|
Hans Blix’s Feb, 14th
report on Iraq has come as a slap in the face of the US imperialists. The Bush
administration, supported only by Tony Blair and a handful of his supporters,
stands shocked despite countless efforts to prove that Saddam Hussein has
weapons of mass destruction in its arsenals. Weapons inspectors from the UN
scanned the whole of Iraq for two months to find a clue for a US attack on Iraq
but all in vain. They did not find even traces of such weapons. For the US the
Blix report was unexpected. They had wished double talk from Blix to justify to
press the war button. For the time being they have been stopped short of moving
their fingers.
Though the opposition
to a possible war on Iraq has been growing worldwide, and there have been
massive anti-war demonstrations especially in Europe, America and the Middle
East, yet it has not been the main reason that prompted Blix to categorically
say that his mission has found no such weapons. The powers from Europe,
especially France and Germany and a good part of the British imperialists have
played the major role. The ruling class in Britain is especially deeply divided
over the Iraq issue, where Blair almost stands isolated and where many of his
former colleagues in the Labour Party have joined the anti-war campaign. Germany
and France have particularly been playing a role to avert a US aggression at the
present juncture as they are of the opinion that the division of Iraqi oil
resources can be agreed upon peacefully with the US, with Saddam Hussein being
intact. That is why they stress upon the UN role. They want that any war on Iraq
must have a UN sanction. In a sense, this means that presently they do not want
to extend their politics to military extremes to confront the US to safeguard
their own oil interests in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region, especially Iran,
which has also been declared by the US as part of the "axis of evil". The US, on
the contrary, aspires for complete control of the region and wants others to buy
the gulf oil through it. (Not long ago, the US president Bush had offered Russia
and China hefty contracts in Iraq to buy off their support for its war adventure
in the Gulf.)
The US imperialist
aspirations for uninhibited hegemony in the world, force it to take up the
military option. The war on Afghanistan that was carried in the name of fighting
terrorism and Al-Qaeda, was the first war in this direction. That war was termed
by the US imperialists as their first war of a series of wars of the new
millennium. They had declared that their so-called war on terrorism would be an
open-ended war, a war without an end that might run into many years. That
declaration was sufficient to raise the eyebrows of its former allies who
correctly saw unilateralism in the US plans for world hegemony. Translating
these plans into action by the US would not only change the post "cold war"
status quo in the world but also jeopardize the interests of other major powers
of the world. But during the Afghan war not much bickering was done by the
European powers as after the bombing of the World Trade Center it was difficult
for them to criticize wounded American rulers. These powers though they did
agree with the US that there were "rogue states" in the world, they did not buy
the American Doctrine of "the axis of evil". So America was allowed a free hand
in Afghanistan.
But now, as American
plans to extend much further than the so-called war on terrorism, many of the EU
powers want to put a bar on the US. Unable to confront the US militarily these
powers have opted for political and diplomatic means to curtail or thwart the US
designs. While the unanimous UN resolution 1441 on Iraq had an overall
imperialist thrust of curtailing the sovereignty of a poor and weak nation, (on
which we will deal later) it was mainly to stop or at least delay, the war act
of a belligerent US ruling class. Now, the Hans Blix report on weapon
inspections has further put a bucket of water over fuming US rulers. But the
latter refuse to budge. The US has been saying all along that it would go it
alone if others refuse to join it in dismantling the "evil" regimes. Now the US
stands alone, rather isolated among its own former close allies except a lame
Britain, Spain, Australia and a damped Italy. The others who support it are a
few of the newly baptized NATO countries from Eastern Europe who are of little
military, political or economic consequence for the US. Even in these countries
the populations have come out against the war.
