ILC
International Newsletter
Number 22
April
15, 2003
Weekly information
dossier published by the
International Liaison Committee -ILC,
Please contact :
International Liaison Committee -ILC, c/o Parti des travailleurs - 87,
rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis,
7510 Paris France
phone : (33 1) 48 01 88 28 fax : (33 1) 48 01 88 36
e-mai l - eit.ilc@wanadoo.fr
Contents:
Amy Newell, Coordinator of US Labor Against War, Responds to Questions
by Daniel Gluckstein, Coordinator of the ILC
WHY SHOULD UNION MEMBERS OPPOSE THIS WAR?
I think the labor movement should lead the way on issues that affect all
working people in this country, the unorganized as well as the organized,
and there is no doubt that this war qualifies as one of those issues.
Working people always bear the brunt of war.
It is indisputable that wars are fought primarily by the children of
working class parents, especially now that we have an all-volunteer
armed services. You can be sure that the sons and daughters of our
multi-millionaires aren't signing up! And there are thousands of union
members who've been called into active military duty as part of this war
effort.
It is also true that working people are the most negatively affected by
cuts in social services. It is our families who rely on public education,
Social Security and Medicare, public transportation, child care, and all
manner of other government-sponsored services. We are in the midst of
the most serious economic crisis to affect this country in many decades.
Instead of spending $80 to $200 billion to wage war on the people of
Iraq, we should be spending that money to address the urgent needs of
the people here at home.
HOW HAVE UNIONS AND UNION MEMBERS REACTED SINCE THE WAR HAS BEGUN?
About a week after the war began, USLAW sent out a survey to our entire
e-mail list asking that very question. Based on the results that have
come in so far and on conversations with union leaders from all over the
U.S., it seems fairly safe to say that the start of the war has not
converted opponents of the war into supporters. Some people reported
that members remain opposed to the war but are more reluctant to speak
out or protest for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. Some reported that
the members seem more polarized over the issue. But almost every
response that we've received so far has urged USLAW to continue
educational work and to produce literature which calculates the cost of
the war in terms of the domestic impact on jobs, public services,
education and health care.
CAN UNION MEMBERS WHO OPPOSE THE WAR STILL SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?
Absolutely. Our fight is not with the men and women who are now serving
in Iraq but rather with the policy-makers in the White House and
Pentagon who put them there.
Many of us in USLAW are firmly convinced that the best way to support
our troops is to stop this war and bring them home safe and sound. I
personally think there should be an immediate end to armed conflict and
a UN-supervised disengagement process and post-war reconstruction of
Iraq.
SOME UNION MEMBERS HAVE ACCEPTED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S LINE THAT
AMERICAN TROOPS ARE FIGHTING TO FREE AN OPPRESSED IRAQI PEOPLE FROM A
BRUTAL DICTATOR. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW?
Bush's rationale for the war has shifted over time. First it was
disarming Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. Then it was
"regime change" so that Hussein wouldn't be able to provide
Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaida terrorists with weapons of mass
destruction. Only since the war began, after the U.S. invaded and no
weapons of mass destruction were immediately found, has Bush shifted
over to "Iraqi Liberation" as his mantra. In my opinion, none
of these rationalizations for the war will stand the light of day.
Saddam Hussein may very well be a ruthless dictator, but he has not
attacked the United States nor does he pose an imminent threat to this
country -- and for one country to launch an unprovoked, unilateral
military attack on another country is an utter violation of
international law and the Charter of the United Nations, which the U.S.
is pledged to respect and uphold.
Do you remember the outrage with which most of the world greeted Saddam
Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990? Well, most of the world is viewing
this U.S. invasion of Iraq in much the same light today.
The facts are that UN weapons inspections were working and Iraq was
being disarmed of the weapons prohibited to it after the 1991 Gulf war.
The facts are that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the
horrible terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The facts are that this
war will not make Americans safer; to the contrary, it will fuel more
terrorism and more hatred of the U.S. within the Muslim world. The facts
are that no matter how brutal a dictator Saddam Hussein may be, killing
and maiming thousands of Iraqis is not the way to "liberate"
them.
WHAT ARE USLAW'S PLANS FOR CONTINUING TO OPPOSE THE WAR WHILE SUPPORTING
THE TROOPS?
There has been no decision by USLAW regarding future activity -- there
simply has not been time to pull together a meeting of this far-flung,
decentralized coalition of labor organizations that are on record
opposing the war. We are having an expanded leadership meeting at the
end of April and UE will be among the unions represented there, deciding
what will come next.
I hope no matter how this war progresses -- ending quickly or dragging
on -- that USLAW will become a continuing voice within and outside the
labor movement on the contradiction between Bush’s permanent war
economy and the needs of working families. We should help the labor
movement make the "guns or butter" issue central to its
political and legislative work.
Back to Home Back
to ILC Newsletter Index
|
Open World Conference of Workers