Damn Good Resolution on Iraq

    Wow, have we come a long way or what? The resolutuon against the war in Iraq passed on the floor just moments ago. The convention avoided a bitter debate after the Executive Council and the Resolutions Committee agreed to strengthen the proposed resolution: by replacing the wording around bringing the troops home in the second paragraph from "as quickly as possible" to "rapidly."

    The wording "as quickly as possible" was unacceptable to the many people who had come to fight hard for a strong anti-war resolution. After all, George Bush keep repeating that line that he'll bring the troops home as quickly as possible. While "rapidly" is not as strong as "right now," it's the best language that was likely to pass.

    Moreover, for anyone that remembers past debates about foreign policy--going back to the Vietnam War--the adopted language is a strong rebuke for the war, and gives labor activists all across the country to blessing and political cover to actively engage in opposition to the war.

Comments

[Thad Russell]

I wonder if the AFL-CIO's move to the left on the war was caused by three leading left unions (SEIU, UNITE, UFW) becoming rivals to the federation. Could this be the first fruit of the new competition?

[Steve Diamond]

Leading left unions? The Teamsters? SEIU shakes hands with Chinese government?

[Michael Eisenscher]

Come on! If you are looking for the secret to this shift, it is much easier to discern. It was the result of more than a year of patient disciplined organizing by hundreds of labor antiwar forces coordinated by U.S. Labor Against the War, capped by the 26-city tour USLAW organized for six Iraqi union leaders in June, and resolutions submitted by USLAW affiliated labor councils, state federations and local unions and others who embraced the antiwar principles USLAW has sought to popularize.

That required engaging those who did not start out embracing the antiwar position in conversations that tapped into their core values and deepest concerns - for their loved ones in the military, for their families, for their communities, and their nation, as well as for more abstract but no less powerful concerns for peace and justice, and defense of constitutional liberties that have been put at risk.

We now need to take this resolution back to locals that had been reluctant to take a stand and move them to do so, and then urge them to affiliate with USLAW to expand the base of labor's antiwar movement even further. The resolution also can become a stepping off point for building labor support for participation in labor contingents in the September 24 antiwar demonstrations.

[Dick Reilly]

The question remains: what happened to the other anti-war resolutions by state labor federations and central labor councils submitted to the Resolutions Committee? All which were far stronger in calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq - the orginial objective of the USLAW resolutions efforts at the Convention- and were the fruit of patient and persistent work on behalf of local union activists. USLAW owes it to their consitutients and to the anti-war movement to explain what happened.

[Ken Little]

To follow on Michael Eisenscher's question -- what happened to the more progressive anti-war resolutions is that the persistant lack of democratic process in the AFL-CIO derailed them, despite a growing opposition to the war throughout this nation's rank and file. That's one central reason progressive labor activist Harry Kelber has been caucusing this week with rank and file union members that are working within their locals and internationals to contest the lack of internal democracy in their unions -- and fight to put more power in rank-and-rile hands. Many Central Labor Councils are also quietly supporting Harry's candidacy this week for a seat on the AFL-CIO's Executive Council -- and forcing them to actually hold an open election for the first time in a decade. There's still time for other rank-and-file delegates at the AFL-CIO convention to step up to the plate and run for eleven open seats on the Council -- and Harry will be reaching out at the Navy Pier convention site today -- Wednesday -- to encourage just that. We can -- and we must -- do better, and it starts with the willingness to say no to the status quo and stick our necks out to demand real rank and file participation in our locals, our internationals -- in in the AFL-CIO this week in Chicago.

[Tasini]

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It seems to me that there was no way a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq would have passed. But, the strength of the resolution that did pass is the result of the work of USLAW and others--so let's not whine about not getting everything and use this resolution to keep organizing.

[smg]

Interesting that a resolution calling for immediate withdrawl couldn't pass this convention. Is the AFL CIO that afraid of Bush that they couldn't advocate for something stronger?

[Dick Reilly]

Tasini writes "It seems to me that there was no way a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq would have passed." Good point. And that's precisely the problem.

Fact is, we'll never know how those resolutions might of fared on the Convention floor since they never made it beyond the Resolutions Committee. Indeed, the Resolutions Committee is handpicked by the AFL-CIO Executive Council to insure that only resolutions approved by the Council get voted up and down. One thing's for sure, moves like this only serve to confirm the accusations made by the Federation's critics of a lack of internal democracy, and telegraphs a negative message to those Central Labor Councils and State Federations that submitted these resolutions in good faith. Another illustration of why Harry Kelber's call for open elections to AFL-CIO leadership bodies and new accountability for the decision making process is long overdue.

[Gene Kelly]

I looked on the AFL-CIO website at the resolution and it doesn't say rapidly, it says as quickly as possible. Although maybe even that doesn't matter since neither of those means right now. I read the rest of the resolution too and it sounded like cautious Washington-speak that any mainstream Dem or Repub could be for. It's an annoying habit of people on the left to claim victory when there is no victory, and it trains the powers that be to only give us crumbs.