Open
World Conference of Workers
In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights
October 26 Antiwar Rallies and
the US Labor Movement
Dear Sisters and Brothers
On Saturday, October 26 an estimated 75,000 people marched in San
Francisco in opposition to a new U.S. war against the people of Iraq. A
similar demonstration in Washington, D.C., drew more than 150,000 antiwar
protesters. Both actions were initiated by the International ANSWER
coalition.
A number of labor speakers addressed the gathering in San Francisco --
including S.F. Labor Council Secretary-Treasurer Walter Johnson and ILWU
Local 10 officers Richard Mead and Trent Willis -- and a few unions
organized contingents at the rally (including the United Educators of San
Francisco and various AFT locals). But by and large the organized labor
movement had a low profile in the San Francisco action -- even though
thousands of unionists marched in a wide array of community coalitions,
many carrying Labor for Peace and Justice signs and banners.
[We are still compiling information about the scope of organized labor
participation in the D.C. protest action. The only report we've received
so far came from coverage by C-SPAN and KPFA Radio, which broadcast the
speech to the Washington rally by ILWU Local 10 Secretary-Treasurer
Clarence Thomas. We welcome reports from participants in the DC action
and/or from people with access to internet articles on that march and
rally. Please send your reports to the OWC at ilcinfo@earthlink.net
.]
Without a doubt, the strong endorsement by the AFL-CIO leadership of the
Bush administration's "War on Terrorism" and invasion of Afghanistan
in the aftermath of 9/11 has contributed to this lack of labor
participation in this growing antiwar movement.
Having said this, however, there are many recent indications that rifts
have developed within the house of labor on the question of U.S. foreign
policy -- rifts that, no doubt, have been fueled by the proliferation
across the country of Labor for Peace and Justice committees, or Labor
Against War committees, many of them endorsed by unions at a local and
even state level. At the same time, significant union bodies -- from the
Washington State AFL-CIO, to the California Federation of Teachers, to
local labor councils -- have taken a stance against the "endless
war" (including the new war on Iraq) orchestrated by the Bush
administration with the overwhelming support of Democrats in the Congress.
Gloria Johnson, national president of the Coalition of Labor Union Women,
and Bruce Raynor, president of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and
Textile Employees (UNITE), are some of the top labor officials who have
openly questioned the Bush administration's rush to war with Iraq, noting
that they see no sensible argument justifying such a war.
Perhaps the most significant development, thus far, in this growing labor
chorus against war came in the form of an Oct. 7 Open Letter to John
Sweeney by Gene Bruskin, the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO's Food and
Allied Trades Department. Bruskin said Bush's foreign policy "is
designed to serve the same corporate interests that drive his domestic
policy, making the world safe for U.S. multinationals," adding:
"In the era of globalization the two cannot be separated." [See
full text of Bruskin's letter below.]
Also, very significantly, Bruskin called upon Sweeney to open a wide
discussion within the labor movement about U.S. foreign policy. He stated:
"Now that you [Sweeney] have stepped forward on this issue, I hope
you will promote broad discussion and action in the labor movement. Labor
councils around the country could be encouraged to continue to take up
this issue. The pages of the AFL- CIO publications could be open to debate
and education about the War on Iraq and Bush's War policies. Our members
could become a force in shaping this policy."
Bruskin here is referring to a letter to Congress dated Oct. 7 in which
Sweeney made a shift from his unconditional endorsement of Bush's foreign
policies, insisting that "war must be the last option, not the
first" in resolving the Iraq question. This was the first statement
by the AFL-CIO leadership on the impending U.S. war against Iraq.
Sweeney's carefully crafted letter neither endorsed nor opposed war
against Iraq, though he did not rule out endorsement of military action
against Iraq if all possibilities of a "peaceful settlement through
the United Nations" had been exhausted. Sweeney stated that the
AFL-CIO "fully concurs with the need for an unfettered [arms]
inspection system" so that any subsequent action is "predicated
upon conclusive proof" about the extent and nature of an Iraqi
threat.
Sweeney's stance has been opposed strongly by activists and leaders in the
Labor for Peace and Justice movement, who insist that the United States,
which is the No. 1 producer and supplier of weapons of mass destruction
around the world, has no right -- legal or moral -- to police the world,
let alone invade another sovereign nation, in the name of eliminating such
weapons. These activists have also spoken out against any cover the United
Nations might provide for a U.S. war against Iraq.
On Sept. 19, 2001 -- only eight days after the horrific incidents of Sept.
11 -- the San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO) issued a statement warning
against the recourse to war and violence by the U.S. government in
response to these shameless acts. At the conclusion of its statement,
copies of which were distributed widely across the country and
internationally, the S.F. Labor Council called on the entire labor
movement to promote a full and open discussion about U.S. foreign policy
and what way forward to attain peace and justice.
The letter below by Gene Bruskin shows that there is an urgent need to
promote this discussion within the labor movement. We urge all unionists
and activists to distribute widely this letter by Gene Bruskin and to
submit resolutions to your unions, labor council and state organizations
calling for such a discussion on foreign policy within your own union
bodies as well as at the highest levels of the trade union movement.
In Solidarity,
Ed Rosario and Alan Benjamin
Co-coordinators,
OWC Continuations Committee
********************
FOOD & ALLIED SERVICE TRADES
AFL-CIO
1925 K Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006-1132
October 7, 2002
Dear President Sweeney
I am taking this unusual step of writing to you because these are unusual
times I am referring both to the challenges the labor movement faces and
the political climate created by the War on Terrorism and the threat of
war with Iraq.
