The 21st Nov 2005 Halà³ Noviny, periodical of the Czech CP, published an interview with Ahmed Karim, one of the Iraq's Patriotic Communists representatives. The published political positions are those already know as they have been spread by the Anti-imperialists for a long while. The new element is that a Communist Party at least gradually moves away from supporting the Iraqi Communist Party, which collaborates intimately with the US occupation forces.
Contrary to that the DKP as well as the KPÖ keep on supporting the US occupying power and its jackals. Recently they corroborated that position in a joint resolution dated the 20th Nov. 2005 by which they expressed their solidarity with the Iraqi Communist Party. Whereas the Communist Party of Greece, having been inviting to the meeting, denied support for that position which exculpates US imperialism.
By the way: Let's draw the attention to the coherent fact that the KPÖ had banished the Austrian supporters of the Iraqi resistance from their annual public Volksstimme celebration and blames the Anti-imperialist Camp for being in "proximity to antisemitism" based on the Camp's commitment for the Arab liberation movements against the US and Israel.
Summarized interview with Ahmed Karim:
Question: How do you qualify the ICP's (Iraqi Communist Party) politics which approves substantially the occupation of Iraq by the US and their allied forces?
Ahmed Karim: Let me emphasize that this position is that of the ICP's leaders and is not widespread amongst the ICP's members. Iraq's communists opposed the occupation from the very beginning. Obviously the leaders' position impaired the interests of the ICP as well as the Iraqi people's interests.
As a result the ICP's leaders ended in extensive isolation. The Iraqi people disregard them. Furthermore many members left the party based on the leader's excellent relationship with the Americans. Others fractionated within the party.
There is common discontent with the leaders' politics - even before the occupation commenced.
Q: How's that?
A.K.: The ICP's leaders supported the UN sanctions against their own country which were aimed at the Iraqi people, not at the Saddam regime.
Furthermore there had been relations and contacts between some ICP leaders and the Americans well before the invasion started. Those leaders even approved the possibility of a war against Iraq. Solely for the purpose of the destruction of the Saddam regime.
Simply for those reasons the ICP representatives were able to join the transitional council after the occupation commenced, a council that was directed by the US governors. That leaders' conduct and attitude was and is contradictory to Iraq's historical traditions and those of communist movements.
Q: But as a matter of fact Saddam's regime did never get too cosy with the ICP but suppressed them.
A.K.: But that cannot justify the decision to support the aggressor. It was obvious that the aggressor's most significant aim was not the destruction of the Saddam regime but the aim was a step towards control over the entire Middle East.
Q: Does the presence of the ICP in the Iraqi House of Representatives suit the US interest?
A.K.: It certainly does! It expresses the US gratitude for the ICP's loyality. And it gives the US the opportunity to appear as true democrats.
Whereas the relationship between the occupation forces and the Iraqi authorities is getting weaker constantly, the ICP's leaders stick to their collaborating positions. That proves that something is terribly wrong with the ICP leaders!
Q: How do you qualify the result of the constitutional referendum?
A.K.: It is simply a comedy and I do not consider it expressing the common political mood authentically.
One should not forget that the constitution's fundamentals were designed by Bremer's team prior to the aggression. The US cherish unity of the Iraqi people in public but in fact they are very uncomfortable with the Shiites having the majority in the House of Representatives. The US' concern is the Shiites most likely ideological alliance with Iran.
The US are willing to stir up a civil war in Iraq should it deem necessary for their aims. But that is not on their current schedule because they succeed in subversively dissipating the Shiite's unity by utilizing collaborators like Ahmad Chalabi.