Twenty questions and answers on the Gulf
US marines ready themselves for action
By JOHN LISTER Q: Don't socialists agree Saddam Hussein Is a brutal dictator?
A: Socialists have consistently argued that the Iraqi regime is a savage dictatorship: We argued this throughout the Iran-Irag war, when it suited the USA, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others to supply Saddam with cash to wage his offensive against Ayatollah Khomeini.
We argued the same against the Kremlin supplying billions of dollars worth of arms to a regime that in 1963 and 1977-78 conducted bloodbath of Iraqi Communist party members, and which has used chemical weapons and other barbaric methods to crush the struggles of the oppressed Kurdish minority for selfSOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990
SUPPLEMENT crisis determination.
Nobody can lecture socialists on the evils of Saddam Hussein, who rose to power as part of a CIA-backed coup against the Nasserite Qassim regime in 1963.
But our opposition to Saddam does not mean that we have to cede to George Bush and Thatcher the right to topple regimes with which they fall out, or to choose which successor regime to instal in Iraq.
A US-sponsored replacement regime for Saddam would equal or exceed the present levels of repres sion of Iraqi and Kurdish workers and peasants, and would seek to bolster the bloody Zionist regime in Israel. Q: But surely somebody must stop Saddam before he Invades Saudi Arabia?
A: This is an argument for the USA to play the role of global policeman: and like our own police, they would be upholding the system of capitalism and exploitation on a world scale.
While the US and western media ring with hysterical anti-Saddam propaganda, he has attracted wide popular support from the Palestinian and Arab masses in Jordan and elsewhere, who support him precisely because he is standing up to the hated Americans and attacking the Gulf regimes.
They don't want Saddam stopped, or the restoration of the feudal 'status quo in Kuwait: are we to disregard their wishes and rely on the judgement of the Pentagon and the oil sheikhs instead?
The permanent crisis, the ine-
"While the US and western media ring with hysterical anti-Saddam propaganda, he has attracted wide popular support from the Palestinian and Arab masses. They don't want Saddam stopped, or the restoration of the feudal 'status quo in Kuwait" Page 13
"Until recently Syria has been seen by the western imperialists as a threat - but now Assad's troops provide welcome "Arab cover" for the US forces in the Gulf." Page 14
qualities, the national borders and Q: Are you saying that many of the feudal regimes of today's Middle East are the creation of the imperialist powers, in their quest for political and economic domination and a "stability" that preserves cheap oil supplies.
They were happy enough to prop up Saddam as long as he seemed a useful counter to Iran and a reliable supplier of oil: they only want to "stop" him from changing the balance of forces in the region. As one former assistant US Defence Secretary. Lawrence Korb, points out: "If Kuwait grew carrots, we couldn't give a damn".
Recent years have seen a varying list of Arab national leaders and dictatorships on the US-imperialist hit list'. Not long ago, Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya in an attempt to kill Gaddafi: yet in 1987 Washington largely ignored the Iragi Exocet missile attack on the USS Stark in the Gulf.
Until recently Syria has been seen by the wester imperialists as a threat - but now Assad's troops provide welcome "Arab cover" for the US forces in the Gulf.
The political and social crises of the Middle East are matters that must be resolved by the people who live there: the involvement of imperialist armies attempting once again to impose their own vested interests through brute force can only prolong the agony.
The crisis of the Middle East must be solved by the Arab masses
SUPPLEMENT socialists would do nothing to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam?
A: The only part of Saudi Arabia the USA is committed to defend is the oilfields. But there is still little or no evidence to support claims that Saddam was actually going to invade.
Indeed it was always obvious that any attempt by Iraq or anyone else to seize control of Saudi Arabia, which holds almost 20 percent of the world's oil supplies would result in intervention from the USA - whether or not the US felt obliged to take action over Kuwait.
As one US official admitted to Newsweek early in August - even before the full force had began to assemble - the US did not really believe Saddam was likely to invade: "He's nuts, but he's not that nuts".
