On the US Threats against Iraq, WPI Briefing Interview with Koorosh Modaresi

WPI Briefing Number 50 
Weekly of the Worker-communist Party of Iran 
March 20, 2002 
http://www.wpibriefing.com 

Editor: Maryam Namazie; Assistant Editor: Fariborz Pooya 

In This Issue: 
* On the US Threats against Iraq, WPI Briefing Interview with Koorosh 
Modaresi 
* Referendum, A plan vis-à-vis the movement to oust the regime, By 
Hamid Taghvaie 
* Public Announcement Regarding Mansoor Hekmat's Treatment 
* International Tribunal against the Rightlessness of Women Living 
under Islamic Laws 

**********************************************************************
**************** 
* On the US Threats against Iraq 
Interview with Koorosh Modaresi 

The US has threatened to attack Iraq because it says Iraq has 
accumulated 'weapons of mass destruction'.  It seems an attack on 
Iraq is likely in the next phase of the so-called war on terrorism.  
Why is Iraq the next target and what are the real reasons behind this 
attack? 

Koorosh Modarresi: The US threat is neither against 'weapons of mass 
destruction' nor against terrorism. As we have stated earlier, as far 
as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, the US has the biggest 
stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological arsenals and has used 
them whenever it has found it suitable. Remember, the US is the only 
country which has used nuclear weapons and mass murdered hundreds of 
thousands of innocent people. The traces of US chemical and 
biological warfare in Vietnam are still obvious both on the 
Vietnamese and on the medals its generals wear on their uniforms. 
Everyday, its ally, the Israeli government, is committing mass murder 
in Palestine, let alone that the Israeli prime minister is a 
recognised war criminal. Right now the US is using the most 
devastating weapon of mass destruction - i.e. economic sanctions - 
against the people in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government 
are criminals; there is no doubt about it. However, if there should 
be punishment for war criminals and the users of weapons of mass 
destruction, the US government cannot and should not be the judge. 
They should be seated along with Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi 
government in any court of justice. But, this is not about justice 
and has never been so. The excuse about 'weapons of mass destruction' 
has been invented during the Gulf war to justify the US' 'new world 
order' after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which asserts that the 
world should be ruled and run based on US interests. Today, the 
excuse and reason are still one and the same. 

The 'war on terrorism' is a pure joke. The Israeli government is 
committing one of the most criminal terrorist atrocities against the 
Palestinians everyday. The so-called targeted murder of Palestinians, 
bulldozing 'suspected' homes, murdering children who are simply 
resisting occupation, Nazi-like mass arrests and line-ups of 
Palestinians have all been going on not in secret but, thanks to the 
US support, shamelessly in front of our eyes and on our TV screens. 
If someone wants to talk about terrorism in the world, they should 
talk about Israel. The Iraqi government is a criminal regime like 
most of the US allies in the region. 

These excuses are simply war propaganda. The aim of the US government 
is two-fold. Internally, they need to keep the fire of American 
jingoism alive, justify the need for a huge ever-expanding military 
force and its expansion and intervention wherever they want, among 
others. Internationally, they simply want to keep the world at the 
beck and call of the interests of US companies and capital. They want 
an undisputed rule of their interests. 

However, opposition to the US military adventure in Iraq is 
worldwide. Public opinion in Europe is overwhelmingly against this 
policy; none of the regional governments dare to get involved in such 
a blunt provocation, while the Israeli state's mass terrorism against 
the Palestinians is going on. Without regional and European support, 
the only US option is the bombardment of military, industrial and 
economic 'targets' in Iraq. Such a campaign will undoubtedly harm 
people in Iraq much more than the Iraqi government or military, as 
has previously been the case. The Iraqi military is a professional 
force which is capable of protecting itself. It is the Iraqi people 
who have been devastated by years of war and economic sanctions. 
Future American bombing of Iraq will undoubtedly act as a 
provocation, which will give every excuse to the Iraqi regime to use 
the most brutal means to suppress any political protests. If the US 
wants to overthrow Saddam's regime then it should end the military 
stand off, remove economic sanctions and let the people in Iraq 
breath and confront this brutal regime. Terrorising people in Iraq to 
force them to rise up against the Iraqi regime is a psychotic policy 
which should be stopped. 

When the USA attacked the Taliban, we did not condemn it (though we 
rightly condemned the bombings and the killing of civilians).  What 
is the Worker-communist Party's stance on a USA attack on Iraq and 
why is it different from the stance on the war against the Taliban? 

