see also the related thread: International Women's Day 2006.

Edited version, posted Wednesday March 8, 10pm  (AEST)

I remembered that the website CodePink has Lastsuperpower as a linked site, describing us as 'serious discussion about the war in Iraq', so I thought I'd take another look.  No comments; no discussion; and even the 'your letters page' had no facility for sending them?!  I wanted to challenge what I had come across in relation to International Women’s Day (IWD) but it was not possible to do anything but email individual contacts so I will have to follow this up later.  The first section of this article appears as the beginning of the draft leaflet for IWD that I posted previously, so if it seems familiar early on,  it is.

 
Meanwhile I’ll deal point by point with CodePink’s agenda for March 8 here.    (Further, this has led me to checking out the (Australian) Green Left Weekly site and I will try and post some comments about articles I came across there soon.  Details of IWD events and actions in Australian capital cities can be found at the end of the draft leaflet posted in  the International Women’s Day thread. 

 
From America’s CodePink:  Women's Call for Peace: An Urgent Appeal.  We, the women of the United States, Iraq and women worldwide, have had enough of the senseless war in Iraq and the cruel attacks on civilians around the world. We've buried too many of our loved ones. We've seen too many lives crippled forever by physical and mental wounds. We've watched in horror as our precious resources are poured into war while our families' basic needs of food, shelter, education and healthcare go unmet. We've had enough of living in constant fear of violence and seeing the growing cancer of hatred and intolerance seep into our homes and communities.'

 
This position is devoid of any genuine international solidarity with the women of Iraq who are only opportunistically focused upon.  The bravery of Iraqi women in 2005, shown by defiantly voting in three elections despite threats of death will mean nothing to ‘peace’ campaigners lecturing us at IWD ‘rallies’ in 2006, where elected representatives will not be supported, and their requests for military assistance rejected. 

Arguing that all we wish for is an end to all violence, is advocating peace at any price; a stance as wrong now as it was in WW2 when women throughout the world took up the gun, or ran the factories to secure a just peace and an end to Nazism; Japanese militarism; and Italian Fascism etc.  Peace at any price, as being pushed now, defends the interests of among other things a culture that fires AK47's in the streets; religiously oppresses women and girls, and calls for the execution of homosexuals. 

 
Trying to turn IWD rallies into anti-Iraq-war peace rallies is further proof that the ‘peace movement’ has collapsed after reaching a political dead-end.  Progressive women ought to believe in a Women's Liberation Movement, and ought not to be taken in by people promoting capitulation to censorship, Nazi-like Baathists, or anti-women medievalists like the Taliban and the equally repulsive Al-Qaeda. 

 
I've watched in horror as feminism has been distorted to such an extent that there is silence about the fact that women and girls are more oppressed in Islamic cultures (and therefore require our practical solidarity than in almost any other.  The cultural relativism is simply mind-boggling especially when the position is thinly disguised isolationism as in  Code pink arguing for defense spending to be re-directed to our families ' basic needs of food, shelter, education and healthcare...'  

 
This position is only able to acquire some measure of respectability because it jumps from the domestic to the international.  The 'our' mystically becomes women of the world, but because it is ultimately an argument for looking after one's own back yard – it  is an argument that is on the side of leaving the devil to take Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur, etc. It’s naive idealism in the extreme.

In America, Cindy Sheehan has become a cause celebre of the ‘peace movement’ but she is not a hero.  She is a grieving mother with no sensible analysis of the world who is being exploited by a ‘peace movement’ with nothing better to latch onto.  Every time she speaks she ensures that other mother's sons, and husbands have worse conditions within which to carry out their duties.

 
If western feminists were not so hung up about 'senseless' war, and thought more about Just-war then they would begin to realise the difference between the war in Iraq, and Vietnam.   They would then be applauding the overthrow of the Baathist tyranny just as we applauded the victory of the Vietnamese people.  My own feminist 'tradition' taught me that if you are being raped you fight back not turn the other cheek. 

 
Instead CodePink states: The occupation of Iraq has fueled an armed movement against it, perpetuating an endless cycle of violence. We are convinced that it is time to shift from a military model to a conflict-resolution model .

