The difference a decade makes

I have been thinking about the changes that have taken place in the world in the last decade or so, and in particular the effect of the Internet. And I’ve been thinking about Iraq. Let me explain.
Yesterday I was supposed to have a meeting to discuss a website. But instead of that, I found myself displaying the enormous power of the Internet as a campaigning tool for trade unions.


My meeting was with the London representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), Abdullah Muhsin, at the headquarters of the RMT union, which represents, among others, the people who work on the London Undergound. Abdullah had recently returned from Baghdad and we were due to discuss the creation of the union’s first website, which will be located at http://www.iraqitradeunions.org. But we didn’t get to that — instead, we had to deal with a crisis.
Abdullah had just received a phone call from the brothers in Baghdad telling him that three days earlier, US occupying forces had driven up to the union’s temporary headquarters in ten armored vehicles. Dozens of troops participated in the raid. Eight IFTU officials were arrested. Windows were smashed. The sign with the union’s name on it was defaced. Banners and posters condemning terrorism were torn down. (Obviously the American soldiers couldn’t read Arabic.) No explanation was given.
A day later, the eight arrested men were released. (“Released unharmed,” Abdullah stresses.) But the union’s efforts to get the news to the outside world were blocked — they were unable to use their computers, and couldn’t get a phone line out of the country until two days after the release. The raid had taken place three days ago.
Nevertheless, it was urgent that we bring this story to the attention of the international labour movement. And to demand of the US government that, at the very least, they investigate what happened — and guarantee that it will not happen again.
While Alex Gordon of the RMT got on the phone to journalists and members of Parliament, Abdullah and I sat down at the computer to see what we could do.
We had a draft IFTU statement in hand which had been dictated to Abdullah by phone, and which he had translated into English. We published this immediately to the web using LabourStart’s Labour News Network, a feature of the LabourStart site that allows anyone to post news stories. (This was something we had created in order to allow strikers, for example, to get their own side of the story up on the net.)
We then added a link to that story to LabourStart’s main database, and afterwards, we made it the top story of the day. This meant that it would not only appear on top of our home page, but also on the nearly 520 trade union websites that use our service — including six IWW websites in the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK.
We digested the news story into a single paragraph and also drew up a one paragraph message to President Bush demanding that the US investigate the raid and guarantee that it would not recur. We put these into LabourStart’s ActNOW online campaigning system and the campaign went live on the net. Trade unionists were now only a click away from sending on their messages to Bush.
The final stage was the mass mailing. Merely putting up the information, or allowing a simple one-click online protest, would not produce results. Email is the most powerful weapon we have in the online arsenal and we used it at once. We drafted a short email message to be sent to the 16,200 people on LabourStart’s mailing list pointing them to the page on the web where they could read more — and make their feelings known to the White House.
In essence then, the process consists of three parts: getting the information onto the web, creating a simple online facility to allow people to act, and then spreading the word using email.
While we were handling the online part of the campaign — and the whole process took less than an hour — Alex had managed to get a friendly member of Parliament to agree to raise the question in the House of Commons the following day. (Even though British troops were not involved in the incident, the UK is the senior partner in the US-led coalition.) Contacts were made with journalists. Unions (such as the powerful Congress of South African Trade Unions) began issuing statements of protest and solidarity.
An hour after I had come into the RMT offices with the intention of discussing a website with Abdullah, we had managed to demonstrate the enormous potential of the net. There was nothing that could compare with the speed or the reach of email and the web.
Now imagine if all this had happened in 1991, during the first war between the US and Iraq. Imagine if Saddam had been deposed then, and a new independent trade union movement had been formed. What would have happened if US forces back then had raided their offices and arrested their leaders? How would we have known? How would we have spread the word?
The differences between then and now are vast — thanks to this fantastic new technology.

14 Comments on "The difference a decade makes"

  1. A fascinating story and a good initiative.

  2. Well, yes and no. Sure, now 16,200 trade unionists know about the story. Add to that number the people who were forwarded the alert, those who saw it on the LabourStart pages, and those who read it on one of the several blogs that discussed it. Let’s be generous and say that another 10,000 people saw it other than the original subscribers to the LabourStart list. That’s 26,200 people. Around the world.
    Some observations: First, 26,200 people scattered around the world isn’t very much. Second, they were asked, essentially, to send an email to the White House to demand an investigation. Given that George Bush hasn’t responded to millions of people out on the streets demanding that he not invade Iraq, what are the chances of his doing anything as a result of a few thousand emails?
    I don’t want to suggest that the LabourStart campaign about this outrage isn’t a good thing–it certainly got my attention–but before we get too self-congratulatory, I think it’s worth reflecting on what was actually accomplished by the campaign (or will be accomplished). After all, the good of a campaign should be measured not by its size or speed but by its results.

