Iraq, the left and the 'resistance'

David McKnight, writing in the Australian, picks out some differences between the Iraqi left and some sections of the Western left:

HAVING mobilised the biggest demonstrations seen in a generation against the invasion of Iraq, the Left and anti-war activists now face a dilemma as post-war Iraq unfolds.

For multiple reasons many times recounted, the US invasion was wrong and hypocritical. But the invasion cannot be undone. And the reality is that Iraq now has the potential for a democratic future, as well as the potential for regression if the underground terrorist resistance assumes power.

But on this issue the Western Left is divided. Do the bloody actions of the so-called resistance constitute a war of national liberation, making them worthy of left-wing support? Are Saddam Hussein's thugs comparable to the Timorese fighting Indonesian occupation? Or to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress? Or to the French Resistance against Nazi Germany?
.....
In a radio broadcast on December 31 last year, [John] Pilger told American listeners: "I think the resistance in Iraq is incredibly important for all of us. I think that we depend on the resistance to win so that other countries might not be attacked, so that our world, in a sense, becomes more secure. Now, I don't like resistances that produce the kind of terrible civilian atrocities that this one has, but that is true of all of the resistances."
.....
The fact is that in Iraq today, the Iraqi Left, as well as the vast majority of religious and political forces, denounce the campaign of bombings...

The Iraqi Left can speak with some moral authority, having been murdered, tortured and imprisoned in their thousands by Saddam for many years. They fear the resurgence of the fascist Baath Party and the rise of fundamentalism that will use anti-US struggle as a springboard to reimpose Baathism or an extreme Islamic state.

One member of the Iraqi Governing Council, Hamid Majid Musa, is a leader of the Iraqi Communist Party. His party argues that in the war the Iraqi people "chose to stand aside, watching a fight between a foreign power which they knew only too well, and a deeply hated regime".

Six weeks ago the "resistance" blew up an office of the Iraqi Communist Party and killed two of its officials.

The Iraqi communists chose to participate in the governing council because, they say, they wanted to build an alliance with other parties and social groups that were keen on participation. The council is an arena of struggle and will be a necessary step towards building a democratic and federal Iraq. One of the first newspapers on the streets in post-war Baghdad was that of the Iraqi Communist Party. Other publications of the communists have led a campaign under the slogan "No to the compulsory veil".

In recent times the governing council has strongly disagreed with the decrees of the American administrator, Paul Bremer. The council insists that the oil industry, along with other vital sectors of the Iraqi economy, must be excluded from foreign ownership.

The Iraqi Communist Party nevertheless agrees that foreign investment can revitalise the economy, while urging that wide-scale privatisation be delayed until an independent government is established.

The party says it supports genuine independence and opposes the American occupation, but through peaceful, political means, not with guns and bombs. It urges UN participation in the transition, which would include elections. (The party's website is at www.icp.org/framse1.)

Another communist group in Iraq is the Iran-leaning Worker-Communist Party of Iraq. It too has denounced the so-called resistance and warned Western leftists not to be taken in by it. A statement by its political bureau (www.wpiraq.org) argues that the bombings in Iraq "have nothing to do with the rights and future of the Iraqi people. To achieve their own reactionary objectives, these groups victimise people and sacrifice the basis of life in society. They attempt to win the support of the people by deception and by promoting Arab nationalism and Islamic sentiments among the people under the pretext of fighting the occupiers."

It goes on: "In this conflict the remnants of the Baath regime and the Islamic groups resort to blowing up civil targets and attacking the sources of people's livelihood. The WCP struggles to defeat these reactionary forces and thwart their role. It also strongly condemns attacks on social services and all the terrorist actions against people and civil institutions."

Other statements by the WCP of Iraq support the secular women's movement and their establishment of women's refuges that will be "a safe haven for women of Iraq (and) a humanist and progressive symbol in the society whose priority is to protect women's dignity". (These quotes are taken from Forward, a fortnightly newsletter of the WCP of Iraq distributed in Australia but produced in London.)

Naturally, the WCP also calls for the US to get out. But in a bitter irony that is characteristic of the new period in which we live, the Cold War enemies now have a common enemy – the remnants of the Saddam regime and the ultra-reactionary Islamic fundamentalists who have come to Iraq to kill Americans, religious enemies and communists.

The Left in Iraq has been a significant secular and modernising force since the 1930s. Given what it has suffered, it is bizarre to see armchair generals... denouncing it and presuming to give it the benefit of their wise "anti-imperialist" advice.

David McKnight is untroubled by the tension between 'the US invasion was wrong' and 'Iraq now has the potential for a democratic future', but that apart, he's on the ball. Note that in the Pilgerian night all resistances appear to be the same colour, a point I commented on a few days ago here in a different connection (see the paragraph beginning 'Third...'). Note also 'in the war the Iraqi people "chose to stand aside..."' - an option that might have been considered by some others.

(Hat tip: Jim Nolan.)