This opening statement blames the coalition for the 'endless cycle of violence' currently being endured in Iraq.  This is rubbish and one just needs to speak to women from previously non-privileged groups within Iraqi society (say a Kurd or a Shiite) to know this.  Saddam Hussein may have been a secular leader but he presided over a society where the elite had certain limited western freedoms but as for the rest, that is the vast majority of women and their families there was brutal oppression and widespread reprisals against dissenters.  This was not a society where ‘hundreds of flowers were blossoming and hundreds of schools of thought contending!’

 The elements of the conflict-resolution model as listed by Code-Pink are:

1. The withdrawal of all foreign troops and foreign fighters from Iraq.

 
This is basically a call to let Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves.  We know that 'pressure' is being brought to bear upon foreign governments to not help the new Iraqi administration, and to instead withdraw their troops.  But as for Al-Qaeda how can pressure be applied to them and other foreign fighters?  So, this call for troop withdrawal only appears to be even-handed but is in reality a call to get the coalition troops out of Iraq.

2. Negotiations to reincorporate disenfranchised Iraqis into all aspects of Iraqi society.

This is already occurring currently with the effort to form a government of national reconciliation, (with a Kurd no less as a head of state).  You don't get more inclusive of the disenfranchised than what has been occurring in Iraq.  CodePink’s position can only be read as a call for reincorporating Baathists, rather than as a recognition that the previously ‘disenfranchised’ are now attempting (under very difficult and trying circumstances) to forge a government and incorporate as many of the previously privileged group as is possible. (Note the positions allocated for Sunni representation after their non-participation in the process to draft the Constitution).

3. The full representation of women in the peacemaking process and a commitment to women's full equality in the post-war Iraq.

 
We need to remember our own dismal record of formal representation for women and place the Iraqi situation in context.  It is particularly positive that even the Grand Ayatollah Sistani urged women to vote in the last election and this means that women generally will become more active in civil affairs.  What is positive is the establishment of an Iraqi Women’s High Council that is seeking to have a role in refining Iraq’s Constitution and seeking a quota of 40% representation for women (about 55% of the population). Ala Talabani, is the co-founder of the Iraqi Women's High Council (niece of  President Jalal Talabani), she says "We, the women of Iraq, are uniting…We are the most organized sector of the civil society in our country. We won't be ignored anymore."

 
The Women’s Council will also monitor gender issues in the Iraqi administration. To be dismissive about the significance of this even low-level of representation is disrespectful to the memory of Akila al-Hashimi, one of Iraq’s first woman representatives who was assassinated while traveling.  She has recently been replaced by Salama al-Khufaji. These and other women are placing themselves on the line not only for themselves but for their sisters and daughters and deserve our unqualified support,  regardless of their political persuasion. 

 
To further place Iraq in perspective Australian women gained suffrage at the time of the formation of the Australian Federal state but did not have a parliamentary representative until 41 years later. (Edith Cowan was elected to Legislative Assembly as member for West Perth in 1921 and was the first Australian female representative)   I think that in 100 years time that Iraq will have a better record!  (Note to international readers Australian women prior to the formation of the Commonwealth government had suffrage for state government elections) 

South Australia was the first state to allow women to vote and this is often explained as a radical or progressive thing actually it was the opposite.  Women were given the vote because it was expected that they would vote in a conservative manner and that is exactly what happened with the first representatives coming from the Liberal (read conservative) side of politics.  So it will not be surprising if a similar thing occurs in Iraq. But inevitably, this short-term gain for conservatism will be transformed into a real gain for the women of Iraq. (The Grand Ayatollah urged Shia women to vote and gave them "permission" to disobey their husbands in order to do so(!),   but now that women have been brought into the political arena those women will want to stay there!)

 
See more here http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/rn96-97.htm

3. A commitment to discard plans for any foreign bases in Iraq.

 
What can one say?  Building bases is something that could only arise with either the consent of Iraqis or through the installation of puppets; neither of which is really possible over any moderate length of time. This point  is in contradiction with their call for - Consideration of a temporary international peacekeeping force that is truly multilateral and is not composed of any troops from countries that participated in the occupation.  So, the countries that can most afford it and are the most experienced will be replaced by troops from poorer countries and with personnel who have less relevant combat experience - great policy that!  This point negates the original call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops but keeps the all important anti-U.S. stance firmly front and centre. 

