. Strangely enough, however, these leaflets only appeared on their site in late 2008! In fact, in stressing its ‘anti-war’ stance, the IASWI’s ‘Stop the slander’ letter (above) refers to a leaflet dated January 20 2009 (four months after the publication of the article where I mention the IASWI and a month and a half after Torab’s speech at the Hopi conference in December!). There has been no mention of war, sanctions or imperialism in the main slogans of any of the protests IASWI has organised over the last four to five years - most of them in support of calls made by the ICFTU.

A number of recent articles in Farsi, written by ex-members of the IASWI, reveal that in internal discussions leading activists had openly expressed the opinion that there was nothing wrong with accepting financial help from Solidarity Centre.2 In the summer of 2006, activists in Canada exposed the fact that members of IASWI had given details, including addresses, of labour activists in Iran to an ICFTU team visiting Tehran - at a time when innocent labour activists inside Iran were being arrested and accused of “collaborating with US agencies”.

One would have thought that at this stage IASWI would have expelled those responsible and ended its relationship with the Solidarity Centre. It now claims it did so by expelling MK, who was responsible for these links. However, again according to its own former members, it was in fact MK, having gained support in Solidarity Centre/ICFTU circles via his membership of the CLC, who was distancing himself from IASWI. It was for this reason that leading IASWI members YK and FP were sent to “discuss the situation with him”.

Following this visit they announced to their members in August 2006 that MK had agreed to continue his collaboration with IASWI. Then in December of that year, when the relationship with MK was not getting anywhere, the IASWI leadership wrote an internal letter in Farsi explaining how “the trade union position held by [MK] in Canada does not allow him to accept decisions which run counter to his union’s rules. Therefore we have amicably separated, but will continue to cooperate with him”.3

Even this poor excuse of a letter was not published on the IASWI site until late 2008 - before that it had just been emailed to a few individuals. At the time, not one word was said against the Solidarity Centre or ICFTU.

In fact IASWI continued its collaboration with the ICFTU and, despite all the protestations, it has not changed its policy towards this federation. In the last few weeks, IASWI has denounced MK: not for his unsavoury associations, but - wait for it - because he has used his contacts within the CLC to turn them against ISAWI!

On November 22 2008, at an open internet meeting, where labour activists inside and outside Iran discussed the issue of solidarity with sugar workers, a number of activists inside the country expressed disgust at those who were irresponsible in their attitude to workers’ solidarity in Iran and whose relations with “US regime change organisations” had endangered the lives of labour activists there. Some speakers named MK, and by association IASWI, as forces guilty of such behaviour.

On November 26 - four days after the shit had hit the fan - IASWI issued a public statement (again only in Farsi), announcing that it had expelled MK and that this expulsion had taken place in early 2007 (18months earlier)! However, MK subsequently claimed that whatever he did, during the many years when he was a leading IASWI member, was with the full knowledge of the rest of the leadership; and that accusations against him are attempts by these individuals to cover their own tracks.

These revelations have opened the floodgates. Hardly a day now goes by when there is not a letter of resignation from IASWI, when there is not an article by an ex-member exposing this or that aspect of its past policies. In an open internet meeting held on December 19 2008, former associates of IASWI spoke at length about its involvement with the Solidarity Centre. Audio tapes of this meeting are available on a number of sites.4

The following points have been made by these former associates of IASWI:

During the December 19 internet meeting, BS, a well known labour activist from inside Iran, kept on asking IASWI members: why did you not tell us earlier about any of this? None of the IASWI members responded.

As we have said, the official line of IASWI is that, with the expulsion of MK, they have ‘dealt with’ the issue of the Solidarity Centre. However, the fact that they kept this ‘expulsion’ an ‘internal matter’ (ie, a secret) speaks volumes.

No wonder its own members do not believe the explanations - that is why so many have resigned and exposed what was going on. Over the last few months, Farsi-speaking activists have been inundated with information about the shenanigans of IASWI.

This is not the first time that opportunists have attacked the refusal to accept aid from pro-imperialist trade unions as ‘sectarian’ and it will not be the last time. However, given the sorry state of IASWI, I wear this particular accusation of sectarianism with great pride. They could not have given me a better compliment.

Let me end by emphasising that none of the workers or labour activists who had been taken in by this organisation had any knowledge of its connections with the ICFTU/ITF or Solidarity Centre until very recently. All of them, including those in the regime’s prisons, are completely innocent of accusations of links with US ‘regime change’ funds.

It is in fact the perseverance of labour activists inside Iran that has led to these revelations and, respecting their wishes, I can only repeat what they keep telling anyone who listens: any kind of ‘worker solidarity’ tainted by US-funded, pro-imperialist unions is harmful to our cause. You are endangering workers’ lives inside Iran and you are in fact creating problems for the labour movement, making it more difficult to win genuine international working class support. Stop it!

Notes

1. The Farsi text was about the ICFTU’s visit to Iran. Farsi speakers can listen to Torab Saleth on the need for a workers’ fund (www.socialist-forum.com/audio/sandough1.mp3). Interventions by IASWI activists, including AF and others, opposing the restrictions proposed by comrade Saleth on the kind of support one can accept, can be heard at www.socialist-forum.com/audio/sandough2.mp3 (from 2 minutes, 17 seconds onwards).
2. See, for example, R Moghadam, ‘The dangers of corruption in the Iranian labour movement’: www.wsu-iran.org/azad/rm_kater_fesad.htm
3. A copy of this letter is available at www.etehadchap.org/iaw1
4. For example, www.salam-democrat.com/spip.php?article20495; and the website of Free Workers House (Khaneh Kargar Azad): www.fwhi.org/audio.htm

Other links

For the Solidarity’s Centre’s relations with the ICFTU in relation to Iran, see www.solidaritycenter.org/content.asp?contentid=613 . Its setting up by AFL/CIO is explained at www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Solidarity_Center

For details on how, in 2005, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (Solidarity Centre) obtained $185,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to ”support the emergence of a sustainable independent labour movement” in Iran, see www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/2501 . The NED also provided aid to the organisations involved in the (temporary) ousting of Hugo Chávez in 2002.

The US site Regime change Iran reports favourably on the Solidarity Centre at regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/02/solidarity-center-demands-release-of.html

The Solidarity Centre’s own approving reference to IASWI can be found at www.solidaritycenter.org/pageprint.asp?contentid=557 (foot of page).