In any event, unless we are prepared to agree to the establishment of a permanent, large westem-led military presence in the Gulf to impose and preserve 'order' in the form of a 'pax Americana' (and thus permanently prevent any progressive political changes, let alone the possibility of socialist revolution), we must insist that the issue of which regimes should stand or fall is a matter for the Arab masses themselves.
As socialists, our task is to fight against further wester economic exploitation and military repression of the workers and peasants of the Mid-
die East, and to encourage, support and build solidarity with those working class and revolutionary movements that are brave enough to challenge the various repressive and exploitive regimes there.
We are not for the defence of the royai House of Saud, with its 4,000 fabulously rich princes imposing barbaric repression, outlawing elections, parliament, and strikes and institutionalising brutal "Islamic" punishments to help maintain a balance of terror.
We don't want to help make the Gulf safe for feudalism: nor do most Arab workers, especially those who have worked in the Gulf states. Nor -ironically - do most Americans, or the troops in the field. Q: Of course It would be better if the Iraqi workers could deal with Saddam, but we must be realistic: since there is no real opposition in Irag, doesn't someone, perhaps the UN, have to Intervene?
A: If forces from the left were to overthrow Saddam tomorrow, we can be sure this would trigger renewed hostility from the USA.
We should remember the reactionary hysteria - and determined attempts at destabilisation - with which the USA has always groeted radical governments, whether they be elected (as in Allende's Chile, destabilised by the CIA), the fruits of popular revolution (Nicaragua, confronted by blockade, sabotage and the contra war), or even fundamentalist radicals such as Khomeini in Iran.
The fact is that Washingion reserves the right to remove or instal regimes to suit its global requirements. The imperialist war machine has not simply mobilised against Saddam as an individual, but has been wheeled out to defend - and restore - the old regimes that have served imperialism so well, and restore the balance of forces in favour of imperialism. Q: The moves against Saddam are not just by the USA. Doesn't the Involvement of most European governments and even Japan act as a restraint on Bush?
A: It is much more likely that having pulled these partners into the situation, Bush, egged on by Thatcher, will pressurise more of SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990
them into a more aggress. sive stance on other is- sues. There is already grow- ing US anger that Japan has been so reluctant to get involved, with discus- the sion whether Japanese constitution should be changed to allow it to send troops abroad. Thatcher is forcing similar debate in Ger- many, with her vicious at- on Kohl's govern- tack ment for failing to send troops to the Gulf. She clearly intends to use the situation as a whole pretext to open up discus- sion on a new global role for NATO as a tool of im- perialist policy, now that its original reason for ex- istence, the Cold War, has disap peared. From her point of view the Gulf crisis has come at exactly the right time to help argue against any British disarmament in the aftermath of the East European events. That is one reason she has been so keen to com- mit British forces to the US Gulf ad- venture. Q: But It Is not just Western powers: the Intervention against Saddam Is supported by a majority of the Arab League nations. Doesn't this convince you? A: We must remember who gets to vote at Arab League conferences, and how powerful a persuader is the Saudi Arabian chequebook - espe- cially when combined with financial offers and veiled threats emanating from the USA. Egyptian leader Mubarak been promised the cancellation of 57 billion in debts to the USA for his role in supplying troops. Syria has long been in the pocket of the Saudis, whose subsidies keep Assad's troops in Lebanon. King Hassan of Morocco - no friend of Arab workers or peasants - could be expected to solidarise with fellow royals ousted in Kuwait, especially when US arms and cash are at stake. In each case troops have been sent to the Gulf by regimes that tolerate no political dissent or democracy at home: and in each case analysts agree that the move has been mas- sively opposed by the Arab masses: SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990
SUPPLEMENT Arab support provides fig leaf for US Imperialism there have even been riots in Damascus. Indeed Washington fears that the pressures may topple Mubarak as well as Jordan's King Hussein -especially if Saddam is crushed by imperialism.
They all know who is really in charge of the Gulf war-drive, but are prepared to provide a fig-leaf of Arab involvement as US Defence Secretary Dick Cheney admitted We need that Arab cover".
That is why it is so important to Washington to keep the Israeli warmongers at arm's length from the intervention, since any overt Zionist involvement could trigger a new wave of mass Arab anger and shatter the fragile anti-Saddam coalition. Q: Why then do you oppose UN involvement, which brings in many non-aligned nations: doesn't this take the affair out of American hands?
