HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Feb. 27 — After backing administrations in the Korean, Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars, the labor movement departed today from tradition and criticized President Bush's approach to a conflict with Iraq.þþAt its winter meeting, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. executive council unanimously approved a resolution urging Mr. Bush to embrace a broad multilateral approach to Iraq and criticizing the administration for dividing the world and insulting America's allies.þþÿThe president has not fulfilled his responsibility to make a compelling and coherent explanation to the American people and the world as to the need for military action against Iraq at this time,ÿ the council, which represents 65 unions, said. ÿAmerica has always been a peace-loving nation, slow to take up arms, and resolute in pursuit of diplomatic resolution to crises. This administration's actions are sadly eroding that reputation.ÿþþThat language is a sharp contrast to organized labor's stance in the Vietnam War, when the federation, under its president, George Meany, strongly supported the war effort. þþSeveral unions, as well as central labor councils in many cities, have approved resolutions denouncing the policy of pre-emptive strikes and threats to attack Iraq even without explicit United Nations approval. þþWithin labor, differences go beyond nuance. Some unions, most notably the American Federation of Teachers, are more willing to accept a unilateral approach. A few liberal unions appear dead set against war.þþThe unions are unanimous in denouncing President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The resolution called Mr. Hussein ÿa demagogue and a despot with an appalling human rights recordÿ who ÿrules the Iraqi people through torture, murder and fear.ÿþþThe federation said it supported efforts to disarm Iraq but added, ÿThis is best achieved in concert with a broad international coalition of allies and with the sanction of the United Nations.ÿþþThe federation faulted the administration for its diplomacy and failure to build a consensus, noting that there is far less unity in the United States and with allies than there was after the Sept. 11 attacks.þþÿNow, just a year and a half later, we have squandered much of that good will, managed to insult many of our strong allies and divided the world at a time when it should speak as one,ÿ the resolution said. þþÿWe're saying that war should be an absolutely last resort, and in the strongest terms we're urging the administration to go through the U.N.,ÿ said the federation's international affairs director, Barbara Shailor. ÿWe can't go around insulting our allies. In a world filled with terrorism, we need all the friends we can get.ÿþþMs. Shailor said unions would overwhelmingly back a war if the Security Council gave a green light.þþThe federation's international affairs committee drafted the resolution and invited two Clinton administration figures, Samuel R. Berger, national security adviser, and Dennis B. Ross, special Mideast envoy, to give detailed briefings on Iraq.þþUnion leaders gave several reasons for departing from the strong support in past wars. In the cold war, most union leaders were fervently anti-Communist, a major reason that labor backed the Vietnam War. Members often conducted counterdemonstrations at antiwar rallies. þþWith labor clashing with Mr. Bush over many issues, several leaders said they felt less inhibited about criticizing his foreign policy, even over an issue as serious as war. þþMost unions backed President George Bush in the gulf war, although some leaders, echoing many Democratic lawmakers, urged him to wait longer before attacking. The president of the federation, Lane Kirkland, said, ÿThe American labor movement stands in full support of our countryÿ to ÿbring this conflict to an early and decisive conclusion.ÿþþSeveral leaders said the increased power and role of women and minorities in labor might have also made the movement more averse to war.þþThe United Farm Workers, citing the teachings of its founder, Cesar Chavez, said, ÿPresident Bush has not offered convincing evidence to the American people that war is needed, because Iraq poses an imminent threat to the country. Such a use of U.S. military force would require thousands of young men and women, many of them people of color, to fight overseas.ÿþþIn its resolution, the teachers' union said that military action ÿwill only have the support of the American people if they believe that such action is only a last resort.ÿ The union added that it ÿrecognizes that the U.S. may at times have to act unilaterally in defense of its national security.ÿþþSeveral unions said the administration was pushing for a war for political gain and to distract the public from economic troubles. The Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, or Unite, approved a resolution saying, ÿThis war is a cynical attempt to distract attention away from the real concerns of American citizens — a faltering economy, declining education budgets, state and local fiscal crises, increasing unemployment.ÿþþThe union president, Bruce Raynor, said: þþÿIf our policy is to topple horrible regimes, I'm not sure if Saddam's in the top five. North Korea seems like a worse regime, and Myanmar may be even more repressive toward its people.ÿþþMany unions sought to make clear they supported American troops, regardless of the stand on war.þþThe Cleveland Central Labor Council, representing 100,000 workers, approved a resolution saying, ÿIf our nation goes to war, absent demonstrably legitimate concerns about weapons of mass destruction, we will continue to express our opposition to that war, while finding meaningful ways to support our troops.ÿþþþ
Source: NY Times
