|
|
A human tide against the war
IN AN ELEMENTAL tide of protest against US preparations to
attack Iraq, millions marched against war on 15 February, an estimated 30
million in 600 cities. Big demonstrations took place in the United States, in
New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and other cities. In Europe the
biggest demonstrations were in countries, like Britain, Spain and Italy, where
governments are supporting Bush’s position. These phenomenal demonstrations
represent a political earthquake.
Bush, for his part, contemptuously dismissed the mass
protests, asserting that he was not going to be influenced by ‘focus groups’
(ironic in view of US politicians’ obsession with polls and focus groups). The
USA’s leading capitalist newspaper, however, acknowledged that "there may still
be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion".
(New Power in the Streets, New York Times, 17 February) Bush, supported by
Blair, may go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, but the huge scale of the
anti-war protest is a measure of the political price that Bush, Blair and any
other capitalist leaders who go along with them will pay as events unfold.
The demonstrations included a layer of workers and young
people who have been actively involved in the anti-globalisation movement and in
fighting the neo-liberal policies of recent years. But they also embraced a
much, much wider layer of school students, young people, middle-class people,
and workers who have not been previously involved in political activity. While
left organisations and trade unions played an important part in mobilising for
the demos, the vast numbers reflected a spontaneous outpouring of anti-war
sentiment. Beneath the surface, moreover, lies disenchantment with the whole
bourgeois ‘political class’, with capitalist institutions, and with the adverse
effects of rampant free-market policies. Those who came out on the streets, we
may be sure, were the active representatives of millions more who share the same
feelings.
What could prove more clearly that Bush, Blair and the other
vassals of US imperialism have failed to make a persuasive case for war against
Iraq? The millions were not ‘defending Saddam’, as White House propagandists
tried to claim. Saddam is a vicious dictator who has ruled through barbarous
repression and who still possesses a formidable arsenal of conventional weapons
and quite possibly some concealed reserves of chemical and biological weapons.
But his regime does not pose an immediate threat to the US or the Western states
in general.
Despite repeated claims by Bush and Blair of links between
Saddam and al-Qa’ida, neither the US nor the British government has produced any
clear evidence of such a connection. In fact, through off-the-record briefings,
elements of the intelligence services have made it clear that they do not
believe there is any such link. The ‘al-Qa’ida connection’ is a fabrication, the
equivalent of the ‘Tonkin Gulf incident’ used by the US as a pretext to begin a
large-scale intervention in Vietnam.
Intensive inspections by Unmovic, with a greater level of
Iraqi cooperation, have not uncovered any ‘smoking gun’ of stockpiled weapons of
mass destruction. The US has now more or less dropped its claims that Iraq has a
nuclear weapons capacity, which has been refuted by El Baradei and the
International Atomic Energy Authority. Given Saddam’s record, it would be unwise
to assume that he has no biological or chemical weapons. However, his weaponry
presents much less of a threat now than it did in the 1980s, when the US backed
the Iraqi regime against Iran and turned a blind eye to Saddam’s use of chemical
weapons against the Kurds and Iranian forces.
In desperation, Bush and Blair have now resorted to the
‘moral case’, the need to rescue the Iraqi people from Saddam’s brutal regime.
The hypocrisy is astounding. The US, Britain, France and other Western powers
armed Saddam in the 1980s, reinforcing his repressive regime. After the 1990-91
Gulf war they imposed a sanctions regime which resulted in the deaths of at
least 500,000 children and imposed unimaginable suffering on the Iraqi people.
And how is moral outrage against Saddam’s regime squared with long-term US
support for Marcos (Philippines), Suharto (Indonesia), the Shah (Iran), Samoza
(Nicaragua), Pinochet (Chile), Mobuto (Congo-Zaire), etc, etc?
No sooner had Blair turned to the ‘moral case’, than the
heads of both the Protestant and the Catholic churches made statements refuting
his ‘moral’ stance.
The ‘liberation’ of Iraq by US imperialism will inevitably
result in tens of thousands of deaths and casualties. Despite ‘smart’ weapons,
over 150,000 Iraqis were killed during the Gulf war in 1991. The overthrow of
Saddam’s regime is a task for the Iraqi people themselves. The blatant
statements of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other Washington hawks have
made it manifestly clear to public opinion that the US’s real aim is not
‘liberation’ but strategic domination of Iraq and the Middle East and decisive
control of Iraq’s oil reserves.
