(Fwd) Go AFL-CIO!

[Ivo Skoric]

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent:      	Sat, 19 Oct 2002 02:46:09 -0400
To:             	CERJ at igc.org
From:           	CERJ at igc.org
Subject:        	AFL-CIO Weighs In on the Iraq-Attack

 From the VERY busy list <Solidarity4Ever at igc.TopicA.com>.  The first 
parenthetical paragraph of commentary is apparently by CERJ correspondent 
and <Solidarity4Ever at igc.TopicA.com> list owner Michael Eisenscher. -- John 
Wilmerding

Sweeney Ends AFL-CIO's Tight Silence

[A small but significant move, which demonstrates once again that an active 
and mobilized rank and file can move the Federation in a direction it would 
not otherwise be inclined to take on its own.  Congratulations to all who 
contributed to this victory for sanity and justice.  We need to use this 
shift to open an ever wider debate on U.S. foreign policy.]

Sweeney Ends AFL-CIO's Tight Silence;
States Labor's Concerns About Iraq War

by Harry Kelber

In a statement addressed to members of Congress, AFL- CIO President John J. 
Sweeney said that it is "vital that the Administration present Americans 
with the evidence and considerations and make a sober judgment before our 
forces are sent to war.  It is, after all, the sons and daughters of 
America's working families who will be asked to carry out this mission.  We 
must assure them that war is the last option, not the first, used to 
resolve this conflict before we ask them to put themselves in harm's way to 
protect the rest of us".

The Sweeney statement was issued October 7, just as Congress was debating 
whether to give President Bush broad authority to conduct a war against 
Iraq.  This is the first time that any AFL-CIO leader has publicly 
commented on this issue.  In fact, national union leaders and their 
publications have steadfastly ignored all aspects of the 'war against 
terrorism', ever since President Bush announced it one year ago.

Sweeney opposes a unilateral, pre-emptive war.  He says: "... the stakes in 
this national debate reach well beyond the immediate issue of Iraq's 
dictatorship.  We must deal with Hussein's lawlessness in a manner that 
enforces international law.  We must treat his defiance of the United 
Nations in a manner that respects that crucial institution and all it 
stands for.  We must counter the global threat that he poses in a manner 
that advances our efforts to eliminate those who launched last year's 
attacks, and that cements our alliances with those throughout the world 
community who are threatened."

The statement also questions the President's political motives in the 
timing of his request for war powers.  "It appears to many of our members 
that the sudden urgency for a decision about war and peace, an urgency 
which did not exist a month ago, has as much to do with the political 
calendar as with the situation in Iraq", the statement reads.

The Sweeney statement is especially significant because it marks a U-turn 
from the AFL-CIO's unwritten, but rigidly followed, rule by its affiliates 
to focus on purely domestic issues, while pretending that Afghanistan and 
Iraq simply don't exist.  The AFL-CIO Executive Council last August 6-7 
made no mention, favorable or critical, of President Bush's foreign policy 
actions.  The Sweeney statement appears on the AFL-CIO Web site:

http://www.aflcio.org

... but hardly anywhere else.  It has been completely ignored by the 
AFL-CIO's October 19 'National Day of Action', barely two weeks before the 
mid-term congressional elections.

Does Sweeney really mean what he says?  If so, he must use his authority to 
call an emergency meeting of the Executive Council as quickly as 
possible.  It would be unpardonable if he waited until February 24, when 
the Council is scheduled to meet.  In the next four months, life-and-death 
decisions affecting every American family will be made.  Shouldn't the 
Council, representing 13 million union men and women, have a voice in these 
decisions, since their members will be paying for them in blood and treasure?

The Council must reject its short-sighted policy of ignoring the issue of 
war and peace.  Isn't it clear that a U.S. invasion of Iraq will seriously 
impair labor's legislative agenda?

Labor cannot blindly follow a President who can decide on his own when and 
where and against whom to wage war and on terms that he alone will 
decree.  We should be especially wary of President Bush, who has repeatedly 
demonstrated his bias against unions.

Bush has promised us a long, open-ended war against terrorists and 'rogue' 
states.  It's essential that the Council formulate labor's own foreign 
policy.  The Sweeney statement on Iraq is an excellent starting point.

We're eager to hear from you.  Send your e-mail responses to: 
<laboreducator at hotmail.com>

'Labor and the War' appears on:
http://www.laboreducator.org
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

http://www.aflcio.org/publ/test2002/tm1007.htm

Letter from AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney
To Members of the United States Senate and House
Regarding the Debate on Iraq
October 7, 2002

Dear Senator/Representative:

I am writing on behalf of the AFL-CIO concerning United States policy 
towards Iraq and the request by President Bush for authorization to respond 
to threats posed by the current regime in Iraq.  As you debate the joint 
resolution we urge you to consider a number of important matters.

