Significance of Building Solidarity with Iraqi Civil Resistance

3. Points of dispute

The points of dispute between the Western Left and Iraqi Civil Resistance can roughly be summarized in two points; the first is about the evaluation of Islamic armed forces, and the second is about self-determination and the way international solidarity should be.

(1) Evaluation of Islamic armed force

How should we view the armed resistance against the occupation headed by the U.S.?

The armed resistance is certainly giving damage to the occupation forces. It is a right recognized by international law for an occupied people to resist occupation. The Iraqi Civil Resistance, too, admits the people's right to armed resistance by stating that 'there are people who may attack the occupation forces in revenge for the death of loved ones and for humiliation at the hands of these forces.' [7]However, even by that, we cannot justify the strategy of Islamic armed forces. The strategy taken by the Islamic armed forces is not a citizens' compulsive resistance, but an organized one. First, the strategy of Islamic armed forces is wrong in its principle by which to confront the U.S. occupation army. The tactics adopted by the Islamic armed forces, i.e. kidnapping, confinement, abduction, beheading, assassination, cannot be justified as it is for the sake of opposing U.S. imperialism. Their suicide bombings are killing more Iraqi civilians than U.S. soldiers. Discrimination and oppression against women cannot be justified. They are trying to confront the U.S. military, ignoring lives and human rights of the Iraqis.

Global capitalism is a system to suppress and kill people for the sake of profit. If the side countering that system resorts to the same principle, you can never fight it. The anti-war movement of the world should confront global capitalism with the principle of democracy. Now that the socialist world system headed by the USSR has collapsed, we cannot, by means of armed force, win the military power of global capitalism headed by the U.S. Through mobilizing global anti-war forces to prevent the exercise of the U.S. military power and to dismantle the military power, the people can gain a victory over global capitalism. The power to drive global capitalism into a corner comes from the solidarity among masses of people of the world through which we build up political pressure and prevent military use. To achieve this, the strategy of Islamic armed forces constitutes an obstacle. How in the world can we gain victory over global capitalism while killing not US imperialism but Iraqi civilians, and discriminating against and suppressing women? There is no other way to defeat global capitalism, in which only a handful of people take control, than to build powerful international solidarity of the masses of people of the world. The principles to counter suppression are democracy, freedom and egalitarianism.

The second point where the Islamic armed forces are wrong is their vista of the Iraqi society after the U.S. troops are driven out. They are trying to materialize an Islamic dictatorship in Iraq, not a democracy. Iraqi people do not want the U.S. occupation forces to be replaced by a dictator. If we stay away from the criticism of Islamic armed forces, a dark society will emerge where no rights of women are guaranteed.The second point where the Islamic armed forces are wrong is their vista of the Iraqi society after the U.S. troops are driven out. They are trying to materialize an Islamic dictatorship in Iraq, not a democracy. Iraqi people do not want the U.S. occupation forces to be replaced by a dictator. If we stay away from the criticism of Islamic armed forces, a dark society will emerge where no rights of women are guaranteed.

Thirdly, it may be needless to say this, but there are too many civilian casualties caused by such attacks as the suicide bombings of Islamic armed forces. We cannot accept their tactics of killing more civilians than the U.S. soldiers on the one hand, while propagating resistance against massacres by the U.S. occupation on the other.

Thus, we cannot support, nor lend solidarity to, the strategy of Islamic armed forces in Iraq in terms of mobilizing all the masses of Iraqi people and the global anti-war movements for driving out the occupiers, in terms of the perspective on the future Iraqi society, as well as in terms of the actual damage on the part of Iraqi civilians.

Then, how do we look at armed resistance in the history of the anti-imperialist struggles of the people of the world?

In the case of the Vietnam War, victory was achieved through combining armed struggle and global anti-war movements. However, the National Liberation Front and the army of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam did not direct their guns toward the civilian population. Nor did they commit suicide bombings. Eventually, they won the victory in the battles of regular armies. Of course, they committed no kidnappings and Vietnamese women played a militant role in battle. Women, as equal comrades, participated in the war of liberation. That is why their war of liberation was entirely supported by the global anti-war movements and gained eventual victory.