Yet it appears that Bush and company still intend to launch
a war – despite the mass protests, despite limited support in the US for
unilateral action, and in spite of grave reservations by sections of the US
ruling class. The Bush leadership, which controls the executive power of the
state, is determined to assert the global strategic and military domination of
US imperialism through pre-emptive military action. Their plans for intervention
in the Gulf (and elsewhere) were formulated in the 1980s, and their military
doctrine is reinforced by an extreme right-wing, neo-conservative ideology. They
are linked to the most predatory section of US big business, to Big Oil, the
armaments corporations, speculative finance companies, and the cut-throat
technology companies that mushroomed during the 1990s. They have used their
control of decisive sections of the mass media and the flow of corporate funding
to consolidate their hold on political power. Bush has staked his political
reputation on ‘regime change’ in Baghdad – retreat now would unavoidably mean
regime change in Washington too. Moreover, by mobilising huge military forces to
the Gulf region, Bush has placed the prestige of US imperialism itself on the
line. To pull back now would be a serious setback to US imperialism. Challenged
by opposition from France, Germany and other lesser powers, as well as defiance
by Saddam, the issue has become as much the power and prestige of the US as
control of oil resources.
Rifts in the ‘Western alliance’
BUSH’S PURSUIT OF hegemonic dominance has now triggered a
crisis in three institutions which played a key role in the maintenance of the
post-war ‘Western alliance’, the US-dominated world order established after the
second world war. The deepening fissures within the European Union (EU), Nato,
and the United Nations (UN) reflect the growing tensions and even outright
conflicts between the major capitalist powers. During the ‘cold war’, the
existence of the ‘Eastern bloc’ of Stalinist states – non-capitalist, planned
economies ruled by totalitarian bureaucracies – exerted a counterweight to
capitalism and imperialism. The threat posed by a rival social system provided
the glue which kept the Western alliance together. Since the fall of the Berlin
wall there has been a cumulative process of rising tensions among the old
capitalist powers, Russia and China. Far from cementing a new ‘new world order’,
war in Iraq and its aftermath will only exacerbate such rivalries.
Moves by the US, supported by Blair, Aznar, Berlusconi and
others to force France, Germany and others into line have only deepened the rift
in Europe. After the 15 EU states issues a statement (27 January) supporting the
UN process, Britain, Italy, Spain and others, together with prospective EU
members Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, issued a statement supporting the US
position. With US prompting, the ‘Vilnius-10’ (ten former Soviet satellites,
including seven prospective new members of Nato) issued a statement (5 February)
backing the US position. This provoked the fury of Germany and especially
France. Not only were they furious at being described by Rumsfeld and company as
‘appeasers’, ‘cowards’, and the ‘Axis of Weasel’, but they became alarmed at the
‘Trojan horse’ role being played by the former Eastern bloc states on behalf of
the US. This provoked an extraordinary, most undiplomatic, outburst from Chirac,
who denounced the EU candidate countries as ‘rude and rather reckless’ for
aligning themselves with the US. "If they wanted to diminish their chances of
joining the EU, they couldn’t have chosen a better way", he warned. This display
of ‘big power’ arrogance no doubt foreshadows even bigger conflicts within the
EU.
Chirac is not opposed to a US attack on Iraq for
humanitarian reasons. In the past, French capitalism was to the fore in
supplying Saddam’s regime with arms and materials and is eager to open up new
economic opportunities in Iraq. Chirac has not held back from imperialist
intervention, for instance in Africa, when it suited the interests of French
capitalism. But the leaders of French capitalism are opposed to a military
intervention in Iraq because they foresee that it will rebound on their
interests. They are not directly threatened by the Iraqi regime, whereas they
have already been attacked by al-Qa’ida (French engineers killed in Karachi, a
French tanker attacked off Yemen). They fear a war will escalate terrorist
attacks.
Chirac and his advisers recognise that it will not be easy,
even after a US military victory, to stabilise Iraq. Moreover, war in Iraq could
detonate explosions throughout the Middle East region. Within France, a war
could trigger bloody conflict between the large Muslim and Jewish minorities.
And not the least consideration, are the electoral consequences of 78%
opposition to war amongst French voters.
The US’s attempt to bully the European states into line
provoked the worst crisis in Nato’s history. Washington called on Nato to supply
Turkey with defensive equipment, including Patriot missiles and Awacs (radar
surveillance planes). Not even Schröder opposed individual alliance members,
including Germany, informally supplying this equipment to Turkey. But the US
wanted a public gesture, a ‘signal of resolve’, while France, Germany and
Belgium opposed such a public step towards war. Later a compromise was reached.
