AFL-CIO’s Sweeney Faces Growing Antiwar Opposition

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

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 News

Related Articles

The Militarization of American Science

To celebrate our comrade Cliff Conner’s new book “The Tragedy of American Science,” out now from Haymarket Books, we re-publish an early excerpt published in Socialist Action in April 2018.