In many ways, the labor movement is at a turning point in our ability to
organize new members, to win strong contracts and to affect social policy.
This is the result of the economic downturn, the evolving high tech
economy, the vehement employer resistance to unions and, importantly, the
hostile or at best indifferent political leadership at all levels of
government.
These and other factors have partly stymied the bold initiatives that have
characterized your leadership, including raising labor's political
profile, championing immigrant rights, expanding organizing and mobilizing
our members in support of pro-worker legislative initiatives.
Since 9/11 an even more dangerous and powerful dynamic has taken over the
public and political discourse of our country, the War on Terror. This is
a War described by the Bush Administration as a 30-40 year effort. The
promise of a Peace Dividend with the end of the Cold War has disappeared.
In fact, Bush's War policies appear to be a long-term Cold War-type
strategy on steroids, moving into high gear with all out war in Iraq.
There is no doubt that the US faces a serious challenge following the
horrific acts of 9/11. We clearly need heightened security at home and a
concerted international effort abroad to find and arrest those intending
to commit future terrorist acts.
I do not believe, however, that Bush's War policies are designed to
increase domestic security. They are, rather, a Trojan Horse for his
pro-corporate domestic and international agenda. His War of Terror and War
on Iraq have little to do with promoting security for the US citizenry.
Rather, his foreign policy is designed to serve the same corporate
interests that drive his domestic policy, making the world safe for US
multinationals. In the era of globalization the two cannot be separated.
I believe that the Labor movement must take the lead in opposing Bush's
War policies if we are going to succeed at advancing our own goals of
improving the lives of the US working class. Here we will have to set the
pace for the Democratic Party who in large measure fear to challenge the
President's security-related initiatives.
Labor has been clear and vocal about the dangers of Bush's domestic
policies, but we have been naïve at best about the objectives of his
foreign policy. We have attempted to fully support an anti-worker
President's War on Terrorism while fighting the effects of the War on our
members.
I believe it is a losing strategy for us because we are fighting the
symptoms and not the disease. The War on Terrorism (and Iraq) and the
domestic effects of the War are of one piece. To support the War is to
invite all the inevitable political and economic effects. We see our civil
liberties shrinking through the US Patriot Act (which will be used against
unions), Federal government workers losing their union rights, the ILWU
being threatened with Bush's intervention, our immigrant rights campaign
seriously setback, our efforts for global justice waning and more -- all
in the name of national security.
Iraq is the most blatant example of the ill-intended Bush policy of
preemption. Saddam is clearly a dictator who may possess or wish to
possess dangerous weapons. But the timing of this version of Bush's War
and the extremely aggressive posture of the US against Iraq are largely
unjustified by the threat. Already the drums of War have succeeded in
dramatically 'wagging the dog', changing the stories on the front pages of
our nations' papers from the failure of the Bush administration to halt
the economic decline and end corporate corruption, to the President's bold
leadership in protecting the US and the world from the imminent threat of
an Evil Monster.
The whole world can see that the timing was done to give the Republicans
the advantage in November, and it appears the strategy is working. But the
labor movement hasn't called him on it, despite the substantial damage
Republican success in November would do to US workers. There is
considerable suspicion among our members and much of the world, that this
is very much a war for oil, a favorite commodity for the Bush-Cheney
crowd. Multilateralism has been reduced to threats, bribes and bullying,
undermining the role of the UN.
The potential downsides of this War are breathtaking. The Administration
has estimated that 'Regime Change' in Iraq could cost up to $200 billion,
aggravating the deficit and removing any chance of labor's current
domestic priorities being implemented. In fact, the massive increases in
War related spending already underway would make policies such as broad
health care reform impossible. This will inevitably result in shrinking
state budgets, with dramatic implications for local health programs and
government services that so many Republicans would love to cut.
It is highly likely that some and perhaps many US soldiers will die, for
Saddam may have hesitated to release his weapons, fearing US retaliation,
but if he is going down, he will have nothing else to loose. In addition,
many thousands of Iraqi civilians will inevitably become the collateral
damage of this war. Beyond the damage in Iraq itself, by bombing Arabs we
will surely create a flood of Bin Laden supporters in the Islamic world
and very possibly cause other dangerous and destabilizing effects..
I believe that we ignore this ominous trend at our peril. I urge you to
speak out forcefully, to begin to publicly challenge Bush's obsession with
War. We in the labor movement understand that promoting global justice and
human rights is the best way to fight hatred and terrorism. I applaud you
for beginning to discuss these issues in the Executive Council and
communicating your concerns to Congress. Now that you have stepped forward
on this issue, I hope you will promote broad discussion and action in the
labor movement. Labor councils around the country could be encouraged to
continue to take up this issue. (see the attached statement from the
Washington State Labor Council). The pages of the AFL- CIO publications
could be open to debate and education about the War on Iraq and Bush's War
policies. Our members could become a force in shaping this policy.
Your leadership could make a substantial difference in how we define war
and peace as well as justice and progress in the 21st century. In an
interview shortly before his death, George Meany told David Frost 'If I
had known then what I know now, I would have acted differently about the
(Vietnam) war.' We all have much to learn from him in this regard.
The outcome of Bush's policies is not inevitable. There are some voices
that will be listened to. Yours is among them. Thank you very much for
considering my thoughts.
Sincerely,
Gene L Bruskin
Secretary-Treasurer