UDI LABIA of imperialism's rule in the region.
You can see this today in the gigantic demonstrations of support for Iraq in the Arab world. For Israel and the United States a new surge of Arab nationalism backed by a regional power dynamite for their domination of the Middle East. They cannot tolerate it.
Nasser
The comparison between Saddam and Egypt's Nasser is an irresistible one. Nasser became the real leader of the Arab world in the 1950s at the height of Arab nationalism. True, we are living in a very different period to the 1950s. True, Saddam's regime is more repressive that Nasser's, although Nasser too put communists in prison camps and had them tortured.
il is also true that Nasser embodied a more radical form of Arab nationalism. than Saddam. In the current Arab environment Saddam has been playing Islamic tunes not used by Nasser.
But like Nasser, Saddam is able to channel the hopes and aspirations of the multimillioned Arab masses, unleashing forces which imperialism is gravely threatened by. And from a Marxist point of view these hopes and aspirations, and made this mobilisation, is infinitely more progressive than the plans of imperialism.
Now we come to the global aspect of the war. The US is a declining economic power, compared with its main rivals Japan and, especially Germany. But it is still far and away vent to war the strongest single political power, and that power is based above all on military to the United States. predominance.
Here the United States, aims with its British satellite, has seized a golden opportunity to assert its military and political hegemony, to build an international alliance led by the US, to propel the US once again to the kind of global leadership which would have enormous ticated economic spin-offs.
But it is an extremely risky operation which will probably fail in the short- Only term and will certainly fail in the long-term. the Arab There is no doubt that the crisis of the USSR, and the virtual collapse of the Soviet Union as a superpower, has enabled the US to wage this war. Even five years ago, an attack against leadership which would have enormous economic spin-offs. a country like lraq, in many ways allied to the Soviet tive behind this war. Union would have been unthinkable, impossible.
But to a certain extent the collapse of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe has the triangular economic competition between the US, Germany and Japan even more risky from a US point of view. What happens, for example, if the Germany opts for a closer alliance - not a formal one of course - with the USSR? What happens if the economic openings in the East are dominated by Ger- many and Japan together many? These are grave risks with the collapse in the East have put all that in the meltThe fact that the US war ing pot.
involve its global This war is one with huge *Struggle for hegemony risks for American imGerman- perialism. Confronting a dominated Europe and regional power like Iraq Japan is clearly shown by would have the reaction to the conflict dangerous operation even by people like Ted Heath when it was at the height of and Dennis Healey. They its post-war power. Politiare among the most sophis- cally the US risks defeat.
pro-European It can be defeated by failpoliticians in Britain. They ing to decisively win the understood from day: one military battle, with all the what this conflict was about. consequences if there are ex- military and plosive bostilities between credibility. The consequenand Islamic ces of the huge wave of antipeoples and the countries to American sentiment, espetheir north will Anglo- •cially in the Arab world, are American militarism have a incalculable. chance of preserving its World order hegemony in Europe, mainThe leadership of the labour movement has presented a sorry spectacle faced with war.
The role of Kinnock is too well known to need much comment here. With a few honourable exceptions the unions have followed suit.
T h January TUC statement on the war, supporting 'our boys" did not even regret Iraqi civilian casualties. anti-war mo-an invasion of Iraq! tion was not even put at the TUC General Council.
Only MSF has clearly backed the anti-war movement, while SOGAT and the FBU have called for a ceasefire. The other unions which have pronounced on the issue have implicitly backed the TUC line. Eve NALGO, with its generally been a 'progressive' line on international questions, recognised Anti-war: Benn the war as a 'fact' and contented itself with condemning Saddam to US and uttering platitudes abour political the United Nations.
Cowardice at the top of the movement by no means predominant at the base of the movement. 800 journalists attended a meeting to set up an anti-war campaign on 28 January. The war is hugely unpopular among health workers, who can see the hypocrisy of money becoming instantly available to re-open •wards for Gulf victims; and among teachers PHOTO: John Harns working with children faced with the trauma of war. The vast majority of Labour's MEPs have come out against the war. Throughout the All Kinnock: even ready to back country Labour constituencies have been sup porting the anti-war movement. There have now been four Labour front bench resignations over the war. If this war is as long and terrible as seems likely, Kinnock will pay a huge price for backing the Tory line.
The response PHOTO: John Harris to the initiative and Paul Foot to set up Journalists against the War shows the potential for driving this issue into the labour movement. In particular, rarely has there been an issue on wbich work-place groups could be so easily set up. Every trade unionist and Labour Party member must be raising this issue in the coming days.