Thursday, September 12, 2013. Chaos and violence, Moqtada al-Sadr makes an announcement, Atheel al-Nujaifi clears up a matter, Iraqi women garner some press attention, Vladimir Putin offends a number of people (including Nancy Pelosi and John McCain) by citing international law, and more.
Starting with Syria. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, “Assad is said to have given an interview to Russian television announcing his intention to cede control of the arms to the international community. He will reportedly endorse the Russian plan, and say that it was Russia’s efforts, not US threats, that led to his decision.” The spotlight is on Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has a column in the New York Times. As Cedric‘s “He reads” and Wally‘s “THIS JUST IN! SHOCKING!” note, US Senator John McCain is outraged. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi avoids the issue of war:
Her avoidance of the topic of war is because she’s supporting it. As Joseph Mayton (The Progressive) reported earlier this week, California’s eighth district is not happy:
In the heart of San Francisco, a stone’s throw from the United Nations Plaza and the Civic Center, scores of residents gathered in front of senior Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi’s office to push for an end to what one protester said was the “war-mongering that we saw in the lead up to the Iraq war.”
For many, the calls for war are a return to the George W. Bush era of violence as an appropriate response.
To many of us in the eighth district, Nancy has morphed into The Bride of Bush. Meanwhile Zaid Jilani (Moyers & Company) notes the morphing taking place in the Republican Party:
In 2011, that started to change, when dovish Republicans like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) took office. In his foreign policy coming-out speech at Johns Hopkins University, Paul said he would “rather send some…professors around the world than I would our soldiers” and would “rather do that than go to war with Iran.” In May, 26 Republicans voted for an amendment by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) to implement a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan that only narrowly failed. Later that year, 225 House Republicans joined 70 Democrats to reject authorizing military action in Libya after hostilities began.
Two years later, Paul took to the floor of the Senate to conduct a talking filibuster to protest the expanding use of drones. While he started virtually alone, his act of protest eventually drew enough popularity to culminate in 34 votes against the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director – with the majority of the Republican caucus, 31 senators, standing with Paul.
John McCain, Nancy Pelosi and other assorted idiots are appalled by Putin’s column. Why? Here’s the section that upset them the most:
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization – the United Nations – was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by security council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without security council authorisation.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilise the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
As Betty explained last night:
Sorry but Putin is right. Without approval from the UN Security Council, a US attack on Syria would be illegal and constitute an act of aggression — per international law.
I’m not outraged that Putin’s lecturing Barack but I do find it telling of just how awful Barack has been that Vladimir Putin is comfortable calling him out.
On the world stage, Barack is a joke and he has no one to blame but himself.
For those who may have missed how international law works, IPS analyst Phyllis Bennis has repeatedly explained explained it. We’ll include her speaking to Peter Hart on FAIR’s Counterspin two Fridays ago:
Phyllis Bennis: Only if the [United Nations] Security Council votes to endorse the use of force is the use of force legal. No other agency, institution, organization has that right. So the Kosovo precedent that you refer to and that unfortunately this is being talked about in the press. It’s being asserted that if the Security Council doesn’t agree, there are other options. Yeah, there are other options. The problem is they’re all illegal. The Kosovo model was illegal. What the US did in 1999, when it wanted to bomb, to start an air war against Serbia over Kosovo, realized it would not get support of the Security Council because Russia had said it would veto. So instead of saying, ‘Well okay we don’t have support of the Security Council, I guess we can’t do it,’ they said, ‘Okay, we won’t go to the Security Council, we’ll simply go to the NATO High Command and ask their permission.’ Well, what a surprise, the NATO High Command said ‘sure.’ It’s like the hammer and the nail. If you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you’re NATO everything looks like it requires military intervention. The problem is, under international law, the UN charter is the fundamental component under international law that determines issues of war and peace. And the charter doesn’t say that the Security Council or NATO or the President of the United States can all decide over the use of force. The only agency that can legally approve the use of force is the Security Council of the United Nations. Period. Full stop.
Jon Greenberg and Louis Jacobson (PolitiFact) speak with international law experts and their conclusions are the same as Bennis’ conclusion and they point out, “The most important consequence of the United States flouting international law would likely be a loss of credibility whenever it sought to invoke international law down the road. Ignoring international law in one context makes it harder for the United States to invoke international law in other scenarios when the United States believes it furthers national interests or global security.” Bennis and Rev Jesse Jackson (Z-Net) weigh in on Barack’s speech Tuesday night:
Still, the President unfortunately reserved the right to launch a military strike if the diplomatic effort does not succeed, and we urge Congress to oppose any such military authorization.