A: George Bush ordered a naval blockade on Iraq before he even consulted the United Nations. Both he and Reagan despise the UN, and the US Congress has a long record of disregarding or ridiculing it and its findings, especially when these expose US breaches of international law such as the mining of Nicaraguan ports. The USA has even refused to pay its subscriptions to the UN, and owes it more than $670ml
Only after the blockade was in place, and the US military build-up in Saudi Arabia had already reached such a scale that it would take many months - even years - to withdraw, did the hunt begin for a formula that
would lend a veneer of legality to the blockade, sanction any use of force, and rope in other nations.
Bush does not want US troops to be under UN control: there is anyway no machinery for this to happen, since the UN Military Staff Committee has been defunct since the Korean War ended in 1953.
UN involvement is a device to legitimise a unilateral US intervention: and if the UN will not go far enough in action against Saddam, the USA could yet decide to press ahead on its own steam.
The cynicism of US intervention is exposed by one obvious question: if the UN is suddenly such a decisive body, and its resolutions on the Middie East have become directives to be implemented with military force, why does the USA still not lift a finger to force the Israeli Zionists to implement Resolution 242 and pull out of their illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Q: But even Gorbachev has backed the US stand on the UN Security Council. Only Cuba, Yemen, the PLO and Libya have distanced themselves from the blockade. Why should socialists disagree?
A: Gorbachev's foreign policy has made continual concessions to imperialism in the "solutions" to regional conflicts'. Beset by economic crisis at home, he has set out to find ways to minimise costly international involvement.
The crisis of bureaucratic rule in the USSR which brought glasnost
"Like new realism at home, this line of foreign policy begins with defeatism and inevitably leads to new blows against the working class." Page 15
"There is no sign of UN or US forces rallying to the aid of the Palestinian Intifada on the West Bank... The USA itself has mounted invasions of small nations - most recently Grenada and Panama (with 8,000 dead), and maintained its harassment of Nicaragua to oust the elected Sandinista government. Neither the USA nor the UN has lifted a finger to help the Kurds in their fight for self-determin- ation from Iran and Irag." Page 16
has also triggered the collapse of stalinist regimes Europe - and with this the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact as a viable
In winding up the Cold War and appealing for a place alongside the major capitalist powers in a 'common European home', Gorbachev has effectively ceded to the USA the role of
policeman - in Central America, Southern Africa, and now the Middle East - and abandoned even the pretence that the Kremlin secks to challenge capitalism.
His cconomic strategy rests upon securing vast sums of western investment to modemise and develop the flagging Soviet economy, and this translates into licking the boots of the Western bankers, proving himself and the USSR a suitably "reliable" bor-
Like new realism at home, this line of foreign policy begins with defeatism and inevitably leads to new blows against the Socialists therefore oppose Gorbachev's foreign policy, and with it his capitulation to the US war drive in the Gulf. Q: So what do socialists say about Saddam's Invasion of Kuwalt?
A: The invasion was inspired solely by the objective of becoming the dominant power in the Gulf and the Middle East - to the greater glory of the Iraqi bureaucratic bourgeoisie.
We see nothing progressive in this from the viewpoint of the Arab workers and peasants. Indeed the Iraqi regime is not anti- imperialist, but a bourgeois nationalist regime tied hand and foot to imperialism on a
Kuwait has never been part of Irag, despite being an artificial creation of imperialism. There is no justification to any claim that it is really Q: Do socialists call for the restoration of the Kuwaiti regime as the legitimate government
A: It is not clear on what basis it could be described as "legitimate". There have never been proper elections, let alone a popular mandate. Even Newsweek, the right wing US magazine, comments that:
"Earlier American Presidents went to war to make the world safe for democracy. Restoring the Emir of regain Kuwalt?
SUPPLEMENT Kuwait would be making the country safe for feudalism". (3/9/90)
The ruling al-Sabah family of Kuwait has salted away a personal fortune in excess of $50 billion by presiding over a regime in which only 40 percent of its 2.1 million population have any rights, and the vote is restricted to just 60,000 propertyowning males. The press has been censored and parliament closed since 1986.