According to the secretary general, Robertson, "alliance solidarity prevailed".
However, Nato decisions were nevertheless linked to UN decisions, exactly what
the US and Britain had opposed. This clash is an indicator of more clashes to
come.
Ironically, just as Nato reached a compromise the Turkish
government announced that it would not be seeking parliamentary approval for the
use of Turkish bases by US invasion forces. Offered $6bn in grants and $20bn in
loans, the Turkish government demanded an additional $6bn and written guarantees
of payment. As we go to press, there is no agreement between Turkey and the US,
though they may well reach a deal soon. The Turkish government’s position is no
doubt influenced by the 95% popular opposition to war, and also by the desire of
the Turkish ruling class to send its own forces into Northern Iraq to prevent
the consolidation of an autonomous Kurdish state. Denial of passage through
Turkey to open a northern front against Saddam would be an enormous complication
for the US’s invasion plans.
UN crisis of credibility
THE UNITED NATIONS is also in ever deeper disarray. Bush was
forced by pressure from allied states and US public opinion to take a detour
through the UN. For Washington, however, the UN process was merely a diplomatic
ploy to legitimise a predetermined decision to launch a war against Iraq. On the
other side, the majority of the major powers, supported by a majority of
Security Council and General Assembly members, supported weapons inspections as
a way of postponing a decision and possibly avoiding a war. France, Germany and
others favour tightening the containment policy in the hope of achieving ‘regime
change’ without a war. The struggle within the UN between Bush and his
supporters, on the one side, and those who support the containment policy, on
the other, has steadily intensified.
The smaller states, including most of the Arab states, face
a harsh dilemma. They are afraid to oppose the US, which would mean inevitable
punishment; but they are also afraid to vote for war, because they will then
face the fury of their own masses.
The Bush regime was incensed by the refusal of the chief
weapons inspector, Blix, to produce a ‘causus belli’ (cause for war) when he
reported on 14 February. At the same time, the opposition of France, Germany and
others has been stiffened by the swelling tide of opinion against war,
especially after 15 February. Now it is uncertain whether the US will be able to
get a second Security Council resolution explicitly authorising the use of
force, and it remains to be seen whether they will even attempt to move such a
resolution. It now seems increasingly unlikely that France, a veto-holding
power, could vote for war. It is more a question of whether it uses its veto or
merely abstains. Moreover, if France withholds support for US action it would be
difficult for Russia and China to give support. The outcome is in the balance.
Saddam’s response to the weapons inspectors’ demands to destroy hundreds of Al
Samoud-II missiles could be a crucial factor.
Either way, the UN is facing a crisis of credibility. For
the capitalist powers, the role of the UN has always been to legitimise
imperialism’s policing role, to cover intervention with a cloak of
‘supranational legality’ and ‘humanitarian’ concern. By delivering an ultimatum
to the UN – support our military action or face irrelevance – the US threatens
to destroy the UN’s credibility. If the US succeeds in forcing through a vote
for war, the UN will come to be seen as a mere appendage of the US superpower.
While there is support for multi-national action through the UN, the devastating
effects of a military assault on Iraq and its aftermath will erode what
legitimacy may be bestowed by a Security Council decision. The UN would come to
be seen as sharing responsibility for the war and the predatory role of US
imperialism. Yet if the UN votes against the US, the Bush regime will no doubt
attempt to consign the UN to the dustbin of history, along with the former
League of Nations.
With or without UN backing, it seems likely that the US will
go ahead with military action – despite profound misgivings among the
strategists of the US ruling class and a section of its military commanders (see
p17). The aftermath of war in Iraq will be far more complicated for US
imperialism than its relatively rapid intervention in Afghanistan.
The unprecedented mass anti-war movement – the potential
superpower revealed on the streets on 15 February – now has to be given clear
political aims and organised form. We will strive to build the broadest possible
anti-war movement. As socialists, however, we will strive to give the movement
clear political aims and effective organisational forms. We are opposed to
imperialist intervention in the Gulf and other neo-colonial lands, whether or
not ‘legitimised’ by the United Nations. We support the struggle of the Iraqi
people against Saddam’s dictatorship. Opposition to imperialism has to be linked
to an anti-capitalist struggle with a programme of the socialist transformation
of society. The mass protests on 15 February also underscore the need to build
new mass parties of the working class (see article on Britain, A new movement
emerging, p12). More immediately, the mass protest must be channelled into the
organisation of mass civil disobedience, including occupations, strikes and, if
possible, general strikes.
|