Ann Garrison (CounterPunch) notes, “President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Prime Minister David Cameron have all by now invoked Rwanda, 1994 as reason to drop Cruise Missiles on Syria, so I spoke to Paul Rusesabagina, whose autobiography, An Ordinary Man, became the Hollywood movie Hotel Rwanda, in the interest of clarifying the invocation.” Use the link to read the transcript of her interview. Click here to visit her site where she’s posted the audio of the interview (KPFA Evening News). Yesterday, Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor‘s Jane Arraf Tweeted some basic facts about the civil war taking place in Syria.
This afternoon, Free Speech Radio News (link is audio) reported on Syria.
Dorian Merina: As the conflict in Syria continues, efforts to find a diplomatic solution continue with US Secretary of State John Kerry arriving in Geneva, Switzerland today to begin two days of talks with Russian officials on securing and eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. But the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal report that the US has been sending shipments of weapons and other supplies to the Syrian opposition’s army at the same time it pursues these peaceful negotiations. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said the US must stop threatening military force and arming the opposition in order for diplomacy to work. On Capitol Hill, FSRN’s Alice Ollstein has more.
Alice Ollstein: A United Nations spokesperson told news outlets Thursday that it has received documents from the Syrian government regarding the prospect of joining the chemical weapons convention — the first step of a Russian-backed proposal for the government of Bashar al-Assad to turn over his chemical weapons stockpiles to the international community. But in an interview with the Russian TV network Russian 24 on Thursday, Assad said the continued threat of military strikes from the United States as well as US supplied arms to the opposition could derail this diplomatic progress. White House spokesperson Jay Carney defended the arms shipment in a press conference Thursday.
Jay Carney: The President on down has said that we are — have been — stepping up our assistance to the Syrian military opposition, no question. The issue of Assad’s chemical weapons is separate from our policy response to the civil war in Syria. And that response is built around humanitarian support for the Syrian people, assistance to the opposition — including assistance to the Supreme Military Council as well as an effort with a broad range of allies and partners — including Russia — to bring about a resolution of that civil war through a political settlement because that is the only way to end that war
Alice Ollstein: But many peace advocates, international law experts and former government officials say the weapons shipments will only fan the flames of the violent conflict. Ray McGovern who worked in military intelligence for 27 years told FSRN he’s concerned the arms shipments will hurt the negotiations between Russia, Syria and the United States and so they’re also likely to prolong the fighting on the ground.
Ray McGovern: It’s chaos and so for us to be sending weapons into that calculus? Well, it’s just to give sop to the CNN crowd to say, ‘Well we’re doing what we can to help the rebels’ — al Qaeda and al Nusra, the most belligerent anti-American factions are the ones that are doing all the effective fighting. The other factions, such as they are, will either join them or give up their weapons to them or whatever. I mean this is a civil war in the most messy sense.
Meanwhile Adbusters ponders the selectivity of Barack’s outrage over chemical weapons:
The use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium in Iraq are a violation of the same international law Obama is now righteously defending. As we see the piles of dead children in Damascus, we’re reminded of the pictures of deformed babies in Fallujah, Iraq. On August 29, 2013, a decade after the US invasion of Iraq, Al Jazeera reporter Dahr Jamail points to videos of babies born in Iraq with horrendous defects and malformations. This is the legacy the morally upright US left in Iraq. Jamail says, “we are seeing a rate of congenital malformations in the city of Fallujah that has surpassed even that in the wake of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that nuclear bombs were dropped on at the end of World War II.”
Meanwhile, as Assad admits to its chemical weapons stash and considers handing it over to avoid attack, Obama still, albeit tentatively, considers striking..
Chemical weapons being used in Syria would be bad. Chemical weapons being used in Iraq is nothing to acknowledge. It’s a highly selective outrage. Larry Kaplow (NPR) observes, “Iraq is one of those slow-boil crises — not as dynamic or transformational as a military coup in Egypt or a civil war in Syria. Refugees aren’t creating havoc on the borders. Iraq’s government doesn’t seem on the verge of falling. Instead, Iraqis are stuck in a middle ground: A daily life wracked with danger but without enough upheaval to raise international alarm.” AFP’s Prashant Rao discussed violence on Twitter today.