The Kuwaiti receives most of its income not from oil but from its huge international investments.
Socialists call for the overthrow of this reactionary ruling caste by the Arab workers and peasants. We call for a constituent assembly to be elected by all those who live and work in Kuwait, including the tens of thousands of highly exploited migrant workers.
Without accepting any notion of Kuwait as a 'nation", socialists nevertheless oppose the annexation of Kuwait: only a free decision of the inhabitants could justify Kuwait's integration into Iraq. Q: Does this mean that socialists call for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwalt?
A: Yes, the invasion was counterrevolutionary from the outset. Even had it gone unchallenged it would simply have given an economic and political boost to Saddam's anti-working class regime. I has also given imperialism an ideal pretext for an offensive to reassert its control in
Bush hopes to persuade the American electorate that Reagan was right to squander over $2 trillion on rearmament during the 1980s, and to be able to lay the ghost of the "Vietnam syndrome" that has held the US back from involvement in what might have become major shooting wars. And Thatcher is using the situation to combat pressures towards disarmament and the release of a post-Cold War "peace dividend".
There is nothing progressive to be achieved by maintaining an Iragi occupation of Kuwait, other than fostering the myth of Saddam as an anti-imperialist. The troops should be Q: Would this attitude change If the USA/UN were to attack Iraq or attempt forcibly to
A: In the event of such a war, waged by or under the control of imperialist powers against a dependent, semi-colonial regime, we would be compelled to side against imperialism, and thus to give critical support to Iraq.
The defeat of our own imperialist ruling class, and that of the USA, in such a predatory war would open up new scope not only for the struggles of the Palestinians and Arab masses of the Middle East, but for other liberation and revolutionary struggles elsewhere in the world. It could also open up a major political crisis for the imperialist powers at home.
However we would not relinquish our call for a working class, revolutionary challenge to Saddam within Irag. We entrust Saddam with no revolutionary or progressive role.
In practice, the call for critical support to Iraq would mise little if any mass support even in left wing circles in Britain or the USA. Our major agitation would have to centre not on this but on opposition at every level to the war effort, the fight for the withdrawal of propaganda to expose the real moQ: Does this mean socialists disregard the defence of small nations like Kuwait in the face of aggression?
A: Neither the USA nor the UN has any rocord of fighting to defend small nations against aggression. Between them, they connived to establish Isracl - against Arab wishes - in 1948, as a predator, racist state imposed upon the relatively small Pales-
Since then the US has funnelled arms and aid to Isracl as it has successively expanded its borders in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and sat back while Zionist troops stormed into South Lebanon in 1982, leaving over 14,000 dead. There is no sign of UN or US forces rallying to the aid of the Palestinian Intifada on the West Bank that is fighting to throw off the yoke of Zionist military occupation: there is no oil involved.
The USA itself has mounted invasions of small nations - most recently Grenada and Panama (with 8,000 dead), and maintained harassment of Nicaragua to oust the elected Sandinista govemment.
Neither the USA nor the UN has lifted a finger to belp the Kurds in their fight for self-determination from SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990
Iran and Iraq. Socialists have taken uP each of these is- sues, and con- tinue to campaign on them: we yield to nobody on our of defence democratic rights 14 of small nations and national minorities - but we know from bitter experience that this can only be achieved in struggle against imperialism. Q: What would a socialist government do if asked to intervene as the USA was by the Kuwaltis? A: It is important to realise that if we were a socialist goverment, in the current situation we too would be confonted by US harassment and military threats. We would be prepar- ing to defend ourselves. The fact is that the USA was not asked to intervene: it told the Emir of Kuwait to issue an appeal. As Newsweek points out quite candidly: "Washington wrote a letter for the Kuwaiti emir to sign, in which he asked the United States to help him by blockading Irag". (27/8/90) Conspicuously this took place after the blockade had been decided. Even the Saudi Arabian royal family initially required persuading to agree to the huge US military build-up on their soil. They tried to impose two conditions - that there must be "no quick unilateral pull-out, as in Lebanon" that might leave the Saudis in the lurch; and that if the Saudis asked the US to leave, they would leave immediately. Cynically - knowing that its task force of 125,000 troops would take months or years to remove once they had ar- rived - the US agreed. Now George Bush has succesfully twisted Saudi arms to persuade them to foot the bill for much of the $6 bil- lion cost of keeping the US forces in the Gulf until the end of the year. There is no way these reactionary monarchs would have asked socialist government to intervene on SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990
SUPPLEMENT 016 Plentiful supplies of oil for the US: a key question their behalf. A socialist goverment would have established its line of policy on the Middle East by supporting the struggles of the Palestinians and Kurds, and of the Arab workers and peasants.