In the Vietnam War, the victory was achieved because they succeeded in mobilizing all anti-U.S. imperialist forces, regardless of religions and ethnicities. In their struggles, democracy was consistently there as the principle of their struggles.

People also achieved victory in their struggles against South African apartheid. The victory over the apartheid regime was brought about as a result of both popular and militant resistance. They drove the apartheid regime into a corner by general strikes and boycotting elections, and the military wing of the African National Congress (ANC) defeated the apartheid army in eventual victory. Here in this case, as well, there were no kidnappings or terrorism, and women played an important role. The ANC is, in principle, against discrimination, and won their victory while embracing democracy. Those who did not agree with the ANC were only a handful of people who supported the apartheid regime.

How about Palestine? It goes without saying that Palestine's present state of affairs has been brought about by the brutalities of the Israeli military and the U.S. government that supports it. However, it is certain that suicide bombings by some Islamic armed forces have helped the Sharon regime of Israel to become more reactionary. It is high time to promote peace if we want victory without having any more casualties. If we impose peace, Palestinians will gain victory in the long perspective.

The Iraqi armed resistance is not waging such struggles as the ones in Vietnam and South Africa. The suicide bombings that they are engaged in are a defeated form of armed struggle. It is not a military tactic to be taken for victory, for they know that the soldier can never return. It is a tactic that they cannot help taking because there is too big a gap in the military capabilities between them and their enemy. Besides, they do not necessarily target the U.S. occupation forces; the Iraqi army and Iraqi police can be more easily attacked. In spite of the fact that there are a lot of people in the Iraqi army and police who unwillingly joined these apparatuses because of unemployment, they still kill those people. It is clear that the Islamic armed forces that take such tactics impassively are not going to liberate the Iraqi people. Though there is a tendency to refrain from criticizing Islamic armed forces under U.S. brutalities, the terrorism waged by the Islamic armed forces is intolerable for those who live and struggle in Iraq, just as for those in the Iraqi Civil Resistance.

In spite of all that we have seen, can we say, as Caneisha Mills does, that 'armed resistance, with all the suffering that goes along with it, is the inevitable response by those who seek to reject the neocolonial takeover of their country' ? Or, as Eric Ruder says, can we say that 'To demand anything else of the U.S. government other than its immediate withdrawal would give it the political justification to continue the pursuit of its war aims' ?

We can never mobilize all the Iraqi people to drive out the occupiers from Iraq unless we struggle on a free and egalitarian principle regardless of ethnic, religious, and gender differences.

Neither the ANSWER, which Caneisha Mills belongs to, nor the Stop the War Coalition proclaim that they support the Iraqi armed resistance. Among the people of the world, the voices maintaining that the U.S. war on Iraq is illegitimate are the majority. But due to terrorist attacks by the Islamic armed forces, no perspective on the future Iraqi society is in sight for people around the world. This causes a hindrance in the ways of making global anti-war movements bigger and throwing out Bush and Blair. It is high time to emphatically criticize the terrorist acts by the Islamic armed forces. To keep silent about the terrorist acts of the Islamic armed forces will not push the global anti-war movement forward, but will pull it backward.

The shortest way -- and the way with the least amount of damage toward effecting the withdrawal of occupying forces -- is not through directing guns against people and women, but through organizing general strikes, large rallies, and demonstrations to demand an end of the occupation and the withdrawing of the occupiers.

(2) Self-determination and international solidarity

Eric Ruder insists that the international anti-war movement must not intervene in the Iraqi movement, and that Iraq's future direction must be left to the 'self-determination' of the Iraqis themselves. The term 'self-determination' seems to be used in two contexts.Eric Ruder insists that the international anti-war movement must not intervene in the Iraqi movement, and that Iraq's future direction must be left to the 'self-determination' of the Iraqis themselves. The term 'self-determination' seems to be used in two contexts.