Turning to today’s violence in Iraq, National Iraqi News Agency reports a Ramadi bombing claimed 3 lives and left four people injured, 1 army captain was shot dead in Mosul, 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul (17-year-old male who had previously been taken into custody by the military), and a Ramadi car bombing claimed 2 lives and left two more people injured. Lu Hui (Xinhua) reports, “Three soldiers were killed and 31 soldiers and would-be soldiers wounded in a suicide truck bomb attack targeting an Iraqi army recruitment center near the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday, a local police source said.” KUNA notes a Ramadi home bombing which “killed three and injured three others including women and children.” Also on violence, UNAMI issued the following today:
Baghdad, 12 September 2013 – The Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (DSRSG), Mr. Gyorgy Busztin, condemns in the strongest terms yesterday’s suicide bomb attack against a mosque in the northern area of Baghdad, which killed and injured dozens of worshipers, as they were exiting after evening prayers.
“This heinous act of violence which shocked the country, shall not undermine the belief in peaceful coexistence among the Iraqi people,” Mr. Busztin said, extending his deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims and wishing a speedy recovery to the wounded.
In other news, AFP and Al-Akhbar report that, “The survivors of a mass killing in an Iraqi camp housing Iranian exiles were moved during the night to another camp on the edge of Baghdad, the United Nations said on Thursday. The Iraqi authorities ordered the transfer of the 42 in the wake of violence in Camp Ashraf in the central Iraq province of Diyala on September 2 in which 52 members of the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran died.” Reuters adds, “The dissidents belong to the Mujahadin-e-Khalq (MEK), which wants Iran‘s clerical leaders overthrown. They are no longer welcome in Iraq under the Tehran-aligned Shia Muslim-led government that replaced the late Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein.”
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that — they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled “Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,” Amnesty International described this assault, “Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike.” April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, “Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out.” Those weren’t the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that “since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf ‘noncombatants’ and ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Conventions.” So the US has an obligation to protect the residents. 3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, ” A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release.”
The United Nations issued the following today:
12 September 2013 – A United Nations official in Iraq today announced the successful relocation of the last group of Camp Ashraf residents to a camp near the Baghdad area, pending their resettlement outside the country.
“The process, concluded today, has come a long way since its launch in February 2012, with the Government and the residents both abiding by the agreement between the UN and the Government of Iraq on the transfer of Camp Ashraf residents to the temporary transit location of Camp Hurriya,” said the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, Gyorgy Busztin.
Camp Ashraf was comprised of Iranian exiles, many of them members of a group known as the People’s Mojahedeen of Iran.
More than 3,000 residents have been relocated to Camp Hurriya, previously known as Camp Liberty, while the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) carries out a process to determine their refugee status, and resettle them outside of the country, in line with an agreement signed in December 2011 between the UN and the Iraqi Government.
Camp Ashraf has been attacked several times, making relocation a priority for the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). The latest attack, which took place earlier this month, killed and injured numerous camp residents.
“The tragic events of 1st September, when 52 residents lost their lives in a terrorist attack, while seven others are still unaccounted for, was a sombre reminder of the necessity to conclude the final phase of the relocation process without further delay,” Mr. Busztin said.
“Resettlement outside Iraq is now the priority, and it is urgent that countries ready to host the residents come forward to accept them, providing them a safe future outside Iraq.”
Mr. Busztin also called on the Iraqi Government to abide by its commitment to ensure maximum safety and security for Camp Hurriya residents until all of them leave the country.
While the UN spins happy, there are outstanding issues not noted above — chief among them, missing people. AFP reports, “The UN has urged Iraq to investigate the disappearances but there has been ‘nothing so far’, [UNAMI spokesperson Eliana] Nabaa told AFP.” The National Council of Resistance of Iran states:
Kamal Amin, spokesman for the so-called Ministry of Human Rights of Iraq said today: “Iraqi security forces have detained these individuals for attacking their own forces (Iraqi security forces).” (Voice of Free Iraq, September 12, 2013).
As such, 11 days after repeated denials, the Iraqi government accepted responsibility for the abduction of seven members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) and said that the seven missing PMOI members have been detained by the security forces. He preposterously claimed that they had been arrested because they had attacked the security forces.
The Iranian Resistance’s President-elect, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, demanded urgent action by the US Secretary of State, the UN Secretary General, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the ICRC to secure the immediate release of the seven hostages and their return [to Liberty].
In recent days the seven hostages were seen in blue prison uniforms in Maliki’s Golden division.