Koorosh Modarresi: Our stance on the US threat and war has been clear 
right from the beginning. We want these threats and the war efforts 
to be stopped unconditionally, and that the economic sanctions, which 
have been going on for a decade, be removed immediately. What the US 
has done in Iraq for the last decade is one of the most shameful 
events in recent history. Millions of children and innocent people in 
Iraq have been devastated and lost their lives because of the 
economic sanctions and the constant destruction of the country's 
infrastructure. Life simply would be much easier without US 
intervention. 

The situation in Iraq is quite different from the situation in 
Afghanistan. The Taliban regime had suspended all aspects of civil 
and social life in that country; half the population, women, had been 
pushed to total enslavement; education, health services and all 
aspects of civility had been suspended. Besides, there existed the 
possibility of overthrowing the Taliban with minimum civilian 
casualties.  Any future regime in Afghanistan would be much better 
than the Taliban regime. 

All these parameters are different in Iraq. This is a country with a 
basic civil structure; what the US has up its sleeves for Iraq can be 
much worse than what is currently going on. Iraq can completely slip 
into anarchy and its social structure can disintegrate. 

For those who have US imperialism as the only characteristic in their 
minds and see the people and their might as a kind of lateral issue, 
then the Afghanistan and Iraqi situations look the same. 'Anti-
imperialism' will lead them to a similar conclusion. If your point of 
departure is the might of the people, however, you will reach a 
different one. 

To be continued 

* Referendum 
A plan vis-à-vis the movement to oust the regime 
By Hamid Taghvaie 

It is sometime now that a section of the Islamic Republic of Iran's 
opposition, both on the Right and those who call themselves Left, and 
segments within the Islamic regime have been calling for a 
referendum. What is the political significance and aims of this 
stance in the current political situation in Iran? 

Overall, a referendum can be appropriate and a step forward in some 
situations; today, however, those who advocate a referendum are in 
some ways poised vis-à-vis an ongoing movement to oust the Islamic 
Republic. 

A genuine referendum requires certain preconditions and conditions. A 
referendum gains real political meaning when there is a certain level 
of freedom in society - the freedom of political activity, press, 
expression, and freedom to publish ideas.  It gains meaning under 
conditions where people are familiar with the views of various 
groups, parties and personalities, the question being posed in the 
referendum is clear,  and the position of parties, groups and 
personalities on the question being posed is clear. Circumstances in 
which people can participate in a transparent and informed manner and 
know what they are voting for. Today in Iran, none of the above 
conditions exist; in fact, the people's struggle is to gain these 
freedoms. With the absence of these conditions, a referendum means 
bypassing the people's struggle for freedom and more accurately 
obscuring and distorting this struggle. A vague referendum that the 
Islamic Republic will never concede to and which is politically 
ambiguous is in fact essentially a stance to prevent the people's 
struggle to overthrow the regime. 

If anyone wants to seriously find out people's views through a 
referendum, before anything else, they must explain what question the 
referendum is to pose. Those who advocate a referendum are themselves 
not very clear about this. If the question to be posed is whether the 
Islamic Republic should stay or go, then they must be simpletons to 
believe that it is likely to push the Islamic Republic aside by a 
referendum. No government in any part of the world will relinquish 
power through a referendum. Even in the freest Western democracies, 
the way to change a cabinet or a government is by elections once 
every four or five years; no government will agree to give up power 
between two elections by way of referendum even to the party closest 
to it. Let alone a system like the Islamic Republic in which even the 
basic minimum democratic standards do not exist. It does not require 
much political savvy to understand that the regime must be overthrown 
by people's protests and struggle; it cannot be put aside by 
referendum and merely posing a question. Now that this struggle has 
started and people's protests are taking new dimensions everyday, 
advocating a referendum is in fact an attempt to avert this struggle. 
A referendum is being advocated as an alternative to the regime's 
overthrow and is creating the illusion that in place of struggle and 
protests, it is possible to remove the Islamic Republic through the 
ballot box. This of course only applies to those forces that want to 
replace the regime through a referendum. By advocating a referendum, 
many others intend to bring about change within the regime itself. A 
section in the 2nd Khordad grouping [also know as Reformists] both 
within and outside the regime are using the referendum as leverage 
against the opposing faction in the government. In this instance, the 
call for a referendum is completely reactionary and is posed against 
the people's protest movement in order to sustain the regime.  These 
groups advocate a referendum as a tactic. They themselves know that 
in the repression they have established, a referendum is just hot air 
but they talk about it to score points against the rival faction. 

