Iraqi women queue for food in Baghdad: the opposition to a new attack on Iraq has been strengthened by awareness of the misery caused by sanctions Kofi Anan's diplomatic coup in Baghdad may have averted a war for the time being, but the underlying conflict in the Middle East remains, and could escalate at any time in the future, reports ROLAND RANCE. THE LATEST agreement, when confirmed by the Security Council, may even remove some of the constraints on US action in a future crisis, and weaken the opposition to a war.
At one level, it is not obvious what the US wanted to achieve from this crisis. Indeed, the lack of any clear western goal or strategy was one of the reasons why Clinton was unable to build a coalition similar to that which attacked Iraq in 1991. The purported aim was to ensure Iragi compliance with UN resolutions, particularly in regard to inspection of alleged weapons sites.
However, it is inconceivable that the world was on the brink of a massive war - possibly a third world war, according to Boris Yeltsin - in order to determine the nationality of the convenor of a team of inspectors.
Nor can the escalation be explained simply by Clinton's need to distract attention from his domestic problems and sex scandals however pressing this was for him. After all, many Republicans were equally gung-ho for US intervention.
Obstacle
There are, however, clear US strategic interests in the region, which explain why Saddam Hussein, once a necessary ally, is now seen as an obstacle. Originally built up by the west in order to confront the threat of the Iranian revolution, by 1990 Saddam had established a regional hegemony and a massive army.
His genocidal war against the Kurds, and his blood thirsty control over the people of Iraq, did not. then concern the western governments, which continued to supply the arms and equipment needed for this slaughter. But Saddam failed to understand his role as a western stooge.
His occupation of Kuwait - apparently following strong American hints of support - provided the pretext for the massive attack, which decimated his army and reduced much of the country to rubble.
However, when it became clear that the Ba'ath regime was threatened by popular risings in the north and squth of the country, the US recognised that its interests were better served by a military dictatorship, even under Saddam, than by a popular, nationalist or Islamic regime.
Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq has been strangled by international sanctions. Although allegedly intended to prevent Iraq from developing its arms industry, these sanctions actually ban the import of such items as paper clips, girdles, flowerpots and toothbrushes. According to official UN figures, more than a million Iraqis have died as a direct result of these sanctions. Nearly one million children are chronically malnourished.
The han on most industrial, medical and chemical imports means that water supply and sewage treatment facilities have collapsed, while diseases such as cholera, typhoid and polio have risen massively. Malaria has reportedly the Arab world. reached epidemic levels.
And this is in a country which was once almost the wealthiest in the Arab world, with developed public services and the alleged ability to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.
This pressure, however, has not weakened Saddam's hold on power. Indeed, by weakening and demoralising the bulk of the population, it is likely to have harmed the prospect for any popular uprising. And the obvious suffering of the Iraqi people has been a further factor reducing support for the US and Western moves against Iraq.
The mass sympathy in the region for Iraq, and the popular perception of Saddam as a hero defending his people against Western aggression, have made it impossible for the leaders of the Arab and Middle East states to support a coalition, as they did in 1990-1.
At the moment, under the increasing sway of Islamic movements, the Arab masses are not challenging for power. But it is clear that, since 1991, the balance of forces in the Arab world has shifted significantly in their favour.
The likelihood of a mass uprischemical imports means that water supply and sewage treatment levels. And this is in a country which was once almost the wealthiest in ing from the Gulf to the Atlantic in the event of a renewed attack is a threat to all Arab regimes. This factor does not seem to have played much part in US strategic consideration, though Norman Schwarzkopf warned about the danger of a "new Vietnam".
The main US concern is in building a new system of regional alliances. The central pillar of this will be the growing alliance between Israel and Turkey. Following a treaty last year, the Israeli air force now conducts "training missions" in eastern Turkey.
It is not clear whether this is linked to Turkey's war against the Kurds and its occupation of parts of Iraq, but it clearly puts Israeli planes within easy reach of all of Syria, most of Iraq, and parts of Iran. This is a significant increase in Israel's strategic capacity.
Meanwhile, the new Iranian President, Khatami, is putting out diplomatic feelers towards the US, which is interested in exacerbating the tensions within the Islamic regime.
No longer the indispensable bulwark against the Iranian revolution, Iraq is becoming a minor irritant between two strong powers, which the US dreams of developing as its new alliance against progress and popular rule in the Middle East.
It is in this context that recent hints by senior US and British figures, that the break-up of Iraq might be their preferred solution, need to be assessed.
When the British and French drew the current borders of Iraq, in 1922, they were at pains to deny it full access to the Gulf, carving out Kuwait on the south of the Shatt alArab and expanding Persia on the north. Even then, there were proposals to establish three states, rather than one, in the area.
Israel, too, has long determined that its strategic interests would best be served by dividing Iraq into small, hostile states.
Socialists must be clear that such a development under western military auspices, even if disguised as an expansion of autonomy towards Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south, would not be in the interests of the inhabitants of the region, of whatever ethnic or religious community, but would represent a strengthening of imperialist control.
The Islamic movements, which are waging a bloody civil war in Algeria and are growing in Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Kurdistan and Turkey, offer no real alternative to the masses of the region.
Backward
They represent, particularly in their oppression of women, a backward and feudal response to the contemporary crisis of the Middle East.
But we must recognise that they are growing fast, as a reaction to the failure of bourgeois nationalist regimes to improve the situation of the masses.
While socialists can find no common cause with such obscurantist forces, it would be equally mistaken to ally with the reactionary regimes in an attack on the fundamentalists.
It is only through the mobilisation of the masses, on a programme of opposition towards imperialism and its feudal and dictatorial allies, towards religious fundamentalism, and towards religious and ethnic sectarianism, that socialists can hope to avert the current slide towards further disasters in the region.
And this, too, is must be the response of socialists towards the latest Gulf crisis.
Socialist Dullook GULP CIBININ 15
facilities have collapsed, while diseases such as cholera, typhoid and polio have risen massively. Malaria has reportedly reached epidemic