The AFL-CIO and the American labor movement have stood firmly in support of 
President Bush in the war on terrorism.  We believe that the apprehension 
of those responsible for the heinous attacks on America last year and the 
destruction of the al Qaeda terrorist network remain significant American 
priorities.  The U.S. Congress must insure that our policy towards Iraq 
does not distract our nation from this vital mission nor make that mission 
more difficult.

At the same time, we share the belief of the President and others that 
Saddam Hussein is a menace -- to his own people, to stability in a critical 
region of the world, and potentially to America and our allies.  How we 
determine the extent and nature of this threat and how we respond to this 
threat are issues now before the Congress and the American people.

The stakes in this national debate reach well beyond the immediate issue of 
Iraq's dictatorship.  We must deal with Hussein's lawlessness in a manner 
that reinforces international law.  We must treat his defiance of the 
United Nations in a manner that respects that crucial institution and all 
it stands for.  We must counter the global terrorist threat that he poses 
in a manner that advances our efforts to eliminate those who launched last 
year's attacks, and that cements our alliances with those throughout the 
world community who are threatened.

We recognize we cannot defeat terrorism with military force 
alone.  Prevailing in this fight also will require aggressive diplomacy, 
exerting economic and political force, and utilizing intelligence 
information and operations.  The world community must rededicate itself to 
the defense of basic human rights -- the freedom to speak, to assemble and 
to organize, as well as the freedom from starvation, from homelessness and 
from curable disease.  This requires renewed global attention, cooperation 
and action.  The industrial nations in particular must significantly 
increase our assistance for basic needs.

Our nation's long-term interests require that we assemble a broad 
international coalition for an aggressive and effective policy of 
disarmament in Iraq -- and work through the United Nations to the greatest 
extent possible.  America certainly has the right to act unilaterally if we 
need to do so to protect our national interests, but the AFL-CIO strongly 
believes that our national interests are better protected by multilateral 
action.  International institutions that are so critical to our national 
interests should be fully supported and respected.  We fully concur that 
there must be an unfettered inspection system so that any subsequent action 
is predicated upon conclusive proof about the extent and nature of an Iraqi 
threat.

In addition to assembling the support of our allies abroad, the 
Administration and the Congress must insure that the American people are 
fully informed and supportive.  America cannot engage in a conflict that 
involves the clear potential for significant casualties, as well as social 
and economic costs, without a fulsome public debate free of political 
inferences.

It is regrettable that some have sought to politicize this debate, 
challenging the commitment to national security of those who raise 
questions and concerns about these important matters -- just as some 
attempted to taint the debate over the formation of a department of 
homeland security by trying to equate a stand for workers' basic rights 
with a lack of patriotism.  Such efforts are not only despicable -- they 
obstruct and undermine the honest debate about important, complex issues to 
which the American people are entitled.

Similarly, we are concerned about the timing of this debate.  It appears to 
many of our members that the sudden urgency for a decision about war and 
peace -- an urgency which did not exist a month ago -- has as much to do 
with the political calendar as with the situation in Iraq.  It is an 
apparent contradiction that there is no similar urgency to take action to 
address the economic crisis that is also inflicting immediate suffering on 
so many of our people.

The Congress and the Administration must be clear about both the short and 
long term costs of action against Iraq -- just as we must be clear about 
the costs of inaction -- and how such an action fits into our larger 
national strategy of expanding democracy and stability in this important 
region of the world.  Americans should understand, to the extent possible, 
the long term commitment of American resources and military personnel which 
may well be necessary to achieve the final result of a stable and 
non-threatening Iraq.  The Administration should secure the support of our 
allies, both diplomatically and financially, for any military action and 
costs associated with rebuilding Iraq.  And the cost of such action should 
not be used as a reason for not investing in other critical national needs.

Whatever resolutions the Congress passes this week, it is vital that the 
Administration present Americans with the evidence and considerations and 
make a sober judgment before our forces are sent to war.

It is, after all, the sons and daughters of America's working families who 
will be asked to carry out this mission.  We must assure them that war is 
the last option, not the first, used to resolve this conflict before we ask 
them to put themselves in harm's way to protect the rest of us.

I urge you to consider all of these important matters as you debate this 
consequential issue.

Sincerely,

John J. Sweeney
President
American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations
[AFL-CIO]

==================================
CERJ at igc.org            wilmerding at earthlink.net
-------------------------------------------
John Wilmerding, Convener and List Manager
Coalition for Equity-Restorative Justice (CERJ)
1 Chestnut Hill, Brattleboro, VT, ZIP: 05301-6073
Phone: 1-802-254-2826 | 1-802-380-0664 (cellular)
CERJ was founded in New York in May, 1997.
-------------------------------------------
"Work together to reinvent justice using methods
that are fair; that conserve, restore, and even
create harmony, equity and good will in society."
-------------------------------------------
To join (or leave) the CERJ email list, kindly send
me an email message at wilmerding at earthlink.net
or at cerj at igc.org.  I'll need your first & last name,
your email address, and your state, province or
country of residence.  Thank you!  -- John W.
==================================