4. Iraqi control of its oil and other resources.

Add chant here 'No Blood for oil' 'No blood for oil' etc.  What these women are assuming is that the chant that they all shouted and the banners they all marched behind were actually accurate?  In 2006 it is clear that grabbing the oil could never have been anything to do with the reason for attacking the Baathists and liberating the vast majority of the Iraqi people.  Within less than 1,000 days a political system is clearly in place where essentially anti-U.S. politicians are totally dominant in the National Assembly.  There is not a political puppet in sight.

5. The nullification of privatization and deregulation laws imposed under occupation, allowing Iraqis to shape the trajectory of the post-war economy.

 
This statement embodies the idea that the current representatives and the constitution process is being undertaken by traitors and collaborators.  When the new parliament is formed it is obvious that it will make the laws it wants and to think that international pressure is required to achieve this absolutely devalues the recent political experience and achievements of those attempting to forge a nation-state built upon democracy and representation, and not corrupt thuggery and deliberate oppression of the masses.

6. A massive reconstruction effort that prioritizes Iraqi contractors, and draws upon financial resources of the countries responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

This statement, links into the idea that the war is all about rapacious international business.  However, prioritising Iraqi companies doesn't sound so bad and no doubt is being done where possible because it would be cheaper. One good reason for selecting foreign experts and companies is because they can do the job.  I have not researched this point but would be very surprised if there were suitable 'alternative local companies' that are missing out while Halliburton, or other international companies steal the resources.  What is clear is that reconstruction would be a lot better now if the ‘peace’ campaigners were not cheering on the insurgents. 

 
 Get the politics right and the reconstruction will follow.  Stuff up the politics, and the war of liberation, and all the reconstruction work will be undone.    

7. Consideration of a temporary international peacekeeping force that is truly multilateral and is not composed of any troops from countries that participated in the occupation. 

 
See above.  However it is implicitly accepted by this statement that there would be a disaster if foreign troops were withdrawn.  This is one instance where CodePink's instincts are correct. 

 
The "urgent appeal" also states.
 
To move this peace process forward, we are creating a massive movement of women - crossing generations, races, ethnicities, religions, borders and political persuasions. Together, we will pressure our governments, the United Nations, the Arab League, Nobel Peace Prize winners, religious leaders and others in the international community to step forward to help negotiate a political settlement. And in this era of divisive fundamentalisms, we call upon world leaders to join us in spreading the fundamental values of love for the human family and for our precious planet.

 
Just how CodePink thinks a political settlement can be negotiated in Iraq by the U.N. and or others escapes me.  We need to remember that the insurgents would have just as much to say and do about the loss of their power and privilege if it was a U.N. sanctioned coalition that finally ousted the Baathists.  The problem is not finding a knight-in-shining-armour (or two) to step forward and negotiate a political settlement but having the internal 'warring factions' coming to some kind of agreement.  That is already happening and the presence of Coalition troops assists that process.  It definitely does not mean negotiating with Al-Qaeda.

 
The final call about spreading 'love for the human family' is just  pap, and is meaningless to Iraqi women who struggle under arranged marriages; bride prices; the need for dowrys; and in some cases temporary marriage mechanisms; not to mention honour killings and other outrages.

 
Finally:This is not the world we want for ourselves or our children. With fire in our bellies and love in our hearts, we women are rising up - across borders - to unite and demand an end to the bloodshed and the destruction.

 
Obviously the women and children of Iraq would rather not be woken to the sound of bombs and mortars (from insurgents trying to prevent the democratization of Iraq)   but we need to remember that the women and children of Iraq existed under a fascist tyranny before this war of liberation was launched. 

 
As for the rise of Islamic politics; it may be true that in the short term, women in some regions of Iraq who once wore western-style-dress are forced to wear more Islamic style clothes and to struggle against men in their communities  who are wedded to Sharia law, but this too will pass.  Women will struggle against Islamist bullying and will gain political representation relatively quickly - and other liberalizations will follow. Overwhelmingly, what becomes normal dress in Baghdad will eventually spread throughout the country.