BobKKKindle$
10th January 2008, 07:22
Socialist Review has published an interview with Iraqi activist Haifa Zangana in the January issue - I really recommend this article, it covers a range of different themes, especially the role of women in the struggle against the occupation and how women have been affected by the invasion, and gives a first-hand account, from someone with a sound knowledge of Iraq's politics. In particular, I found the following interesting:
What role do you think the anti-war movements in Britain and the US have played?
I think it's very important, because while Iraqi and Afghani people themselves are resisting the occupation inside their countries, they definitely need solidarity, especially from the people of the invading countries.
I cannot really emphasise enough how important it is. Whenever I meet an Iraqi inside or outside Iraq, they say it is very important to make us feel that we are not alone in our struggle. It is also important to influence the government's policy.
The Iraqi people are proud, peace-loving people. They are sick and tired of war, and need all the help available from people around the world. The work and the links with organisations and people who stood, during the sanction years, with the Iraqi people, and stand now against the war, are very important for us.
I think this quote really shows how socialists have a duty to support any struggle against imperialism, even if the liberation movement is not in full agreement with us on certain issues and is partly composed of reactionary groups. Some Socialists, such as the Left-Communists, have suggested that unconditional support for national liberation is a mistake, especially in the case if Iraq due to the prevalence of Islamist ideas, which accord women a low social status, but this article shows how the Iraqi people appreciate our solidarity.
Haifa Zangana also suggested that this support is important, in answering another question. because victory will prevent the US from conducting further military expansion:
Do you think recent talks about attacking Iran are partly because the US government realises it is being defeated in Iraq, and is looking for ways to distract from that defeat or to find a way out?
The Iraqi resistance is delaying the expansion of the empire. The US did not expect that. Their expectation was that Iraqi people would receive them with flowers and sweets and then they could move on to Iran or Syria, or any other country they wanted to put under their control. They have failed in Iraq and this is a huge blow to their plans.
There are blocks of resistance to any further expansion, at least for the time being, even within the US administration and its military. The main factor is what is going to happen in Iraq in the next year.
US defence secretary Robert Gates is putting pressure on what is called the government to sign an agreement for military bases in Iraq, and the new oil law, giving full control to the big corporations. Iraqis have been adamant these should not be signed and the unions and the workers in Basra are fighting it tooth and nail.
The US want to settle these things before they move to another country.
The best part though, is this comment on the character of the resistance - I found it pretty stirring, but I'll let you make up your own minds.
The US also want to hide the fact that there is genuine physical resistance by Iraqis united against the occupation.
By making the picture foggy they can disguise the presence of Iraqi people's resistance to the occupation and also claim they are terrorists — Al Qaida or foreign fighters. But Iraqi people don't need foreign fighters; they are fighting themselves.
The Iraqi resistance is growing, and there is support within society at large. These people are facing and fighting the most powerful military power, aided by informers, collaborators, and a parallel army of security firms and contractors. How else can you explain the persistence and growth of the Iraqi resistance and attacks on those powerful armies if they weren't protected and supported by the Iraqi people? Yet the US and Britain want to deny the existence of people who use their free will to fight the occupation.
We want to rule ourselves. We have the right to rule ourselves, to enjoy independence, sovereignty, and to have the control of all our resources.
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10229
What role do you think the anti-war movements in Britain and the US have played?
I think it's very important, because while Iraqi and Afghani people themselves are resisting the occupation inside their countries, they definitely need solidarity, especially from the people of the invading countries.
I cannot really emphasise enough how important it is. Whenever I meet an Iraqi inside or outside Iraq, they say it is very important to make us feel that we are not alone in our struggle. It is also important to influence the government's policy.
The Iraqi people are proud, peace-loving people. They are sick and tired of war, and need all the help available from people around the world. The work and the links with organisations and people who stood, during the sanction years, with the Iraqi people, and stand now against the war, are very important for us.
I think this quote really shows how socialists have a duty to support any struggle against imperialism, even if the liberation movement is not in full agreement with us on certain issues and is partly composed of reactionary groups. Some Socialists, such as the Left-Communists, have suggested that unconditional support for national liberation is a mistake, especially in the case if Iraq due to the prevalence of Islamist ideas, which accord women a low social status, but this article shows how the Iraqi people appreciate our solidarity.
Haifa Zangana also suggested that this support is important, in answering another question. because victory will prevent the US from conducting further military expansion:
Do you think recent talks about attacking Iran are partly because the US government realises it is being defeated in Iraq, and is looking for ways to distract from that defeat or to find a way out?
The Iraqi resistance is delaying the expansion of the empire. The US did not expect that. Their expectation was that Iraqi people would receive them with flowers and sweets and then they could move on to Iran or Syria, or any other country they wanted to put under their control. They have failed in Iraq and this is a huge blow to their plans.
There are blocks of resistance to any further expansion, at least for the time being, even within the US administration and its military. The main factor is what is going to happen in Iraq in the next year.
US defence secretary Robert Gates is putting pressure on what is called the government to sign an agreement for military bases in Iraq, and the new oil law, giving full control to the big corporations. Iraqis have been adamant these should not be signed and the unions and the workers in Basra are fighting it tooth and nail.
The US want to settle these things before they move to another country.
The best part though, is this comment on the character of the resistance - I found it pretty stirring, but I'll let you make up your own minds.
The US also want to hide the fact that there is genuine physical resistance by Iraqis united against the occupation.
By making the picture foggy they can disguise the presence of Iraqi people's resistance to the occupation and also claim they are terrorists — Al Qaida or foreign fighters. But Iraqi people don't need foreign fighters; they are fighting themselves.
The Iraqi resistance is growing, and there is support within society at large. These people are facing and fighting the most powerful military power, aided by informers, collaborators, and a parallel army of security firms and contractors. How else can you explain the persistence and growth of the Iraqi resistance and attacks on those powerful armies if they weren't protected and supported by the Iraqi people? Yet the US and Britain want to deny the existence of people who use their free will to fight the occupation.
We want to rule ourselves. We have the right to rule ourselves, to enjoy independence, sovereignty, and to have the control of all our resources.
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10229