Turning to Iraqi politics, Kitabat reports cleric and movement Moqtada al-Sadr has finished trips to Lebanon and Jordan and paid his respects to his late father at the Najaf shrine and is now ready to re-enter political life. Moqtada has surprised many by announcing he was stepping away from politics. Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi publicly called for Moqtada to return to politics. Allawi’s sentiments were echoed by Iraqis of all sects, not just Shi’ite members of Moqtada’s movement. In a statement issued today, Moqtada acknowledged those calls and announces he will heed them.
Some felt the move was a stunt and said so in real time. Whether it was a stunt or not (it felt like a real announcement and decision to me when he announced he was walking away from politics), the move underscores how important Moqtada has become to Iraqi politics and how he could command respect in the role of prime minister. Because of the stances he has taken in the last three years, Moqtada the politician is seen as fighting for the interests of Iraq. That’s a huge shift from the early years of the war when Moqtada was seen by many Iraqis as only interested in Shi’ites (and only in fundamental ones at that).
Of all the leaders decrying the occupation, Moqtada was viewed with the most suspicion outside his Shi’ite followers. That might have had to do with youth. It might have been that he was being judged against his father (a problem Ammar al-Hakim is still struggeling with). There was an understandable and natural rallying around Moqtada in early 2008 as Nouri attacked Basra and Sadr City. But with his public return to Iraq just a few years ago, Moqtada has made for a more worldly and mature figure. In statements and actions, he’s made nods to Sunnis and Kurds and to a more inclusive Iraq.
Iraqis of all sects have grown weary of the violence and of the leaders like Nouri who only represent a part of Iraq and whose actions are attacks on other Iraqis. At a time when the Iraqi people are feeling a universal kinship with one another (which is the only reason a full blown civil war is not taking place currently) Moqtada has emerged as a national figure embracing a national Iraqi identity.
Nouri al-Maliki wants a third term. Whether he’s worked that out with the US or not, he wants it. Ayad Allawi remains a powerful political rival but Moqtada is the truly threatening one for and to Nouri.
Sunday, we noted Nineveh Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi had an arrest warrant out. Alsumaria notes that al-Nujaifi appeared before the Integrity Committee today in Baghdad and the warrant has been rescinded. Hopefully, that ends the matter. While Atheel was in Baghdad, his brother was in Turkey. All Iraq News notes Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi met with Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss mutual relations and how to ease tensions. Furthest distance traveled for a meeting this week may go to the Kurds. Hurriyet Daily News reports:
A delegation from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is in Washington to hold meetings with U.S. officials, including senators, congressmen, think tank policy researchers and companies to update them on developments in the Kurdistan Region, Iraq and the wider region.
Minister Falah Mustafa Bakir, Head of the Department of Foreign Relations, and Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the KRG High Representative to the U.K., met Brett McGurk, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iran and Iraq at the Department of State, and Kelly Clements, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration, the KRG website reported.
No one’s had it easy in post-invasion Iraq. Women have been targeted with violence and targeted by politicians who have repeatedly attempted to strip them of their rights. In the face of all this, Iraqi women have remained strong. UNAMI notes:
Years of repression, economic sanctions, and armed conflicts have led to deterioration in the lives of women in Iraq and an associated loss to the country since women are marginalized and unable to contribute economically, socially, and politically. Iraqi women today suffer from a lack of educational opportunities, a lack of health care and limited access to the labour market as well as high levels of violence and inequality. These conditions are often exacerbated by misconceptions of traditions, cultural and social values, false perceptions, and a lack of awareness of women’s rights and potential, as well as institutional and legal barriers.
She set her small body on fire after pouring several liters of kerosene over herself and lighting a match. This is how she ended her life after her father refused to allow her to marry her lover and insisted she marry someone she did not know.
Kalnaz, Shahnaz’s younger sister, described the incident to Al-Monitor: “It was an ominous day, [but] we did not expect her to carry out this disastrous act.” She added, “Fire devoured my sister’s body while she screamed out against at all those who were unjust to her.”
The decision made by Layla, 27, was different. She acquiesced to a marriage that she was forced into by her family, to live a life that she described as a “silent death,” rather than a “scandalous death,” after her family refused to allow her to marry her university classmate.