One is the context in which the consequences of the control by Islamic armed forces are tolerated. It is extremely irresponsible to insist that we in the anti-war movement should not 'make any demand about this. We may even disagree with the politics of those who do come to govern Iraq. But that's what self-determination means -- Iraqis get to decide.' His assertion is tantamount to saying that it doesn't matter even if the government that is established after the occupiers are driven out is one of Islamic theocracy, and suppresses and kills its workers and women.

The other context is the one, as brought up by Caneisha Mills at the ZENKO Conference, in which the term 'self-determination' is used to mean that we must not support any specific Iraqi forces. However, as Mills herself makes clear in her article, the criticism that civil resistance is a collaborator of the occupiers is at the base of her argument. It follows that she herself criticizes one specific force in Iraq, and practically supports another specific force. Then, the term 'self-determination' as she uses is nothing more than sophistries for the sake of rejecting the support of the Iraqi Civil Resistance.

However, the concept of self-determination seems to be wrongly used here from the beginning. Self-determination of a nation or a people is the right to demand and gain from imperialist domination. It is not something you bring into movements. Even though a certain Iraqi group receives assistance under international solidarity, it is the Iraqis who will decide the future of Iraq, and this does not contradict the concept of self-determination at all. Furthermore, now that global capitalism is intensifying its domination by crossing national borders, the slogan on the part of those of us who are struggling against global capitalism should be "international solidarity." What is imperative is to support the people of Iraq who are confronting U.S. imperialism, which is the most bellicose force of global capitalism. It is not necessary to advocate for withdrawal in general and abstract terms. If the Socialist Workers Party (of the U.K.) and the Party for Socialism and Liberation (of the U.S.) support the Islamic armed forces, then the logical consequence is that they would not remain as onlookers and should announce their support and send out international brigades. You have only to think of the communists and socialists of the world who once participated in the Spanish Popular Front. Eric Ruder says that if the Islamic armed forces drive the U.S. out of Iraq, 'this would be a tremendous victory for our side.' Then, shouldn't he make it clear what we should practically do for the sake of 'a tremendous victory' ?

Of course, we in the Japanese anti-war movements are not under such a tranquil situation as to be unable to imagine the possibility of them speaking in slaves' language from the consideration of the repressive laws and regulations of the Bush and Blair administrations. However, Marx and Engels say that 'The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.'[8] If victory in Iraq is important, it should be natural to take every possible measure in order to win.

The logic of self-determination, when global capitalism intervenes and dominates across national borders, is the term to be used against global capitalism -- not against people who are struggling against global capitalism. We could never defeat global capitalism without strengthening our international solidarity.

(3) Other points of dispute

The criticism by Caneisha Mills is not based on an attitude of controversy between comrades over lines of actions. It is beyond our understanding why those who advocate for Iraqi Civil Resistance are imperialist collaborators. What is wrong with workers making demands on their occupiers? The Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI) is even now in the midst of its struggles in organizing strikes in power companies or Seven-Up factories. [9]How do these events relate to the interests of the U.S. imperialist occupation? What is wrong with women struggling for their own safety? It should be a natural right for the OWFI to protest against Islamist groups that intimidate women who don't wear a hijab (head scarf). It should also be a natural right for them to criticize the kidnapping of women in the name of resistance. How do these events relate to the interests of the U.S. imperialist occupation? What is wrong with women struggling for their own safety? It should be a natural right for the OWFI to protest against Islamist groups that intimidate women who don't wear ahijab (head scarf). It should also be a natural right for them to criticize the kidnapping of women in the name of resistance. [10] It would be too absurd an argument to mix up a Civil Resistance that is struggling by boycotting the election with the party which joined the puppet regime -- and label both of them as contributing to the U.S. imperialist domination. [11] It is an unbelievably crude and even rude argument. I would hope for a more productive discussion that could advance the world anti-war movement.

page4 / total 6