It is an irony that
the most cherished and eulogized democratic state of the world, the US, is able
to secure practical "help" for its war from States that are despotic, i.e. the
Gulf Sheikhdoms like Qatar, Baherin, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc. They have
been turned into military bases and launchpads of the US armed forces. All these
rulers are closely tied with US interests and are unpopular despots among their
own subjects, and rule with US assistance and guardianship. Most of the
"democratic" advanced world has doubts about US intentions. Now the US is
finding it difficult to get the nine votes in the Security Council, necessary
for passing the resolution. Though the previous resolution on Iraq had been
unanimous a new one may not find enough support to pass through if it is for an
open declaration of war on Iraq, as the US wants.
The behavior of each
state in the hottest issue now gripping the world is determined by its immediate
interests and not by some democratic or so-called humanistic values. While most
European States want the issue settled peacefully, the despots in the gulf
region are dependent on the US for their survival. Countries like Jordan, Egypt
and Turkey are closely tied to US economic strings, while others fear the US
threat of "either. . . ..or". No doubt, with Europe the US does not issue the
threat that ‘either you are with us or with the enemies’. Here a different
relationship goes and the US only says that it would "go alone" if they don’t
come to support. On the whole, the "democratic" US stands isolated in the
"democratic" opinion of states of the advanced world. It is ready not to listen
to the democratic opinion of others while it delivers lectures to others on
democracy. Even it declares Saddam Hussein a dictator and despot while seeking
support of other despots and dictators.
For the US neither is
it a question of democracy, nor of despotism nor a question of human values. Its
behaviour is determined by its economic, geo-political and world hegemonistic
interests. Saddam is a good guy if he carries the US dictate to launch a war of
aggression on Iran or the rebel Kurds, even if it entails the use of biological
and chemical weapons. The US even helps him to acquire these weapons. He is a
rogue if he does not listen, and must be overthrown in the name of having such
weapons, even if he does not have them. Then he becomes a "threat to peace and
security of the world." It is one of the most despicable truths of our times
that the most armed and threatening state of the world that has its arsenals
full of WMDs is calling a non-WMD state a threat to world peace. This is the
logic of the gangster, of a street rogue who asks the people to behave, of a don
who sermonizes on good human values, and of a bandit who accuses others of
thievery. The "thief of Baghdad" has long shifted to the lands of "liberty and
opportunity" ever since the civilized Europeans took upon the task of civilizing
the world by "exterminating all the brutes" of the savage world. Now the brutish
of all, calls Saddam and others as brutes.
To achieve its target
the US has lied and lied again to the world, that the Iraqi regime has
connections with the Al Qaeda. God Bless America! The US had never dealt with
Osama Bin Laden. Not even in Afghanistan. The US has lied that it has proof that
Saddam has WMDs. Be peace upon the US! It never tried them on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and now has only rubber bullets to scare away the crows! The US says
Saddam has anthrax, the deadly chemical. Pity the US! It never refused to sign
the treaty of chemical and biological weapons! It only had it thwarted in the
name of its right to defence. And not the least. The US says that Saddam and
other States do not have the right to make nuclear bombs and ballistic systems
for delivering them. Poor America! It only has nuclear bombs and WMD delivering
systems to display fireworks for Christmas celebrations. God save the US!
Otherwise nuclear proliferation will bring it under the same threat it creates
for others. Then its god will be counter balanced and rendered ineffective. No
other God than power, the unbridled one, can make America safe. And for this it
has to curtail and disarm everyone else. And because Saddam now does not have,
or has destroyed, its far less capable WMD weapons even the US has to raise a
dummy of the Iraqi WMDs.
So the question is
neither of a rogue, nor of a despot, much less that of Iraqi WMDs, it is the
very presence of a regime that is a hindrance to the unbridled US control of the
rich oil resources of the gulf from where all the deceptive political
terminology of "axis of evil", "threat to peace", "inhumanness of Saddam" has
sprouted up. Neither sanctions, nor inspections, nor anything else like WMDs
is at issue, the single point for the US is the regime change in Iraq. The
leaders of the ‘free and democratic world’ want to impose their will on other
nations through blatant use of arms, even nuclear, if need be. And for this they
can go even alone in contravention to the opinion of the State of the world or
the people. Nothing else can be so undemocratic and inhuman, nothing can be more
insulting to international law, which, in fact, is of their own make. This is
sheer brigandage and gangsterism. The US not only refused to sign and honour
international treaties, it has even abrogated the previous ones that hinder its
quest for control of the world and stay at the top as the number one dog of the
planet.