  3. Eric Lee | 12/12/2003 at 12:12 |

    Jacob raises an interesting point — but his analysis is fundamentally flawed.
    If getting millions out into the streets to protest a war did not budge the President, then how can a few thousand emails have an impact?
    First of all, the whole history of campaigning — and most significantly the work done by Amnesty International over more than 40 years — shows that you don’t need millions of people to get things changed.
    Second, you can’t compare a demand to stop a war to a demand to investigate an incident. The scale of the two is quite different.
    Bush had many reasons to go to war and yes, the millions who opposed his decision were not listened to. But this case of the raid on the IFTU is entirely different. It is completely counter-productive from the US point of view, and my own guess is that is another error, collateral damage, cock-up, whatever you want to call it. The fact that the soldiers ripped down banners which condemned terrorism (but were, of course, in Arabic) shows how little the American troops knew of what they were doing, or who they were arresting (remember the 8 were released unharmed the following day).
    You don’t have to be an opponent of the war to support this call on the US to investigate the raid and reassure the Iraqi unions that it will not happen again. Indeed, you can be one of those who supported regime change in Iraq and still think that this is a remarkably stupid thing for the occupation forces to have done.
    LabourStart’s own experiences with online campaigns — which we have documented — shows that in a number of cases (such as the Sydney Hilton Hotel, Ashland in Norway, Samsonite in Thailand, and most recently, BAT in Burma) we have been able to persuade giant corporations to change their policies, recognize unions, negotiate contracts, and even pull out of country — with the support and participation of far fewer people than were involved in the antiwar movement.
    It doesn’t take millions of people — it takes the dedication and intelligence of thousands.

  4. While “26,200 people scattered around the world” doesn’t sound like much, it is important to consider who those people are. I notice that a British MP raised the matter in parliament, and I was forwarded the email from, among other people, an Australian member of parliament. I also notice that in the few days after the email began circulating, a handful of minor news agencies have carried the story.
    It’s really like dominoes — if you tip the right ones, you can set the whole thing off. The question is how to get big dominoes to fall (such as the New York Times). Unfortunately this story seems to have been overshadowed by the inevitable decision to keep the spoils of war for the warmongers.
    The important thing now is to keep the pressure on, so that eventually the story will be reported — or at the very least that the next similar action will be treated more seriously.

  5. I completely agree with Eric and Robert about the effectiveness of web campaigning by determination rather than by sheer numbers. Here in the USA, millions of one-time e-mails can be a miserable flop, as witness our angry but unfocused barrage of emails to Bush at the beginning of the Iraq war. Bush waited for anger at the plans to subside, which unfortunately it did, made a series of fearmongering speeches worthy of Mussolini, then went ahead with his war after the opposition slacked.
    The secret is to never slack! You must be in the email box of your opponent every day in numbers large enough to assure notice, and just as importantly, you must be in the mailbox of every known opponent of your opponent, informing, encouraging, and enabling those less vocal and web-aware than you to speak up and demand that wrongs be righted.
    I have learned a lot from MoveOn.org and Buzzflash.com, two noteworthy anti-Bush-Empire sites, in this regard. Sometimes 5,000 or 10,000 emails, properly timed,sent to the seat of power by persons unafraid to state their names and demand action, can forestall horrible Government actions, as witness the delay (at least) of Bush plans to impose “Patriot act II”, a repeal of our Bill of Rights favored by Bush and his henchmen.
    I don’t mean to be longwinded, only to try to offer encouragement to men and women who, as far as I can see, are prepared to stand up in an effective and concerted way for what we all know in our hearts is right and true.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Reaume MD
    Ionia, MI, USA

  6. I really think the description of the chain of events and the growth of the campaign against the raid on the Iraqi trade unions provide a really good argument for the use of the web by trades unionists.
    I think it is worth pointing out though, that although only a few thousand people scattered around the world can have an impact, it’s because of their connection with thousands of other people in their organisations.
    Those in power know that every trade unionist has a direct organisational connection with thousands of other members of that union – and this is uniquely more powerful than the relationship people have between each other as citizens or even members of a campaign.
    For every email that is sent by a trade unionist those in power know (or fear) that there are thousands of other trades unionists connected to that individual and organised at the point of production.
    Online organising tools work best if they’re a part of an ‘offline’ approach involving all the old methods (such as word of mouth, leaflets, people speaking at meetings and demonstrating) as well as the new (text alerts, video showings).
    I think it is important to see it in these terms because new technology has no mystical power in and of itself – to turn it to our advantage we have to understand how we can use it as part of campaigning rather than a substitute.

