Editorial
No to war in the Middle East!
As we go to press (November 23rd) it seems that the immediate threat of major air strikes against the Iraqi people from US imperialism and its European allies, most notably our own Tony Blair, are on the back burner.
However the situation could hot up again at any moment and the Americans have asserted that they need no further mandate for action which could murder many thousands of people.
Of course whether they actually do act without the backing of the Security Council will depend in the end not on formalisms but on whether they feel the balance of forces is sufficiently in their favour to permit this.
What may have as much long term significance as the threat of further bombings is the fact that the removal of Saddam Hussein is now an explicit part of US policy. Clinton has now signed the Iraq Liberation Act 1998, under pressure from the Republicans in Congress.
Military aid
This allows the administration to release $97 million (£64 million) in military aid to the Iraqi opposition as well as allowing them to train and equip an opposition army which would invade the country with the aim of overthrowing Saddam.
In a statement on November 14 Clinton stated that the US intended to "intensify" support for the "forces of change" in Iraq. Blair has echoed support for this position in Parliament and discussions are underway with Iraqi groups based in London.
During the Gulf war there was much more ambivalence on the question of unseating Hussein - because imperialism was not sure it could find a replacement that was any more reliable. After all Saddam was initially their creation and considered an ally until after the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Now it seems that there is optimism that a better replacement might emerge.
The basis of this change of heart lies not in changes in the Iraqi opposition but in larger geo-political issues in the region. The signing of the Oslo accords since the Gulf war was a crucial factor. The mobilisations of Palestinians and others across the Arab world was important in putting imperialism under pressure during the Gulf War. Today Arafat is policing the Palestinians more effectively than the Israelis were able to . Nor has the settlement only had an effect within the bantustans supposedly controlled by the Palestinian authority but more generally throughout the Arab world - an effect of demobilisation and demoralisation after the promise of the Intifada.
In retrospect, while it was always clear that Britain’s interest in ending the Rushdie affair was not based on a new found ( and short lived) belief in freedom of speech, the larger picture comes even more clearly into focus. Settling this dispute with Iran was not only useful for imperialism in order to try to bolster the modernisers against the fundamentalists in Tehran, but to hopefully establish stronger alliances in any future conflict with Iraq.
At the same time, Turkey, another key player in the region has interests at stake. It would dearly love to see the coming together of Kurdish groups from Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan - between whom there has been little love lost - to isolate the PKK based in Turkish Kurdistan. Its determination to step up the offensive against a people whose existence it does not officially recognise has been illustrated by its attacks first on Syria and now on Italy over the whereabouts of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.
Socialist Outlook is opposed to an imperialist offensive against Iraq and continues to support demands for the lifting of sanctions which have led to death and disease being rife throughout the country. We also warn that the 'Pax Americana' under discussion today would have repercussions way beyond the borders of Iraq. The attempt to redraw the map of the Middle East being considered in the White House and Downing Street is an attack on Palestinians, Kurds and all the peoples of the Middle East. It must be opposed.