But for the Blix
report the aggression would have been carried out by now. Even this report only
acts to delay the impending aggression. The US forces around the Gulf are ready
to strike at a moments’ notice. Most deadly weaponry with all the paraphernalia
has been put in place. One lakh fifty thousand forces from all the three. . . .
. are deployed. From fifty thousand to one lakh more are waiting to be signaled
to move. Now the US has been forced to defer it for a few more weeks perhaps.
Whatever be the
reasons of this postponement of war, one thing which must be taken notice of is
the curtailment of the sovereign rights of the State. Though imperialism
means the oppression of small, weak and backward nations, yet the current world
scene is set to further curb this natural right of these States. What the WTO
and other international institutions fail to achieve "peacefully" will be
secured through wars. In the case of Iraq what is being missed in the goings on
at the UN, in the name of launching or averting war, is a dangerous precedent.
The previous Gulf war of 1991 resulted in the inhuman sanctions that killed
nearly fifteen lakh people in the course of ten years. In North and South Iraq
no fly zones were imposed on the insistence of the US and Britain. Iraq was
forced to destroy its weapon systems and abandon its missile programmes. Thus
the right of a nation to defend itself from aggression was violated by the
council. Now this course is to go further even banning nations, except the five
nuclear ones, (as India and Pakistan are not recognized as nuclear weapon
nations) to produce such weapons and their delivery systems, leaving the holder
countries a vast field to threaten others. Saddam had to declare that he bans
such weapons by decree. What the NPT and other treaties have failed for years
has been achieved in a short span of months. The new proposals being considered
by the German and French governments may seek declaring the whole of Iraq as a
no fly zone. This is a gross violation of the sovereign rights of a nation
depriving it from having right over its own space while leaving it open for the
big ones to carry on spying activities through reconnaissance planes. It is like
cutting the wings of a country, putting it at the mercy of powerful states. At
the same time, while it is appeasing the US imperialists, it also satisfies
French and German imperialist interests. Imperialism as a whole seeks to convert
various states into vassals with very limited rights. It wants to treat the
various government in various lands as willing slaves and needs good local
governors of world imperialist interests. The resolution 1441 on Iraq is more a
step in that direction. The EU imperialist’s only rivalry with the US
imperialists is that while the US seeks to convert important countries in the
world as neo-colonies serving solely its interests, and only through it others,
the former want the status quo maintained vis-à-vis inter-imperialist
relationships while exploiting the rest of the world. Nevertheless, given an
opportunity they too won’t refrain from going the US way in case the countries
of their own sphere of interests seek to rebel. May be, the French will behave
the same way if it comes to the Ivory Coast or as Britain wants Zimbabwe
restored to it in the neo-colonial form.
The Iraq example
calls to attention the revolutionary and people’s forces to beware of
imperialist machinations while dealing and interacting with other anti-war
forces and masses. While imperialist interests like Germany and France would
like to have a status quo, they would seem to be working for the establishment
or the preservation of peace. But that has a price, which the revolutionary and
proletariat forces must guard against; as the right of poor, weak and oppressed
nations to defend themselves must be upheld, when the biggest butchers have
their own nuclear and all other WMD stockpiles intact.
The American
hullabaloo about the material breach of SC resolutions by Iraq, at the same time
must be countered and exposed for the US attitude towards gross violation of all
the SC resolutions on Palestine and the national rights of the Palestinians by
the Israeli Zionist State. The duplicity and fraud of the US imperialist is
for everyone to see there. The US never speaks about the WMD’s Israel has. And
of its own ones, the people world wide must demand their unconditional
destruction. The same is true for other nuclear weapon holding imperialist
States. If the Iraqi right is to be curbed let other’s also be snatched. If the
imperialists don’t agree to destroy their own, let others have the right to
build these in self-defence.
