In fact, the 'people of Kuwait' lived under an effective dictatorship anyway. The big majority of the population were immigrant workers from other Arab countries and Asia. Most have now left. The Emir of Kuwait ran a highly dictatorial regime -theless a dictatorship:
The Arab countries in the pro-Western alliance - Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt - are none of them democratic, even by US and British standards. The Assad regime in Syria is every bit as ruthless and bloody as Iraq.
Socialists cannot support one form of capitalist dictatorship against another. The return of the Emir to rule Kuwait would only bolster the power of the other readionary sheikdoms in the Gulf. It would return Kuwait to being a small enclave for pumping oil to the imperialist powers; enclave of a super-rich minority who lord it over the immigrants who do all the work.
Defeat
Socialist Outlook did not support the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; but in the present situation there is nothing to be gained from the point of view of the Arab masses by calling for Iraq to return Kuwait to the Emir and his US backers. The Arab masses can only gain from the defeat of the USThe pro-sanctions argument falls into the legalist trap of seeing the UN as an international court which can 'solve' such 'international problems'. In reality the only solution which the 'international community' can provide is one which reinforces the power of imperialism in the region. And the very existence of regimes like the Ba'ath dictatorships in Iraq and Syria is a product of imperialist dominaSocialists must argue that there is no solution io the existence of bloody and brutal governments in the Middle East which can be imposed from the outside. The only force which can overtirow Saddam and his like, without imposing another reactionary dictatorship, are the Arab masses themselves. Il is the arrogance of imperialism which sees Britain and the US 'solving' the problems of the Arab people. Defending Iraq Many people in the peace movement don't like slogans being raised in defence of Iraq. How can we defend the butcher Saddam, even against the US war machine?, they ask. But defending Traq is not defending Saddam. In this war, international imperialism is trying to crush the people of a dependent, oppressed nation. The people of Iraq have the right to fight against the destruction of their nation, against an imperialist-imposed solution. We defend Iraq despite Saddam, not because we support his regime.
The best conditions for fighting Arab reaction in the Middle East will be created not by the victory of the US, but by the victory of Iraq. An American victory will be a blow to the Palestinians, to the Kurds, all the people of the Middle east and the third world.
Peace movement leaders who say the problem is 'war", or the arms trade, or the use of force to solve international disputes, don't get to the root of the problem. Militarism and war are endemic to imperialist world domination. You cannot defeat one without the defeating the other. regional power. two cept dealt with. annexed hv Middle East. to win the Gulf. The onslaught against Iraq is the first time since 1945 that the United States has attempted to destroy the political, economic and military strength of major It is not a decision taken rashly. Despite the split in the Congress and in the political elite in general, the US government had six months to think through its war aims. The attempt to defeat the Iraqi Ba'athist regime is an act of very precise political calculation.
This calculation has rationales: By Oliver regional and a global MacDonald It goes without saying into war against Iran and that the decision to attack Iraq does not stem mainly promised him their backing. The Islamic goverfrom the invasion of Kuwait; that is the oppor ment in Teheran was seen as.
the immediate threat to the tunity, not the real cause.
stability and imperialist While Kuwait does emcontrol of the region. But in body some US oil interests they are not vital ones. If the the post Iran-Iraq war situation the US had growing US had been prepared to acreason to be hostile to the Iraq being the dominant power in the Gulf, then such matters as territoriai disputes with Kuwait could have been And if Kuwait had been the pro-American Saudis there would not have been a Gulf Ba'athist regime. war. The truth is that the This is nothing to do with Ba'athist regime in Iraq and the repressive character of what it stands for had be- the Iraqi dictatorship. The come utterly unacceptable US has been very happy the to US policy aims in the support repressive, torturWing regimes all over the world; indeed it seems to be Shah a positive advantage in getAfter the 1978 fall of the ting US support. Shah of Iran, dominance of the oil-rich Gulf was up for It is about the political grabs. Saddam's invasion of meaning of possible Iraqi Iran in 1980 was an attempt Gulf dominance. This inrapid Iraqi volves two major factors; dominance. He hoped for a first the world economic quick defeat of the new results of Iraqi hegemony Khomeini regime which and second the political would make him overlord of dynamic of the Iraqi regime in the region.
The US urged Saddam The 'economic effect' is not just about oil prices. True, if Saddam controlled the oil of Iraq and Kuwait, and was able to control the other Gulf oil sheikdoms, he could exercise a lot of control over oil prices. other oil states have in the past pushed up without causing a US atfack. For example, states led by the Saudis used a dramatic oil price increase as a political weapon during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. full But the US never dreamt of war on this issue. oil prices depend a lot of the price of alternatives, and the West is much less dependent on oil than in 1973. No; it is much more to do with the control of vast amounts of oil capital than It goes without saying that the decision to attack Iraq does not stem from the invasion of Kuwait; that is the opportunity, not the real cause.
oil prices. Controlling vast oil reserves means building up huge oil revenues. means making the country holding this capital a major player in the international economy and therefore in international politics. How oil capital is used is a crucial question for the United States - it is a major factor in world politics. Would Saddam-controlled oil capital denominated in dollars -would it become petrodollars' in American banks? Or perhaps Saddam would denominate it in German marks or Japanese yen, striking a major blow at the US economy? Would this vast reserve of capital be used to undercut American banks, or lend money to regimes hostile to But the US? These are giant questions for the US oil prices economy and therefore its political power. Of course, in this matter the Saudis and the Arab Kuwaitis are utterly subordinate to the Americans and the City of London. Here we come to the crux of the matter. Why is the Ba'athist regime Besides, trustworthy, potentially hostile, dangerous from an American point of view? On this a lot of left-wing discussion about the Saddam regime is beside the point. Yes, Saddam's regime is utterly repressive and hostile to any form of democracy. But it is more than that. The Ba'athist leadership, reflecting its origins, talks about 'Arab socialism' and an 'Arab renaissance'. Il repeats all the main themes of 1950s and 1960s Arab nationalism. Build-up It It has not just talked about building up a military force capable of confronting Israel and the West, it has actually done it. It has a leadership which is not just a bunch of dilettante windbags but hard, ruthless, practical people of action. Of course no one really believes that Saddam is interested in creating Arab be But his demagogy, and the building of a strong regional power which uses these themes as a weapon of political mobilisation, has a potential for massive destabilisation
x19100 uhe 11 Herald Socialist Outlook February 2 1991 Page 3 labour movement action against war