If anyone truly wants to know the people's views, there is no need 
for a referendum. Over and over again, people have said no to the 
Islamic Republic with the only practically possible 'referendum' 
which exists in the oppressive environment - protests and riots in 
cities such as the July riots, student demonstrations, women's 
protests and the relentless protests of workers. If the aim is to 
find out people's views, then a referendum is meaningless. People 
have voted with their feet and announced that they do not want the 
totality of this regime. What's unclear is not the people's vote but 
that the 2nd Khordad supporters of a referendum want another result. 
They want to maintain the regime with the least possible change, tame 
Khamenei and keep the Islamic Republic. The people have said no to 
the totality of the regime in a practical referendum. The supporters 
of a referendum do not want to accept this and that is why they 
advocate a referendum. This is the true political meaning of a 
referendum in the current situation. 

One of the rationalisations offered by the supporters of a referendum 
is that people themselves have to decide the type of government they 
prefer. On face value, this seems democratic and has support beyond 
the advocates of a referendum, though in fact it does not provide a 
way out for the people. When asked what kind of government they want, 
they say: 'People have to choose for themselves,' 'We want a people's 
government', 'we are for the people's rule'.  These are big words 
that say nothing. It is right that people must choose, but choose 
what? This choice only has meaning if political parties and 
organisations have made their choice beforehand. To choose, people 
must know the position and programme of each party and group. People 
can only choose between the available alternatives. People want and 
have the right to know what opposition parties and forces firstly do 
not want - that is, why and to what extent they oppose the regime, 
and secondly, what they want - that is, what changes and rule they 
want to bring about. People must know what criticism the opposition 
forces and parties have on a religious government and religion, their 
views on women's oppression and equality between women and men; 
whether they recognise freedom of expression, press, association, 
organisation, and strike and or whether they add conditions and 
limitations when the need arises.  They must know what they say about 
workers' rights, their criticism of sexual apartheid and what they 
have to say about the rights of women and youth; finally, people want 
to know how far the opposition's criticism and objections are 
compatible with their own demands and objections. In fact, the 
problem with our referendum-ists, be they monarchists or 2nd Khordad 
types, is that their policies and objectives bear no relation to the 
protests and demands of the masses of people; a referendum is merely 
a stance to bypass the people's struggle and pose an alternative not 
against the regime but against the people's movement for the regime's 
overthrow. To overthrow the Islamic Republic and for the realisation 
of freedom and liberation, an extensive and widespread struggle must 
be waged and this is exactly what the advocates of a referendum, even 
those who want the regime's overthrow, do not want. 

Another rationalisation provided by some advocates of a referendum is 
the avoidance of violence. They argue that a referendum presents a 
peaceful means of changing the government whereas protests, struggle 
and revolution are violent and lead to bloodshed. This type of 
rationalisation has in fact been invented to justify their defence of 
the regime and its totality vis-à-vis the people's struggle. For
this 
very reason its influence goes beyond the ranks of referendum 
advocates to include all 2nd Khordad types both within and outside 
the regime, which have used it time and time again against the 
people's protests and struggle. Because of their political 
objectives, these forces stand shoulder to shoulder with the regime 
and against the people's struggle, but like to paint their stance as 
humanitarian and 'against violence'. One must tell these 'peace 
lovers' to open their eyes and see that the source of violence is the 
Islamic Republic and not the people who are struggling against it. 
People go to the streets with their bear hands and demand their just 
and humane rights; it is the regime which responds with truncheons, 
bullets, prison and torture. It is not the people and the 
revolutionary forces that are violent; it is the regime and the 
counter-revolutionary forces which use violence and unleash the 
police and army on the people to maintain their position and deny the 
people's just demands. In every revolution, it has always been so. 
The counter-revolutionary forces shoot at the people 
and 'humanitarians' such as the 2nd Khordad lot blame the revolution 
for violence and counsel revolutionaries to avoid violence. 

This is not humanitarianism; it is supporting the oppressors. The 
Islamic Republic and the 'peace-loving' 2nd Khordad lot complete one 
other. One oppresses and kills and the other tells people not to 
partake in violent struggle. Their problem is not to resist violence 
but to resist the people. If anyone is really against violence, they 
must stand up to the Islamic Republic and protest against the regime 
as the source and perpetrator of violence and killing in society. If 
anyone is really against violence, they must actively support the 
people's struggle - that is the struggle against organised state 
violence, which is meted out against the people not just when people 
protest but every single day. This is the only real meaning of 
humanism and opposition to violence. 