The postponement of
war in Iraq, it must be stressed again, is mainly due to the German, French
opposition to war, and for maintaining the status quo. That is why the
resolutions or statements coming out of these governments never put the problem
in the right perspective. For the people though, the postponement of war is a
good thing, yet it is far from serving their long time and real interests which
can only be served when real resolutions would prevent war; and when
imperialism, along with its war doctrine and war crimes, is put to death.
Blix has acted as an
imperialist, anti-oppressed pacifist and not as an opponent of imperialism and
imperialist aggression. He even made a part of his mission carry and convey the
US message to Iraq that Saddam seek exile or be exiled for a regime change. The
UN did not give this mandate to him. He never speaks about the US or British, or
French or Russian WMDs, nor does the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
ever take up the task to visit the above said countries, to see if they are
making nuclear fissile material. Then why Iraq, or for that matter North Korea?
And why not Israel? He wants only Saddam to comply in the destruction of WMDs.
Beyond that he is mum.
And why does the UN
never send such a mission to these countries asking them to dismantle and
destroy or face "serious consequences" and a war for a "regime change?" No
doubt, the world people need these things done, and the UN is not the place
through which this can be and will be done. The UN belongs to those who dominate
the world and not to the people or to the countries like Iraq, North Korea, or
for that matter India Pakistan or Brazil.
Though the Blix
report says that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction still the US butchers
say, "Iraq must disarm." What a travesty of truth and the destructive intent of
the imperialist mind! The US leaders went hoarse in condemning Iraq and Saddam
Hussain. Even before they launch a war they stand condemned not by the world
people only but even by their own allies who are unable to digest the US
arguments. Their WMD and regime change theory convinces no one. Initially the
British too had refrained from the regime change demand and concentrated only on
the WMD issue, but later on Blair swallowed the WMD demand and started echoing
the blatant US demand for a regime change. He did this to pay a dirty "blood
price" to the US monster clan. Unashamed, he declared that he does not want an
"unpopularity badge". But he stands condemned by the British people. London
demonstrations are the clearest testimony to this, where the people have
emphatically said NO to war.
Here we must hail
those US soldiers sent to the Gulf who along with their families have declared
not to go to war against Iraq and have filed suits against Bush and Powel for
forcing them to fight an "unjustified war". This refusal to do the bidding of
the imperialist chiefs is the only correct and revolutionary course for the
soldiers who serve in the imperialist armies.
The most interesting
thing that has come to the fore in this criminal US frenzy for a regime change
in Iraq is the contradictions in the NATO that have appeared in the wake of
French and German political opposition to a US led war on Iraq. The NATO could
not decide in its first two meetings to agree to the American proposal for a
protective NATO cover for Turkey in the event of war in the Gulf. France,
Germany and Belgium opposed the proposal. The proposal only could be adopted in
the third meeting which was held among generals and not in the political wing of
NATO. France is not a member of the military wing having its representative only
in the political department of NATO. In the military structure France was absent
and Belgium and Germany were neutralized somehow through a watered down
agreement. The frictions in the NATO are an indication towards bigger things
that are bound to emerge when inter imperialist contradictions sharpen in the
future. The French and German opposition is unlikely to snowball in the present
context but this new development is definitely a pointer to the truth that in
the ultimate analysis the sharks have to strike at each other to control the
waters. That dogfight has to come one day. The end of the cold war balance must
lead to a new polarization. In the absence of a pact like Warsaw, the single
pole of NATO has to metamorphose into two poles, in spite of the fact that the
newly inducted eastern States have joined it to strengthen it. If Spain has
fully supported the US Italy has only meekly consented. We see cracks appearing
in the EU. Then, you cannot have a NATO and no rival to strike at. No doubt,
some time has to elapse before such a scenario emerges. The EU powers have been
appeasing the US for a long time due to the rivalry from the ex-Soviet Union and
its allies. With the Soviet Union and the eastern empire having gone to the
winds, the western allies and friends must begin to disintegrate. When America
says that it can "go it alone" in forcing its will it means something. It
foresees red in Europe. It foresees its isolation among friends and allies.