If we were leading a socialist government right now, we would be using every possible international forum - possibly including a tactical intervention at the UN - to denounce the unholy coalition that is promoting imperialist ambitions in the Gulf, oppose any intervention, and challenge the imposition of sanctions. Q: You can't belleve the whole thing is just about oil and prop ping up reactionary governments? There must be more to It than that.
A: A real problem for the US warmongers is the absence of any idealistic pretext for the present intervention. The end of the Cold War (coupled with the emergence of the USSR - and China - in the camp of those backing the UN blockade) has left little for the USA to boast about in its intervention. As one "senior US official" told Newsweek:
"Our anti-Soviet, anti-communist objective was just a veil for the real objective all along, which was oil, plentiful oil at reasonable prices. Now the veil has been stripped away." Q: Yes, but surely we must en-
sure that oil is available to all, otherwise the whole world will be plunged into crisis?
A: To argue that the intervention is justified simply to guarantee sup plies of under-priced oil from underdeveloped economies is to embrace Victorian values in a new way - and revert to the old-fashioned imperialism, using brute force and gunboats as the means to obtain cheap materials and labour.
The oil is available now only on terms that guarantee vast profits to the multinational oil monopolies. Decades of imperialist exploitation has ensured that while the western economies have grown fat on cheap energy, and the ruling cliques of the oil-producing states have salted away vast fortunes, the Arab masses - exploited and repressed by stooge reactionary regimes - have gained little or nothing.
The oil-producing states themselves have been consistently and shamelessly ripped off. In 1989, oil prices adjusted for inflation had fallen 62 percent below their 1981 level - and 15 percent below the level es tablished in 1974 in the aftermath of the first oil shock.
One American analyst attacked Bush's intervention in the Gulf, branding it as the "five cent war": he argued that if Saddam Hussein had achieved in full the price increase (to $25 per barrel) he was calling for from OPEC before the clash with
Page 17
"We must stand firmly oposed to any imperialist pretext for war against Iraq, not least a "war to avoid war" which threatens to become a prolonged, barbaric episode of mass slaughter" "Worse, the naval blockade is clearly also an attempt to create a provocation that could justify a US attack on Iraqi shiping,or even a ground attack" Page 18
Kuwait, it would have added just five cents to the price of a gallon of petrol in the USA.
To cause as much economic damage as the 1979 oil crisis, the price would have had to rise to $50 a barrel; and to match the 1973 crisis it would need to hit S120.
But far from holding prices down and supplies steady, the war fears, the blockade, the disruption, the increased fuel needs of 125,000 troops, and other fall-out from the intervention have almost doubled which are now pushing towards the S40 a barrel mark: without the war, they would be much lower! Q: How about the argument that we must act now to stop "crazy' Saddam getting his hands on nuclear weapons?
A: We must stand firmly oposed to any imperialist pretext for war against Iraq, not least a "war to avoid war" which threatens to become a prolonged, barbaric episode of mass slaughter.
The long-term solution to peace in the region lies in the hands of the Arab masses, not the benevolent attentions of outside powers - even when (as in Korea) they wear blue UN helmets.
The only people to have seriously discussed using nucicar weapons in the Middle East are the USA (as one means of winning a land war against
Closing tens of thousands of US dead) and Israel.
