Respect, the unity coalition, has achieved a lot in its first year. Resistance asked Respect national secretary JOHN REES how he saw progress so far and about future prospects for rebuilding the left. How would you sum up Respect's first year? Remarkably successful. sequence of elections established Respect on sound footing and gave it a national profile in its very first months.
Our European campaign really established Respect as a national force and in particular pockets we won a very good vote. We were the first political organisation to hold our deposits with very respectable percentages in two parliamentary by-elections within a few months of being formed.
The Rahman as a councillor established us at local level and in a way the result in Millwall, a rather more mixed ward where we came second, disproved the accusation that Respect was only relying on a Muslim vote.
The successful national conference gave us a wider policy base and cleared up
where Respect stood on some
contentious issues.
Then Galloway's victory in court against the Daily Telegraph. The election results show that
Respect is very strong in particular parts of the country.
Why has the organisation taken
off in these areas?
The strongest areas are in
London but we have strong
pockets of support
Birmingham,
Luton, Peterborough and
Slough as well. "The occupation continues in Iraq. The Iraqi elections will be a disaster. There will be a huge national demonstration on March 19th. The minute we forget that we came from - and can only The FBU has had no political affiliation since it broke with the Labour Party.
But Respect branches could have stronger links with their local or regional FBU organisation.
When George Galloway met the Bethnal Green fire fighters it was very productive. I spoke to the East Anglia region FBU and they voted give £1000 to
And my experience going into the local fire station in the Hodge Hill by-election was just as positive.
I'd make the same points about relations with the RMT, now. We are being talked about as a serious repository for some section of the vote that is going to desert the Labour Party in the general
Even if George Galloway alone were to be elected I think that would create a huge wave across the political spectrum, particularly across the left in this country.
If we don't gain an MP but do come second or third in a number of constituencies I think that will have almost the same kind of effect. - I know that in east London for the first time people are Norman Traub Respect members in Southend were actively involved in the campaign against council's foisting the Arm's Length Management Organisation (ALMO) on local council tenants.
We leafleted the tenants, helped to organise a public meeting and lobbied the coun cil. The council claimed that most of the replies to the forms it had sent out informing tenants about ALMO supported the scheme to set up a private company.
Although the replies it received represented only a
page 10 of the scan
Phil Hearse In his inaugural speech, George Bush warned those who opposed his version of democracy, would be "burned by the fires of freedom".
Exactly what this meant was shown last November when hundreds of civilians were burned by the fires of napalm and phosphorous shells in the wrecked city of Fallujah.
The Fallujah attack, and the attempts to crush the resistance in the other cities of the Sunni triangle' was a desperate attempt to bring some semblance of order so that the January 30 election could take place. Predictably the Fallujah assault, which cost the Marine Corps 80 dead and scores more wounded and maimed, failed in all its main objectives.
Those who have visited the wrecked city say that there are only 70 or so new graves in the "martyrs cemetery"; US claims of 1700 fighters killed are wishful thinking. Most of the fighters had left the city, leaving only a small group to IRAQ POLL fight a rearguard battle in which they would inevitably die. The only 'success' of the operation was to warn other cities: this is what will happen to you if you support the
The election (taking place as this article is written) is, technically to elect a constituent assembly for the whole of Iraq and a Kurdish regional assembly in the north, and was imposed on the United States by mass Shia mobilisations in the spring of 2004.
The main movers of these demonstrations WElC the senior Shia clergy led by Grand Ayatollah Ali alSistani. Sistani calculated that such elections would give political forces close to him a - HIGH STAKES IN clear victory.
However, once the US proconsul Paul Bremer agreed to the election, it became integrated into the US pacification strategy. Now the US wants to use the elections to show that "democracy' being created.
This is an extremely highrisk strategy for Bush and his allies. They are calculating that an eventual Shia-dominated government will coexist with continued US occupation, and will tolerate US domination of decisions about reconstruction and the oil industry.
They are probably also guessing that a Shia-dominated government can be used as a 'divide and rule" tactic against the Sunni areas where the armed revolt is strongest.
It is true that al-Sistani has resisted Shia attempts to get him to issue a 'fatwa' against the US occupation. Indeed he Whatever the outcome of the elections, al-Sistani cannot be relied upon to keep the Shia masses in order. instructed the Shia faithful not to resist the US invasion. And he was extremely cooperative when the US army tried to put down the Mahdi Army' of dissent Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the southHow reliable for the US are al-Sistani (left) and Allawi? ern city of Najaf last spring.
Al-Sistani left the country for 'medical treatment' abroad, avoiding having to take a position on the marine incursions into Najaf, which were helpfully trying to crush a potential rival in the Shia community.
However US calculations underestimate a number of things. First, to put it mildly al-Sistani is close to une Iranian clergy; indeed he has spent a lot of time in exile and speaks Arabic with an Iranian accent. This creates dangers in the light of the growing conflict between Iran and the US over the former's nuclear programme.
Even if, as vice-president Dick Cheney has hinted, the US used its Israeli satrap to strike at Iranian nuclear targets, the Bush regime runs an enormous risk that Iran will use its influence to strike back against it in Iraq - not to mention the minor detail that Iran can send fighters into Iraq any time it chooses; indeed it probably already has numerous political and even military cadres working with the Iraqi Shia factions.
Then again, whatever the outcome of the elections and whatever government eventually emerges, al-Sistani cannot be relied upon to keep the Shia masses in order. For one thing, many of them hate the Grand Ayatollah for supporting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, while their Shia sons were being slaughtered by Iran's revolutionary guards in the desert battles. Iraqi nationalism doesn't stop at the borders of the Sunni triangle.
All reports indicate that the overwhelming majority of Shias, whether they enthusiastic about the election or not, are implacably opposed to the US occupation of the country. That is exactly where all US calculations falter.
In the West, the mainstream media talks blithely about the US (and Britain) seeking a 'way out' of Iraq. Even right-wing commentators in the US are saying *establish democracy and then