Imperialists have interests only, exploitative interests. And this naturally
demands of them to eat into the interests of others. That is what the US wants
through a war on Iraq. It wants to control the whole pie. The rivalry on Iraq is
a reflection of the clash of exploitative interests among them. In
Afghanistan the US installed a puppet and turned it into a neo-colony. The US
wants another puppet and another neo colony in Iraq. It needs governors who
would be taking its dictates only. That is what some of the European powers
resent. In the present situation they may find a consensus or some common
technical arrangement, however, the appearance of open clash of interests in the
overall imperialist alliance are signs of the coming times.
From the delaying
tactics of France and Germany one is not to succumb to the impression that they
are working for the benefit of Iraq. As far as dealing with the oppressed
countries is concerned all imperialists are united in their ideology. All the EU
countries agree that Saddam is a rogue; that Iraq must not have the weapons in
question; that Iraq must concede to the UN demands; that the Iraqi regime must
be dismantled if it refuses to fulfill these demands. Like in the case of Iraq
they have the same approach towards independence and sovereignty of other third
world oppressed countries. Their attitude stems from their own needs and
calculations which drives them to put up resistance to US plans. Sometimes they
put out brave statements, at others they behave meekly to arrive at a consensus.
Here they oppose, there they fall in line. Like in the case of Afghanistan, this
time too the US expected them to fall in line in the end. But to its unease
things are taking a relatively tough turn. Their resistance is limited to
diplomacy and politics, that is, short of "other means" that call for a military
challenge to US aggressiveness. And as a part of this they are even helping in
the street protests.
Though Iraq is
utilizing and taking advantage of contradictions among the brigand powers, yet
it cannot be expected to resist the US in a revolutionary way by mobilizing the
people for street resistance, when the invading armies come to occupy the cities
and the countryside. The powers like the US can only be confronted by mobilizing
the people in through a war waged by the people. One wishes that there be an
Arabic version of people’s war, which is long overdue, due to more than half a
century old Zionist aggression on the Palestinian and Arab peoples. Saddam is
unable to do this as he has been a willing collaborator of the US in inflicting
severe damage to the Islamic republic of Iran and notoriously dealt with the
national aspirations of the Kurd people in the north and also with the Shia
religious minority in the south. He however appeals to Arab and Palestinian
nationalism to confront the "Satanic forces" of the US. But he is relying too
much on EU- US contradictions, and is in the thick of a dangerous game that
would only harm the long term interests of the Iraqi people. The huge number of
deaths in Iraq due to sanctions point to the fact that their economy has been
too bound and dependent on the world imperialist economic system, and he had
done little to build a self-reliant economy by using the huge incomes from
petrol. This policy of dependence compels him to look towards the outside - now
to Russia, now to America and now to the EU.
Yet one must remember
that every nation has its sovereign rights and no one else can dictate or force
its will on the other. And it is solely the task of a people to have this or
that regime, to tolerate or pull down a government. It is none of the business
of the imperialists or the so-called United Nations to force their outside will
under any pretext. Enough of "civilizing" brutal campaigns of the west and
enough of blockades and sanctions and enough of resolutions to force various
peoples and countries to comply with their outside will. This kind of
interference must stop in international relations among nations. The
imperialist-dominated UN has only grossly violated the sovereign rights of many
of its member States. Iraq and North Korea have been the worst hit. In Iraq, the
first US aggression in 1991, the no-fly zones, the sanctions, the inspections
have been the most notorious UN sanctioned decisions which were only meant to
intimidate and devastate a poor and oppressed country into submission, and to
appease the most powerful nation of the world who has been successful in forcing
its will.