  7. Brek Renzelman | 13/12/2003 at 20:07 |

    Speaking of MoveOn.org and those of us supporters who are willing to put our names to strong statements against a particularly egregious political escapade whenever such arises (Mike Reaume’s comment), would it not be helpful if LABOURSTART included fields of data entry for stating our address or at the very least the country from which our complaint originates? MoveOn.org requests this sort of information from us so that, for instance, when U.S. citizens are communicating with elected officials via one of MoveOn.org’s action URLs, a written response thereon is possible. It makes a difference to the recipient to know that the complaint is coming from his or her own constituency.

  8. When I received news of the outrage I did not send the message to George Bush but to the Prime Minister of Australia. As part of the coalition involved in the war he also has a responsibility for what happens now. I don’t think George Bush cares what I think because I don

  9. Good work Eic. What I would like to see, were it possible, would be some further contextualisation of the story. To what extent is this sort of outrageous thuggish executive behaviour par for the course on all and any kind of civic organisation over in Iraq these days, and to what extent might we suppose that have we got a specific anti-union agenda operating here?

  10. Robert Storness-Bliss | 14/12/2003 at 07:41 |

    I think your comments Eric are right on the mark. In addition, the lack of proper “intelligence” utilized by American Forces in raiding Union premises is unfortunately more the norm than anything else. I still remember the “intelligence” used to free the hostages in Iraq! Working people throughout the world have always been under attack by right wing governments but this is a new “low” for Bush and his toddies. I’m sure our right wing “Liberal” government here in British Columbia,Canada would love the opportunity to do the same to our Union Leaders.

  11. Bruce Spryer | 15/12/2003 at 10:03 |

    A victory non the less with Saddam’s capture! While it is an easy mark to attack Bush & Co with war crimes-a REAL peoples’ criminal has been outed. Has the extent of Saddam’s anti-union thuggism, let alone human rights atrocities been revealed-will they ever be??-remain vigilent unionists to ALL anti-union bullies!

  12. Austin Paulnack | 15/12/2003 at 23:24 |

    An easy way to network an email complaint to
    a targeted politician/bureaucrat, (like about the
    attack on the Iraq trade unionists) is to
    also inform your local trade union leaders and Congress with a letter to the daily newspaper.

  13. Hello from Canada.
    Having written letters on behalf of Amnesty International and the Sierra Club and wwwPanda and more, I would suggest that it is not the quantity that counts but the quality and specifically, how well you can quantify your point of view towards the specific problem.
    In this case, we have a group of American commandos apparently following a false lead. In another such sweeping search a group of soldiers discovered the hiding place of Saddam Hussein. Now If I were to write a letter to President Bush complaining about the harrassment of Labor organizers, I would include the question of when he was going to pull his soldiers out of Iraq? I would also ask if he had any intention of relenquishing control of the Iraqi oil fields and exactly when was he going to send his troops to the Middle East in order to stop Ariel Sharon and Yassar Arafat from sacrificing any more innocent lives in their fifty year old battle over territory. If Bush agreed with my suggestions, I would (if I were American) vote for him myself and I might even forgive him for having shut down my email address a year ago. His interior minister, Gale Norton, dumped fifteen thousand response notices into my email box which effectively shut me down…which brings up an important point! When thousands of people send the same form letter to the U.S. government, the government considers it a mail bomb. They believe it to be an attack on their computers and they respond aggressively and negatively. For that reason, when I am asked to attempt to correct a desperate social situation anywhere on the planet, I personally take the responsibility, then I create and send a personal letter outlining the problem and suggesting possible solutions to the recipient. I use my own personal address. In other words, I put my neck on the line. It takes courage which I am sure each and every one of you have in abundance.
    Signed: Joseph Raglione
    Executive director: The World Humanitarian Peace and Ecology Movement. A non-profit organization.

  14. Joe Davenport | 19/12/2003 at 17:44 |

    A very good begining. Still many of my brothers and sisters are not looped in. To be a staffer for American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and not know UNISON shows we have ground to cover. If we use this tool to push from the bottom change will occur. And for folks around the world our all volunteer force is so non professional (speaking as a veteran). In many armies they train you in multiple skills and pay a living wage for those skills not USA. You enlist for one job-don’t matter if it’s light infantry or pharmacy tech, thats all you do and know. Well back to where it really matters work and the contract table. Joe Davenport Steward AFSCME local 1488 University of Washington-home of Americas only Subway Sandwhich Shop Steward

Comments are closed.