‘New’ Labour – ‘Old’ Cold Warriors
During recent weeks as the United States has threatened military action against Iraq we have watched the sickening spectacle of New Labour straining every muscle to back this warmongering. It is hardly surprising that Tony Blair has been Clinton’s strongest supporter. Since 1945 the foreign policy of Labour governments has been totally tied to that of the United States. The supposedly radical, reforming Labour government of 1945-50 was the foremost champion of NATO. All Blair’s proclamations of ‘New’ Labour are revealed for what they are: merely a continuation of subservience to the political and military needs of the strongest capitalist power, the United States.
This is thrown into relief by the break-up of the temporary coalition against Saddam Hussein which was put together at the time of the Gulf War. France, Russia, China, Syria, Egypt and other Arab states all urge caution now: Blair commits British forces to Clinton’s military build-up. Scratch ‘New Labour’ and very old cold war warriors are quickly revealed.
The US and British governments have tried to justify their military threats by reference to various United Nations resolutions requiring the Iraqi regime to allow investigators to inspect suspected sites for the development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. These resolutions are simply "victors’ justice".
Does anyone seriously believe that Tony Blair would allow UN inspectors unfettered access to Porton Down and other British weapons establishments – however many UN resolutions called for it? Would Bill Clinton allow the UN to monitor the US nuclear programme? Not a chance! Only Iraq is subject to such measures.
Behind the rhetoric of enforcing UN resolutions lies good old colonialist attitudes. The crisis was not sparked off by Saddam’s refusal to allow UN inspectors access to military facilities, but his refusal to allow US inspectors access. It was the UN – under American pressure – that withdrew all its inspection team. They were not forced out by Saddam.
If Clinton and Blair were serious about simply wanting the Iraqi government to comply with UN resolutions there was a simple solution – call Saddam’s bluff and replace the US inspectors with non-Americans. Why should the US be allowed to insist that its personnel have an automatic right to be included in UN teams?
We are not, of course, arguing that the UN has any right to impose sanctions on Iraq and submit its military capabilities to UN inspection. We reject this totally. Sanctions only hit the Iraqi people, who bear the brunt of Saddam Hussein’s brutality. Control over Iraqi weapons establishments is victors’ justice pure and simple. The Gulf War did not bring about a New World Order: it simply reasserted, as we argued at the time, the old imperialist order.
This is confirmed by the way in which the US government responded to the recent crisis. Clinton, followed faithfully by Blair, was not interested in finding a peaceful solution. The main aim was to reassert the right of imperialist states to do what they want with impunity; semi-colonial states must do as they are told. Clinton’s bellicose rhetoric also helped divert attention briefly from Whitewater, Paula Jones and other pressing domestic problems.
Hence neither Blair nor Clinton has demanded sanctions – let alone made military threats – against Turkey, even though Turkish troops have occupied areas of Iraqi Kurdistan as far as the Iranian border. At the very time Clinton has been threatening war with Iraq, Turkish planes have been constantly violating Iraqi air-space.
But the Turkish government is, after all, a member of NATO and can, therefore, do whatever it likes – so long as this doesn’t clash with US interests. And everyone knows that Kurds are only oppressed by Saddam Hussein – so Turkey’s brutal war against its own Kurdish population can be passed over in silence.
Nor have there been any demands for the ending of the Indonesian military occupation of East Timor. Robin Cook’s supposedly ‘ethical’ foreign policy doesn’t even stretch as far as vetoing contracts for military hardware signed under the Tory government.
The use of these weapons to maintain the illegal occupation of East Timor and to crush the rising opposition in Indonesia is of far less concern than defence of capitalist business practices.
While the US and British governments have demanded access to Iraqi military installations, they have made no such demands in relation to Israel’s nuclear weapons sites. Nor have they protested about the continued detention of Mordechai Vanunu whose ‘crime’ was to reveal to the Sunday Times details of Israel’s secret nuclear programme.
Subsequently Vanunu was lured from London to Rome, kidnapped by Israeli agents, drugged and bundled on to a plane, smuggled into Israel and given a long jail sentence. Presumably Robin Cook considers such actions by the Israeli secret service to be ‘ethical’.
The break-up of the anti-Saddam coalition, of the supposed New World Order, was hardly unexpected. The inability to resolve the problem of the Palestinian people oppressed by the Israeli state was bound to push the Arab states away from the US.
Even during the Gulf War the overwhelming majority of Arabs supported Saddam, whatever their governments may have decided. The failure of the ‘Peace Process’ – and the threat from Islamic fundamentalists in some states – has pushed the Arab regimes in to more openly pro-Palestinian rhetoric.
The support of the Chinese Stalinists for the Gulf War was always rather luke-warm. However cravenly they are now pursuing capitalist policies in parts of China, they still have to distance themselves to some extent from the US – especially if they are to retain any attraction in the so-called Third World.
The current crisis has also allowed Moscow to reassert itself as a major player on the world stage. The compromise brokered by Yeltsin has increased Russian prestige, particularly in the Arab World.
Moreover, the lack of enthusiasm by the French government for military measures reflects a developing crisis at the heart of NATO. Differences emerged at the NATO summit at Madrid in July between Clinton and the European leaders, especially France and Germany. The Americans had their way on expansion of NATO by bringing in only three new countries, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. The Europeans also wanted to include Rumania and Slovenia. American opposition was partly over costs but was also an assertion of American predominance.
Further differences exist over control of the various sub-commands in Europe. The Europeans demanded the Naples command: Washington was opposed because it would have meant running the risk of losing dominance in the alliance in its most decisive strategic sector, the Mediterranean.
Moreover, France and Germany are looking increasingly to further European military integration – as evidenced by the Franco-German agreement signed at Nuremberg in 1996. Euromarforce – a grouping of air and naval forces set up in the same year by France, Italy, Spain and Portugal – shows further inclinations towards European independence.
None of these moves immediately challenge the existence of NATO: nor do they pose a threat to American domination. And they certainly don’t remove the threat imperialism poses to the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. They are manifestations of growing imperialist rivalry, particularly in relation to who is going to dominate eastern Europe.
But they do reflect real and growing tensions within the Atlantic Alliance between the US and the major European states, which find an expression in European caution over military measures against Iraq. Significantly, for all his pro-European rhetoric, Blair has tied himself firmly to the coat-tails of the US President on these matters.