One is not to fall
prey to the imperialist logic and standpoint while stressing about the UN role.
The UN must not be there to intimidate and force the weak while bowing before
the strong. Those who oppose war just on the ground that let the UN decide when
to launch war on Iraq, carry an imperialist logic in their head. Whether Iraq
has WMDs or not is none of the business of the UN when the US and the big four
others have vast stockpiles of these. Whether Saddam rules in Baghdad or it is
someone else is not to be decided by the US or any one else except the people of
Iraq. Whether Saddam is a tyrant or benign is not the headache of the foreign
tyrants. The so-called democratic UN or US has no right to dictate this to the
people of Iraq. A people know when to tolerate or overthrow a ruler without any
outside interference. It is for the Iraqis to deal with him. In a way, if
someone must compare the devils, as to who is more dangerous to the people of a
country and to the world, then Hussain is far less dangerous than the number one
scoundrel, imperialist America, or any other imperialist power, or the
Sheikhdoms of the Gulf on whose shoulders the US has placed the gun to fight
Saddam. As a matter of fact, all of them are less dangerous than US imperialism
which stomps its boots in all the lands, in all continents, and has earned the
notoriety of being called the number one enemy of the world and which is hated
most among the people throughout the world. If the world really needs a change
of regime somewhere it is first and foremost in the imperialist United States of
America that affects the destiny of the people of the world as a whole. The
people of the world have to confront the center of world reaction while dealing
with the local reactionary chieftains of the ruling classes.
But the UN and the
Blixes cannot be expected to tell these things to the world. They only pass
judgments on the regimes of the third world and dictate them to abide by this
and that. A really democratic United Nations cannot have the right to appoint or
dismantle governments in other countries. If it does, it carries on the wishes
of the imperialist States. That is what the Blix mission is doing in Iraq. The
UN intervention in Iraq has turned the whole of Middle East question upside
down. The real rogue and a threat to peace and peoples in the Middle East is
Israel and not Saddam and Iraq. But the attack dog is an outpost of the
imperialists and they don’t want the world to concentrate on the Palestinian
question. Instead they have found a scapegoat in Iraq and are looking for
weapons of mass destruction, which lie not in Iraq but in their own houses and
the Israeli courtyards. The attention of the world has been diverted from the
real problem. The Middle East first and foremost needs the destruction of the
Israeli Zionist State that has terrorized the whole of the Arab world. And we
see the UN dumb and silent on this question. Israel is allowed to violate every
UN resolution with powerful backing from the US and British imperialists. But no
imperialist power talks of sanctions, inspections and a regime change there.
What a great fraud is being played on the people of the world. Saddam’s only
crime is, he harboured ambitions for a more powerful Iraq. This could have
jeopardized US calculations in the Middle East and created a threat for its
attack dog someday. So it is out to destroy it and take control of its power
base, the oil, in its own hands. Neither is the world told that the patriarchal
feudal Sheikhdoms oppress the people of the Gulf region more, as these serve the
US oil and global interests and are willing slaves of the US masters.
There are reports
that the US has a major reorganization and transforming plan of the whole of the
gulf region after it captures Iraq. That it intends to reorganize Iraq and
‘democratize’ the Sheikhdoms. What difference will it make if Kuwait, Bahrain or
Saudi Arabia has elections but the old state power remains intact and Sheikhs
become constitutional heads, or even if, though this is far from the case, these
are made republics under US protection? That will be only to further consolidate
the US control of the region and in no way stand near to any sort of
democratization of the societies. That would only be a farce of democracy and
democratization, a farce that says that the people have elected their own
rulers. Only a real revolution at the base, at the very roots of society can
transform these reactionary Sheikhdoms, and the US fears such a kind of
transformation more than the rulers of the Gulf.
Of course, the Gulf
region needs a powerful shaking that would uproot the present reactionary
bastions and free these peoples from reaction, Zionism and US domination. And
that will be directly opposite of what the US wants to achieve through another
war in the Gulf.
February 15, 2003
|
