War, protesters, and the Longshoremen: Can the labor and peace movements stem fascism?

author : Eric Chase topic : Port Militarization Resistance | Port of Olympia

by Eric Chase

Olympia, Washington is once again in the international spotlight. Having been the focus of much media attention in the past few years with stories of Rachel Corrie and Captain James Yee, the Olympia City Council's stand on making the capital city a nuclear free zone and uninviting the USS Olympia, a nuclear powered submarine, into the port, to the recent Green Scare grand jury investigations into environmental direct action, Olympia seems to be the hot bed of anti-establishment, or at least of anti-US foreign and domestic policy and probably not a very likely candidate of a presidential visit any time soon.

Most recently, Olympia has made international news with its port protests focusing on the loading of military cargo in its relatively small port. Once considered the hub of liberalism in the northwest (arguably leftism, being the home of the famous/infamous Evergreen State College), Olympia is also known as the hippest town in the west. Nearby Fort Lewis and home of the Stryker brigade is often seen as a thorn in the side of this very progressive town.

In the past few years, Olympia has also witnessed the increasing use of its port to send military gear to the Iraq War. Much to the chagrin of many of the local residents, many of whom are vehemently opposed to the war, or just don't particularly like armored military vehicles convoying through their quirky hip downtown, this capital city of a bit over 55,000 people has become an unwelcoming staging ground for a war that many now realize is illegal and immoral.

The latest port protest resulted in the arrests of more than thirty people and the condemnation of several of its council members for being present at the demonstrations, one intervening when club wielding sheriff's deputies went after onlookers and another, a health care worker, was administering first aid to those who had been peppersprayed. But the real issue at stake may be missed by many in the peace movement: can organized labor and the peace movement work together to stop American Fascism?

This war, this war against terrorism, this war in Iraq, this war in Afghanistan, this coming war in Iran, is only one symptom of a larger issue . . . Global power, hegemony, fascism. While buzzwords are often thrown around without regard to meaning or reference, fascism has certain aspects that many can agree on.

The combination of state, corporate and military power over the democratic process.

Absolute rule in which critics are labeled as anti-patriotic, criminal or terrorist.

The imprisonment of those critics.

The normalization of state terror and torture.

The consolidation of centralized power.

The legislation of social behaviors and beliefs at the highest levels.

The military taking over key industries and social institutions in the name of national security.

While we can see examples of all the above and much more can be added to the list, the last aspect, the militarization of key industries and social institutions can be seen when examining the ports of the US. In 2002, the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen Union or Longshoremen (ILWU) was engaged in contract negotiations with the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), a conglomeration of multinational corporations that run the shipping of most of the west coast ports. Some of the sticking points of this negotiation was the PMAs desire to automate away many ILWU jobs, and decrease benefits and pensions. The ILWU agreed to operate on a day to day contract while negotiations were under way. But in a stealthy move, the PMA decided to lock out the workers.

While complaining that goods were rotting on the docks, the PMA crafted the news to interpret this as a strike by the ILWU when in fact the ILWU willing to continue to work under the old contract so long as negotiations were continued. Then the PMA claiming to be victims of this fabricated strike asked the Bush administration to step in. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, the Bush administration "forced" the Longshoremen back to work, which is what the ILWU wanted to do all along, and further threatened to nationalize the ports and have the National Guard and the US Navy scab on the ILWU. Bush referred to the lockout as an ILWU strike and much of the mainstream media followed suit.

This is the crux of the ILWU predicament. The Bush administration has so far militarized the borders of the US and Mexico with the National Guard and has done a far shaken up our airports as well. What better way to destroy the most progressive, if not radical, of the big unions than to declare a national emergency and use the military to replace the union? The ILWU is seen by many as the standard by which many unions should operate: pay is high, and benefits and retirement are exceptional compared to the rest of the US workforce. They have a decent democratic process and are on the low end of hierarchical labor models.

At the ILWU's 33rd International Convention, the union that refused to load ships to Japan in solidarity with the people of China, whom Japan just attacked prior to WWII, the union who refused to load military ships heading for Vietnam during our invasion of that country, the union who refused to load ships heading for aparthied South Africa, the union who shut down the ports for a day in solidarity with Mumia Abu Jamal, the union who threatened to shut down the ports in solidarity with the prisoners in Seattle during the WTO protests, passed no less than four resolutions condemning the Bush Administration and calling for the immediate end of the war Iraq.

So, as an international union, the ILWU has come out against the war. Then why in Olympia was there friction between some of the protesters and the local union? On one level we have to acknowledge the local's democratic structure. Not all of the Olympia ILWU are against the war. While many are, they most certainly have a considerable number who have familial and political ties with nearby Fort Lewis. They also have admitted that they have been able to allow more people to join the ILWU because of the increased business from military shipments. Others will bring up the point that the federal government is more than willing to load those ships with the military and bypass the ILWU, so why shouldn't the Longshoremen get paid union wages for doing work that will get done anyways. Many have seen this as nothing more than a deal with the Devil.

So what is the solution? Most certainly, peace protesters want to stop shipments from going to the war machine. In lieu of that, perhaps make enough racket to be heard over the din of war drums in an effort to rally more anti-war actions and activism. What does the ILWU want? Most certainly to survive, to survive a very real threat at destroying perhaps the most powerful union in the country. Where is the common ground? Perhaps it is stopping not just the war in Iraq, but the larger war against poverty, immigrants, labor, the environment, and everything else this system is intent on destroying. Aside from passing resolutions, what will the ILWU (and I might add other unions as well) do about this? To address this multifaceted war against democracy itself, we can't allow those shipments to continue nor can we allow the militarization of our ports. The peace movement and the labor movement (as well as environmentalists, immigration rights activists, homeless rights activists . . . ) need to sit down and strategize and not hurl insults at potential allies when we've got enough enemies at the gate.