Resolution 21: Resolution in Support of Labor Rights in Iraq
Submitted by the South Carolina AFL-CIO
WHEREAS, Hassan Juma’a Awad, President of the Federation of Oil Unions in Iraq, has been criminally charged by the Ministry of Oil for allegedly organizing strikes at the South Oil Company; and
WHEREAS, strikes in this sector have taken place with increasingly regularity as workers in the oil industry seek to protect their rights and interests, improve their working conditions, and seek redress for their grievances; and
WHEREAS, if convicted, Hassan Juma’a Awad could face stiff fines or even 3 years of imprisonment, and the Federation of Oil Unions could be severely crippled—all part of an effort by the al-Maliki government to remove a huge obstacle and source of resistance to privatization of Iraq’s oil resources; and
WHEREAS, the attacks on Hassan Juma’a Awad and the Federation of Oil Unions—which are attacks on freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively—reflect the government of Iraq’s intention to hold onto repressive laws and policies issued by the Saddam Hussein regime, namely, Decree 150 of 1987 and Labor Law No. 71, both of which are in contradiction with ILO conventions and international labor standards, including conventions to which Iraq is signatory; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Labor Against the War (with which CWA is affiliated), the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center and the Iraq Civil Society Solidarity Initiative have spearheaded an international campaign to protest the ongoing violation and denial of worker rights in Iraq, the harassment and persecution of labor activists, interference in the internal affairs of unions, and now an effort to criminalize union activity and prosecute Hassan Juma’a Awad and other union leaders; and
WHEREAS, these actions on the part of the al-Maliki regime are part of a larger pattern of increasingly authoritarian, sectarian and anti-democratic actions and policies that threaten not only the labor movement but all independent civil society organizations that seek to build a peaceful, tolerant, democratic society;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the South Carolina AFL-CIO joins USLAW, Solidarity Center, the Iraq Civil Society Solidarity Initiative and unions the world over to demand that the government of Iraq immediately drop all charges against Hassan Juma’a Awad and cancel the punitive orders issued by the Ministry of Oil to union activists, including all retaliatory transfers, reprimands and disciplinary penalties against union activists; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the South Carolina AFL-CIO calls upon the Iraqi government to abide by internationally recognized labor standards, including the right of free association to organize, collectively bargain and strike as reflected in International Labor Organization Conventions and Iraq’s own Constitution, and further calls upon the Iraqi government to expeditiously adopt a basic labor law that affirms those rights for all workers, both public and private sector; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the South Carolina AFL-CIO will inform its members about the threat to labor rights in Iraq and encourage them to participate in appropriate solidarity activities in support of the unions and workers of Iraq, and will submit this resolution to the AFL-CIO with a request that it be adopted at the forthcoming Quadrennial Convention of the Federation.
Good for the South Carolina chapter but the resolution did not pass. No real surprise from the increasingly weak-ass and pathetic AFL-CIO. US Labor Against War has always been more of a friend to Iraqi labor. John Wojcik (People’s World) reports:
Hassan Juma’a Awad, president of the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions, was in town as a guest at the AFL-CIO’s 2013 convention where he spoke at a special event organized by U.S. Labor Against the War.
Hassan Juma’a said that workers in his country are routinely denied their right to organize unions and to speak out about working conditions. And he said oil workers whom he represents are engaging in a full-fledged battle to prevent big multinational oil companies from completely taking over the nation’s oil industry. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq the oil companies were nationally owned. BP, ExxonMobil and others have systematically been grabbing control over the industry ever since the U.S. invasion, he said.
“They started out by coming in as consultants and in some cases now essentially control the major oil fields. There are $43 billion in oil profits that should be going to solve the lack of electric power and housing in the post-war cities and towns of Iraq,” he said, “but the gangster element in control now after the U.S. invasion has ensured that the Iraqi people haven’t seen a dime of that money.”
“The situation is such that the people of Iraq gain very little from their own oil industry and in fact have to ask how does it benefit us at all?” he said. “We get environmental problems, higher cancer rates, but the money doesn’t go to improving conditions for the people.”
Iraq’s Ministry of Oil, doing the bidding of the multinational oil companies, filed criminal charges against him earlier this year alleging that the strikes he has led undermined the Iraqi economy. But after the government failed to produce evidence, a judge threw out the case in July.
Iraq War veteran Chelsea Manning leaked documents to WikiLeaks about the US government’s criminal actions in Iraq and Afghanistan (counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism, ignoring torture of Iraqis by Nouri’s forces, etc). For that, she was court-martialed and, last month, sentenced to 35 years in prison. Debra Sweet Tweets the following today:
@OpManning Or: Each one who signs gets 5 people 2 sign #PardonManning Get people who aren’t already supporters=good. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-united-states%E2%80%99-human-rights-record-and-grant-clemency-pvt-bradley-manning/L7zHZv4r …