Other members of the nuclear "club" include South Africa and possibly Pakistan: why has nothing been done to disarm these reactionary
Socialists oppose any use nuclear weapons, and fight in the imnuclear disarmament. But why should a few nations expect to be able to hold on to a monopoly on these weapons - even while they discuss the possibility of using them against their latest enemies?
After dropping the Bomb on Japan, the US next discussed using it against the USSR as the Cold War set in, and then Mao's China (during the Korean War). Is it surprising that these leaderships immediately felt obliged to protect themselves by acquiring the same weaponry?
Since then the US has discussed using the Bomb against vastly weaker opponents that it still could not hope easily to defeat by means - Cuba and Vietnam. Now
SUPPLEMENT another underdog. Irag, is facing similar threats, and knows that the Zionists already have nuclear weapons, is it surprising that the Iraqis have looked for ways to defend themselves? Q: If you oppose military ac tion but also oppose Saddam, why don't you support economic sanctions to force him to retreat?
A: There is nothing non-violent about sanctions. While military action is designed to bludgeon an enemy into defeat, economic sanctions - in this case a total blockade and embargo - are designed to starve the Iraqis into submission: they are designed to
The imperialists who argue that sanctions are "non-violent" are the very ones who insist that by potentially interfering with a small percentage of westem oil supplies Saddam has made intervention unavoidable.
Now they want to cut off all of Iraq's foreign trade. This means not just its income from oil exports, but also its vital imports of food. Imperialists gloat that the Iragi diet is heavily dependent on bread, while Irag imports 90 percent of its wheat, 90 percent of its com, and all of its soyabeans for animal feed, while oil represents 97 percent of its exports. The aim is to starve and strangle Iraq until Saddam concedes.
Worse, the naval blockade is clearly also an attempt to create a provocation that could justify a US attack on raqi shiping.or even a ground attack. The blockade itself is a pretext for the huge build-up of naval forces in the Gulf, and once these combine with the troops, tanks and
supposedly Saudi Arabia (dispatched in the biggest airlift since D-Day), the pressure will mount for them to be used in a bid for "peace by Christmas". Q: Surely If the whole world unites around sanctions, Saddam will be forced to climb
A: Saddam may make a deal at any point - or he may hold out, deciding to fight back. If the whole world really was united on sanctions, there would be no need for the naval blockade.
The fact is that every capitalist distrusts every other capitalist, while many see no real reason why they should not supply Saddam's regime,
just as they supply dozens of unpleasant, reactionary regimes around the world with full US and UN blessing.
If Saddam sits things out for a while, he may well see the fragile unity of the forces against him begin to disintegrate. Or he may try to force the USA more clearly out into the front line, to pile extra pressure on the Iranians and some of the Arab regimes to break ranks and join Iraq's stand against "the Great Satan'.
The sanctions are a tool of imperialist policy, and they represent a long-term threat. They are only the start, not the end of a process of escalation. They must be opposed. Q: Why all this talk of war? If Saddam does not attack Saudi Arabia, the USA will not attack Iraq.
A: How long could such a situation go on, at a cost of billions of dollars a month?
The US objective has never been limited to the restoration of the Kuwaiti regimes - for which few have any enthusiasm - or even the liberation of Kuwait (which US analysts now admit could be almost completely destroyed in a military battle to drive out the Iragis). Since the first despatch of troops, US leaders have looked to go further and oust Saddam - though their choice of altemative rulers for Iraq is almost non-existent. Newsweek reported on August 20 that:
"Bush has signed an intelligence "finding" ordering the CIA to do what it can to destabilise Iraq politically and get rid of Saddam by almost any means short of killing him".
In the same issue it reports the discussions on how the US high command envisage a possible battle to 'defend" Saudi Arabia:
"The United States knows that repelling an Iraqi invasion [of Saudi Arabia] would be difficult. So the US plan is to take the battle to the enemy. "We're going to flatten Irag," says a senior Pentagon official. The targets will not be cities but rather oil refineries, power stations, missile sites and military bases. For carpet bombing, the US would use some 50
The longer the US troops swelter in the Saudi desert, and the more hardware arrives to equip the US to conduct a ground war against Saddam, the greater the pressure on Bush to bring matters to a head and go onto SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990
Why Bush is