Editor’s note: The Iraqi Communist Party holds one seat out of 25 on the Provisional Governing Council of Iraq. The US military and administrative authorities conceded this seat to the ICP only after other political forces in Iraq emphasized the Party’s legitimacy among the people of Iraq and urged the occupation forces to accept them on the Council. Ali and Batti discuss here the Party’s assessment of the war and occupation, bringing a speedy end to the occupation, the toll of war on the Iraqi people, and the revitalization of the Iraqi trade union movement under the new and independent Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. The trade union federation is building relationships with the international trade union movement. An interview with Salam Ali, and Faik Batti, members of the Central Committee of the Iraqi Communist Party, conducted by Joel Wendland.

PA: What is the Iraqi Communist Party’s view of the war and the occupation?

SA: The Communist Party was opposed to the war. We made our position very clear at a very early stage. When September 11th and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan happened and when it became clear that there were plans to make Iraq the next stage in the so-called war against terror dictated by the US administration, we were also firmly opposed to any collaboration by Iraqi opposition forces in such an effort. We put forward our own alternative.

We were definitely opposed to the war and any intervention for reasons we made clear at the time: it would aggravate the situation, do harm to the Iraqi people, and would not bring about democracy or democratic change the people are aspiring to. We put forward alternatives including international solidarity with the Iraqi people and their opposition forces; effective human rights measures; lifting economic sanctions and imposing political and diplomatic isolation preventing the regime from rebuilding its arms and weapons of mass destruction arsenals.

We have always supported and called for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 688 of April 1991, which was effectively shelved by the US for many years until the eventual collapse of the regime last April. [The administration] did nothing to implement this resolution through the Security Council. The excuse always came back from the US or British government (and we’re aware of it because we had meetings with British officials) that it would not be practical, that it would not be possible to convince others on the Security Council about the formation of an international tribunal, etc. Whereas we thought that [implementation] would at least send a powerful message to the Iraqi people that the international community is siding with them and that the regime is doomed and finished. This would have been an enormous political boost.

Of course, we’re not talking about just the weeks and months before the war. We have to look back to the American policies since the Gulf War in 1991. If such an alternative had been adopted early on, it would have definitely produced results. It would have weakened and eroded the foundations of the regime. Eventually the US managed to impose its will and sideline the United Nations and go ahead with its war. And the regime was toppled in the process: actually it collapsed.

Here I just want to make also an important point: we don’t only view the regime’s collapse as a direct result of the war and invasion. It was also due to its total isolation internally. As you could see when it collapsed no one shed a tear – the overwhelming majority of the people were happy for an end to this tyrannical regime.

But at the same time, you could see as well, and the western media brought this out clearly, the people did not support the occupation and did not welcome it. Soon after ordinary people in the street and political forces, including some who had supported direct military intervention against Saddam Hussein, were actually calling for a speedy end to the occupation and handing power over to an Iraqi transitional coalition government. It is very important to understand the sentiment of the people because this has a lot to do with what happened afterwards.

PA: What has been the toll of the war on Iraqi civilians, the environment, the infrastructure and so on?

SA: Up to now there is no exact causality figure. Conservative estimates are something like 6,000 civilians dead, in addition to those wounded. There have been recent efforts by some human rights organizations to find out. It’s very difficult actually because of the collapse of state institutions, including ministries and hospitals and the loss of vital data. There were a lot of casualties in the armed forces as well. Again it is unknown until this very moment how many Iraqi soldiers died. But over all the Party is very active in the process. Many Party comrades were elected to leading positions in these unions and in the leading body right now of the new Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. Now this new Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions is developing contacts with the world trade-unionist movement. In October there was a fact-finding delegation from the British TUC (Trade Union Congress). Before that there was a delegation from the ILO, which went to Baghdad in August and reported back. We’re still waiting to see its assessment of the situation. Recently the Party made an effort to contact the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), and representatives of our Party and the WFTU held some frank discussions.

But there are still some remnants of the old union abroad trying to present themselves. But even now recently the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions sent a delegation to Damascus, which held meetings with a number of Arab trade unions and the picture is better, clearer, and they have promised to help and support.