What Will The AFL-CIO Say About the Iraq War?

     As my Yogi philosopher would tell me, “it feels like déjà vu all over again.” I remember being involved in the tussles over the labor movement’s retrograde foreign policy positions back in the 1980s when the AFL-CIO was closely linked to the U.S. government’s foreign policy, which, then, was supporting the Ollie North-supplied Nicaraguan contras and that nice, murderous military regime in El Salvador, which, among other targets, killed a whole bunch of labor union members.

    Anyway, here we are again. As the convention approaches, a big question is: what will the AFL-CIO say about the war in Iraq? And will the whole Iraq war debate get tangled up in the general political struggle inside the Federation?

    Up front, in case anyone has any doubt, I’ll say that the war IS a labor issue: the soldiers who have died or have been wounded overwhelmingly come from working-class families (I haven’t see the Bush twins step up to volunteer) and the $200 billion cost of the war, to date, means less money to bolster Social Security (just to mention one human need). Oh, not to mention the destabilized world we live in because of the war, which affects every family. As for the Iraqis—make no mistake about it, the Administration sees Iraq as a place to create a privatization heaven for global corporations.

    Here’s what I know so far. The Federation has received 12-18 resolutions about the war: some emphasize supporting union rights in Iraq (something the Bush Administration won’t care about since they’d like to get rid of every union here), some focus on supporting the troops when they return (in terms of pay and benefits) and others are more concerned about ending the occupation of Iraq. In addition, the Federation’s staff is drafting a resolution to be presented to next week’s full Executive Council meeting. Whatever language comes out of the Council meeting, then, goes to the Resolutions Committee chaired by AFSCME’s Gerry McEntee, where the Council resolution and the other resolutions on the war will be considered.

    Some people who have written to me argue that the AFL-CIO has remained silent about the war. Well, c’mon, folks, that’s an exaggeration. The AFL-CIO’s pre-war basic position has been one that has been articulated by a number of anti-war groups: any effort to disarm Saddam Hussein must be done multi-laterally and that more time had to be given to other non-war efforts such as sanctions and inspections.

    And John Sweeny had been very strong and out front prior to the war. He sent a letter to Bush and Tony Blair arguing the “let-the-sanctions-work” view; he also said the same to Congress and in a variety of other forums.

    As far as I can tell, the Iraq war, which ever side a union takes at the convention, will be a “bi-partisan” issue. National unions from both camps in the internal political debate (for example, AFSCME, Communications Workers of America and SEIU) have passed resolutions strongly condemning the pre-emptive war; and many locals from a wide spectrum of the labor movement across the country have called for the end of the Iraq occupation.

    Since the war began, the Federation has been far more leery about wading in with a strongly anti-war position. Its work has been more low-key and out-of-sight. It has been working with the International Labor Organization and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) to assist Iraqi trade union leaders by training them in Jordan. And it has also helped draft a new labor code to replace the Saddam-era laws, which hasn’t yet been put into place by the new government.

    But, there also may be some nervousness about taking a lead, public role in opposing the war. As one insider argued, the AFL-CIO’s nervousness may have hurt during the 2004 election. “Everyone knew Bush would run as a war hero but the Federation only emphasized economic issues. We said we have to tell people why the war is not good but nothing was put into the briefings for people so there was no response when it was brought up,” says this source. I’m not sure I agree that that would have made a difference given the woeful Democratic Party presidential candidate but who knows?

    The concern is that the Executive Council will produce a tepid resolution, which will end up being the resolution that emerges from the Resolutions Committee. I chatted with Gene Bruskin, who is the co-convenor of United States Labor Against the War (USLAW). Citing the large number of resolutions and union-member opposition to the war, he says: “It is only fair and just and democratic for a strong anti-war resolution to come to the floor for discussion and debate. It would be a disservice to the membership and the labor movement to substitute any resolution that does not reflect the core opposition to the war and the calling for the withdrawal of the troops.” Bruskin says that, generally, USLAW supporters are behind the California State Federation resolution as an acceptable model for a final AFL-CIO convention resolution.

    Where it gets a touch murky is whether the Iraq war resolution gets mired in a debate about the role of the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS). ACILS replaced the various Cold War-era government-funded institutes, particularly the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD) which was a notorious promoter of this country’s anti-communist obsession and a home to people who, if they weren’t actually CIA agents, certainly collaborated with the CIA. In the  Federation's recent staff reorganization, the International Affairs Department was eliminated, and its work merged into the Solidarity Center, which, according to its website, “is a non-profit organization that assists workers around the world who are struggling to build democratic and independent trade unions.”

    Some people still feel uneasy, however, about the continued sources of the Solidarity Center’s money. You can see here that the vast majority of its budget comes from the government: U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Department of Labor. A tiny amount of money comes from the AFL-CIO, private foundations, and national and international labor organizations.

    Does this matter? There’s a lot of passion around the issue. In one instance, there has been a roiling debate about the Federation’s role in Venezuela. I won’t recount the whole argument—that Solidarity Center money has helped the U.S. government’s attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government—because there are documents you can read to get a feel for the issues: The AFL-CIO issued a  policy statement and an additional Executive Council statement on February 27th 2003 statement; Mike Ceaser has a view in an article for the Interhemispheric Resource Center.

    One insider voices this concern: “If you oppose the Bush war policy, how can you go to the State Department and say, ‘give us money.’ There’s no way that can happen and without that money the whole apparatus would collapse.”

    I had a chat with Barbara Shailor, who is moving from the Federation’s International Affairs department over to ACILS to run the joint. Shailor has a strong record as a progressive in labor going back to her days at the Machinists. She acknowledged that the questions about how government money influence’s ACILS are legitimate but she defends the practice. “As long as our members are taxpayers, we are going to aggressively lobby to make sure that not just business is getting money. There is a long history of unions receiving tens of millions of dollars of government money for things like safety and health training, for training. At the moment we are pressured to do something not in line with our principles, we wouldn’t take the money.”

    Perhaps the big point is: if affiliates would underwrite the international work (maybe taking some of it from the political operation), perhaps we wouldn’t need to take government money. Every affiliate is very strong on the rhetorical argument about the global economy but it would really help if each one invested a chunk of money into those campaigns.

    (A convention note: USLAW is having a reception during the convention. Here is the invitation for anyone who is interested)