Socialist Action /November 2002
AFL-CIO's Sweeney Faces Growing Antiwar
Opposition
By CHARLES WALKER
At long last, the AFL-CIO has spoken out about the looming U.S. war against
Iraq. In an Oct. 7 letter to U.S. Senators and Representatives, AFL-CIO
President John J. Sweeney concludes that "we" must assure the
sons and daughters of America's working families that "war is the last
option, not the first, to resolve this conflict before we ask them to put
themselves in harm's way to protect the rest of us."
It's not clear why Sweeney has lagged behind some union locals and wider
union bodies that have taken positions on a war against Iraq. But what is
clear is that Sweeney, at bottom, shares the bipartisan premises underlying
the October congressional resolution that authorized all means, including
force, to bring Iraq to heel.
Sweeney asserts that Iraq is a "global terrorist threat" and
"America certainly has the right to act unilaterally if we need to
do so to protect our national interests." In the same sentence, Sweeney
says those "national interests are better served by multinational action,"
but he doesn't say that the AFL-CIO insists on multinational support, with
or without a fig leaf cover provided by the UN.
Sweeney does caution the administration and Congress on one vital point.
He calls for a "fulsome public debate free of political inferences"
to insure that Americans "are fully informed and supportive" of
the government's war plans. Sweeney's warning (or maybe it's only a reminder)
undoubtedly comes to his mind because he remembers the deep opposition the
Vietnam War aroused.
Of course, Sweeney doesn't have to wait for the government to organize
such an unprecedented "fulsome debate." Sweeney can try to ensure
that workers, at least, are "fully informed," if not supportive
of an Iraq war, by organizing a nationwide debate, open to all workers,
organized or not.
Debates are useful in and of themselves, but an honest debate that included
an honest straw vote couldn't help but be even more useful; especially if
it, in turn, pressured the government to allow a national referendum on
the war question, with all sides being given equal and uncensored access
to the corporate media.
Of course, the government is not going to organize a debate and a vote
on an Iraq war. Sure, calling for a debate and referendum is unrealistic,
but no more than Sweeney's call for the government to ensure a fully informed
populace.
Is it likely that there will be a debate for workers sponsored and organized
by the AFL-CIO? Sadly, the answer is no, even though workers are not fully
informed of their stake in an Iraq war, and the issue of right and wrong
isn't settled just because Sweeney set forth his position.
There's a small but growing vocal labor opposition that just may be the
visible tip of a larger labor opposition both to the bipartisan war resolution
and Sweeney's position that war is an option, even as a last option.
Some union locals and wider union organizations have adopted antiwar
resolutions, and new ones surface each week. One of the most recent signs
of dissent is not a resolution, but an antiwar letter sent to Sweeney that
unexpectedly originated from within the hierarchy of the AFL-CIO.
The respectful letter by Secretary-Treasurer Gene Bruskin of the Food
& Allied Service Trades-which has 12 affiliates, including the American
Federation of Teachers, Operating Engineers, Hotel and Restaurant Workers,
Retail Clerks and Pace-calls upon Sweeney to 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 be come a force in shaping this policy."
Unlike Sweeney who gives uncritical backing to the administration's so-called
war on terrorism, Bruskin says that that policy and a pro-war policy "is
a losing strategy for us." Those policies, he holds, undercut civil
liberties ("which will be used against unions"), the rights of
federal workers, the collective bargaining rights of West Coast dockworkers,
the unions' fight for immigrant rights, and the AFL-CIO's "efforts
for global justice."
Sweeney says that the "AFL-CIO and the American labor movement have
stood firmly in support of President Bush in the war on terrorism."
Bruskin, on the contrary, tells his chief that Bush's "War of [sic]
Terror, and War on Iraq have little to do with promoting security for U.S.
citizenry. Rather, his foreign policy is designed to serve the same corporate
interests that drive his domestic policy, making the world safe for U.S.
multinationals. In the era of globalization the two cannot be separated."
Bruskin's letter to Sweeney only partly echoes the Washington State Labor
Council's resolution. That statement charges that "the AFL-CIO's uncritical
support for this profit-driven war has led to the callous withholding of
solidarity from labor's working class and poor allies in other countries
who are suffering and dying as a result of this conflict."
To date, most antiwar union resolutions and statements are silent about
Middle East oil and its place in U.S. foreign affairs. A notable exception
is the United Electrical Workers (UE) resolution adopted at its September
convention: "The Bush Administration is cynically using inflated claims
of Iraq's threat to vastly increase the military budget [and] to help his
friends in the oil business."
The resolution was carried without opposition. The delegate (a district
president) who introduced the resolution was quoted as saying, "The
history of the Iraq issue is based around oil and U.S. corporations' need
to control oil."
ANTIWAR TEAMSTERS
On Oct. 18, Teamsters Local 705 in Chicago, the second largest Teamster
local in the U.S., approved the following resolution:
- Whereas, we value the lives of our sons and daughters, of our brothers
and sisters, more than Bush's control of Middle East oil profits
- Whereas, we have no quarrel with the ordinary working-class men, women,
and children of Iraq who will suffer the most in any war
- Whereas, the billions of dollars being spent to stage and execute this
invasion means billions taken away from our schools, hospitals, housing,
and social security
- Whereas, Bush's drive for war serves as a cover and a distraction for
the sinking economy, corporate corruption, lay-offs, Taft-Hartley (used
against the locked-out ILWU longshoremen)
- Whereas, Teamsters Local 705 is known far and wide as fighters for
justice
Be it Resolved that Teamsters Local 705 stands firmly against Bush's
drive for war
Further Resolved that the Teamsters Local 705 Executive Board publicize
this statement, and seek out other unions, labor and community activists
interested in promoting anti-war activity in the labor movement and community.
We ask all those who support and are encouraged by this statement to
contact Local 705 to offer support: (312) 738-2800 or www.teamsterslocal705.org.
Socialist Action /November 2002 |