Let me summarise. The issue is neither advocating democracy nor 
pacifism. These are just foolish justifications. They advocate a 
referendum neither for the sake of people's choice and humanism nor 
to avoid violence. In today's situation in Iran, a referendum is not 
even another alternative to change or remove the regime. It is just 
another way to oppose the people's rejection of the totality of the 
regime and their struggle for its overthrow. 

* Public Announcement Regarding Mansoor Hekmat's Treatment 

This is to inform the public that Mansoor Hekmat's treatment for 
recurring cancer has begun.  Any new information on his progress will 
be announced accordingly. 

It is estimated that this stage of treatment, which will take place 
over a three month period will cost 120,000 pounds sterling.  Given 
that an increasing number of friends and comrades have offered their 
support and assistance, the Worker-communist Party of Iran hereby 
announces the following bank account numbers in which financial 
contributions can be deposited. 

Germany 
Account Name: Modaresi 
Account No.: 2208622234 
Bank Code: 30020900 
International Bank Code: Citideff 
Bank: Citibank, Privatkunden AG 
Address: Kasernenstr. 10, 40213 Düsseldorf 

Britain 
Account Name: WPI 
Account No.: 45477981 
Bank Sort Code: 60 24 23 
Bank: Natwest Bank 
Branch: Wood Green 
Address: London N22 

Sweden 
Account Name: M. Rozalipour 
Account No.: 973 857 972-2 
Clearing Number: 8327-9 
Bank: FÖRENINGSSPARBANKEN AB 

Canada 
Account Name: S. Irandoust 
Account No.: 76-15531 
Bank Code: 07932 
Bank: CIBC 
Address: Danforth and Victoria Park, Toronto 

United States 
Account Name: Modanlou 
Account Number: 06056-12226 
Bank Name: Bank of America 

Please contact the WPI Office of International Relations for more 
information. 

* International Tribunal against the Rightlessness of Women Living 
under Islamic Laws 

The International Tribunal against the Rightlessness of Women Living 
under Islamic Laws will be held during 29-30 November 2002 in The 
Hague, the Netherlands.  The aim of the Tribunal is to expose the 
sexual apartheid faced by millions of women in countries ruled by 
Islamic laws, draw public attention, and gain support and 
international solidarity.  The Tribunal will be a vast international 
tribunal and meeting that will support millions of women who are 
considered less than human, deprived of a life worthy of human 
beings, and facing sexual apartheid, compulsory veiling and inhuman 
forms of punishments such as flogging, torture and stoning to death. 

A strong international movement and solidarity is crucial to defend 
women's rights and stop this brutality and inequality.  To join the 
Tribunal or find out more information, please contact: Mina Ahadi, 
Coordinator, E-mail: minaahadi@xxxxxxx, Tel: 0049 177 5692 413; Fax: 
0049 2012 488 510; Shiva Mahbobi, Public Relations, Email: 
shiva_mahbobi@xxxxxxxxx, Tel: 0044 7719166731. 

Steering Committee: Mina Ahadi, Coordinator of the International 
Committee against Stoning and Tribunal, German; Rosa Logar, Women's 
rights advocate, Austria; Shiva Mahbobi, International Campaign for 
Defense of Women's Rights in Iran, UK; Nadia Mahmood, Chair of the 
Middle East Center for Women's Studies, UK; Fereshteh Moradi, 
Coordinator of the International Campaign for Defense of Women's 
Rights in Iran, Netherlands; Nasrin Amir Sedighi, Iranian Cultural 
Center, Germany; Sohaila Sharifi, Editorial Assistant of Medusa, UK 

**********************************************************************
***************** 
Bank Account: 
Z.I. Konto: 520 5164 008 
BLZ: 10090000 
Beliner Volksbank 
Germany 

To unsubscribe, please reply to this e-mail and write unsubscribe in 
the subject. 


WPI, Office of International Relations, Suite 730 
28 Old Brompton Road 
South Kensington, London SW7 3SS 
Tel: +44 (0) 777 9898 968 
Fax: +44 (0) 870 13 62 182 
www.wpiran.org/english 
www.wpibriefing.com 
wpi.international.office@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
wpipr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4.
No Minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/B140lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

"[C]apital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and 
dirt."
--Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 31

Community email addresses:
  Post message: marxist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subscribe:    marxist-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Unsubscribe:  marxist-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  List owner:   jplst15+@xxxxxxxx

Shortcut URL to this page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist

Also take our one-question survey at
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist/polls 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/