|
<< Arnie, the Tribes & the Unions | Main | Jim Crow Comes North >> June 24, 2004In Iraq, It's the Jobs, StupidWhy has Iraq been reduced to a politics of ethnic and religious rivalry? This is a country with a rich history of secular politics, yet all we hear about are religious factions. At least one reason is that classic non-religious institutions, specifically Iraqi labor unions, have been deliberately sidelined by the Bush administration. And the lack of jobs for Iraqis mean that classic economic interests are not undergirding politics. Instead, the mass of unemployed workers are organizing under the only banner likely to help them survive-- namely the primal support groups of tribe and religion. Yesterday, a key report on the jobs situation in Iraq was released, produced by EPIC (Education for Peace In Iraq), with information you won't see in the mainstream press, which mostly ignores anyone in Iraq without a Koran or a rifle. Here is the economic situation now: The toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime has not improved economic conditions for Iraq’s working families. Under U.S. occupation, the Iraqi formal economy shrank again by one-third in 2003. Workers who are fortunate enough to be employed are still paid according to the wage scale that was imposed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, but actual take-home pay for some workers has been halved due to lost bonuses, benefits, and profit-sharing payments.Both the lack of security and legal rules established under the Bush administration prevent workers from organizing in unions to argue for better working conditions: Continued instability and political violence hinder workers from building political, civic, and union organizations to give voice to their needs and interests. Under present conditions, public meetings and demonstrations associated with normal union activity are risky. Furthermore, there are no legal mechanisms for workers to establish collective bargaining or defend their workplace rights. The lack of such rights suppresses Iraqis’ ability to negotiate fair wages and better working conditions vital steps for workers to play a role in a vibrant Iraq.Starving Local Firms: But the most outrageous policy of the Bush administration is a prohibition on allowing existing Iraq firms to receive any funding for reconstruction of the country. Repeat that, just in case you aren't aware of the policy. If you work for Halliburton in the United States, you can get a job reconstructing Iraq. If you work for established state-owned firms in Iraq, your firm can't receive a contract: Instead of directing reconstruction work to Iraqi firms that employ Iraqi workers, the U.S. occupation authorities rig the process to favor big corporations from the United States and its short list of selected countries. Adding to the problem, most foreign companies now appear to be choosing to return expatriate Iraqi workers for both skilled and unskilled positions instead of hiring in-country...Continuing Hussein's Labor Policies: And here is the real civic outrage. The Bush administration has invited mullahs into the process to write the national constitution, but labor unions and other workers groups have been excluded from the process of writing the labor code for the country: Thus far, Iraqi unions have been largely sidelined from the CPA-dominated process of drafting a new labor code; the results of discussions between the U.S. officials and the Iraqi Labor Ministry regarding a new labor code to implement workers’ rights remain unclear.The Bush administration didn't like Hussein, but they apparently like his 1987 labor law rules that prohibit the 500,000 workers in state-run firms from striking, since they have yet to repeal them. Read the report. Through deliberate impoverishment of its workers and the sidelining of all democratic institutions other than the mosques, the Bush administration is guaranteeing that a future Iraq government will be dominated by sectarian religious disputes, rather than based on secular, economic institutions. Posted by Nathan at June 24, 2004 07:20 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsIt is not really ironic that Bush's occupation would retain every reactionary, anti-labor feature of Hussein's government and add to it outrageous discrimination against local business and labor. Hussein was after all enabled to take and keep power with a great deal of US support. In my view Saddam never did anything that was not convenient to the cynical agenda of our foreign policy establishment and it is entirely sensible that there would be a seamless transition between his fundamentally neocolonialst regime and our direct administration. Furthermore, as much as I agree that a less outrageously skewed economic order would go a long way toward cooling off reactionary violence of all kinds, our new problems in the Middle East now go beyond the kind of grievancies that can be mollified by a benign economy. Which of course is an incredibly Utopian expectation anyway in a world drowing in corruption--Bush would have to reverse his polices there and contradict his domestic agenda here to approach that goal _if_ an overall global economy even offered the opportunity. No, the issues that burn in Iraq now have to do with fundamental human rights, with sovreignity nakedly violated, with untold (by our press anyway) personal injuries to individuals, family, friends, and neighbors. We can't just morph into the Great Society over there even if anyone in power here wanted that, there is too much backlog. We cannot exit gracefully, not without a full confession of and repentance and compensation for the unnecessary damage we have done. Just handing over a working and balanced economy (as though we knew how to do that anywhere) would only hand over to a justifiably angry people the means to more effectively oppose our policymakers--not necessarily violently but a truly independent Iraq with no strings attached would surely become the nucleus of a global anti-American alliance. It will not matter if that is under Muslim colors or secular, it would only be rational of them to call for containment of our threat. Actually an Islamic Iraq would be Shiite, in alliance with Iran but with few or no natural allies beyond that, unless we continue to so outrage the Muslims they agree to bury all their millenium-old sectarian conflicts in the face of clear and present danger. I fully expect our rulers, if they face the fact that they cannot hold onto Iraq much longer in good time, to do all they can to sabotage that country's prospects and make what economy they can retain dependent on American will. They are clearly well down that road already. We need new drivers, not to suggest the ones we have turn left when they want to turn right. Posted by: Mark at June 24, 2004 06:50 PM Why do we still have $18B left to spend in Iraq? That's what I hear from the established bushfront media! That should have been SPENT, in Iraq, on Iraqiis! Posted by: RWC at June 25, 2004 03:35 PM This is one of your best posts so far. Gives a lot of food for thought. I swear, this administration can't be trusted to do right anything more complicated than ride a bicycle. Oh wait they screwed that up too. Posted by: Kevin Block-Schwenk at June 26, 2004 09:14 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|