--- Begin Message ---
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the March 6, 2003
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
EVEN AS TROOPS ARE READIED: U.S. POURS ON THREATS TO GET
WAR VOTES
By Fred Goldstein
The political effects of the massive worldwide ant-war demonstrations
are being felt with a vengeance in Washing ton, in the United Nations
Security Council and in capitals around the globe. The anti-war
resistance has forced the Bush administration, against its will, to
introduce a new resolution in a last-ditch attempt to get Security
Council approval for its unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq.
Despite this accomplishment, the danger of war looms larger as the Bush
administration is preparing to defy the world. Nevertheless, the lesson
of recent events is that a further escalation of the anti-war struggle
is the only answer to Washington's intransigence.
When the Bush administration went to the Security Council last November
with Resolution 1441--which allowed the U.S. to proceed with its war
plans against Iraq--the vote for it was 15 to 0. Washing ton then firmly
rebutted the French government's argument that a second follow-up
resolution would be required for any authorization to go to war.
To get the unanimous vote, however, the U.S. grudgingly agreed to
language in the resolution to the effect that, after the inspectors came
back with their report, there would be "further consultation" with the
Security Council.
Since then, the anti-war movement has exploded around the globe. On Jan.
18, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in Washington and San
Francisco, as well as hundreds of thousands more in Europe. This was
followed by Feb. 15, when more than 10 million demonstrated around the
globe, including nearly 2 million in London.
BUSH'S ALLIES SHAKEN BY MASS PROTESTS
These demonstrations shook the foundations under Washington's main ally
in Europe, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as Bush's two
other imperialist supporters there, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio
Berlusconi of Italy. And it was precisely these three countries that saw
the largest anti-war demonstrations in the world.
"As recently as last month," wrote Patrick E. Tyler in the New York
Times of Feb. 25, "the White House acted as if it would not return to
the Security Council for a second resolution. But Mr. Blair, stung by
criticism at home, urged the administration to reconsider. ...
"Late last week," continued the Times, "it was not clear whether Mr.
Bush would gamble on the prospect of a highly visible loss in the
Security Council after the ebullient highs of last November, when the
Council voted 15 to 0 to affirm the administration muscular stand...
"But suddenly on Saturday morning, Mr. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer,
reported a conference call involving the president, the Spanish prime
minister, Jose Maria Aznar, Mr. Blair, and Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi of Italy to map out the steps at the United Nations that
would pave the way to war.
"That conference call set off a cascade of diplomatic lobbying on four
continents that is continuing," wrote the Times.
The lobbying is aimed at overcoming the French, German and Russian
position. They are circulating a memorandum calling for more protracted
and intensified inspections and opposing immediate war. Washington needs
nine of the council's 15 votes and no veto by France, Russia, or China
in order to pass its war resolution.
THREATENING AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA
According to an Associated Press dispatch of Feb. 24, "Senior U.S.
officials have been quietly dispatched in recent days to the capitals of
key Security Council countries where they are warning leaders to vote
with the United States on Iraq or risk 'paying a heavy price.'"
Washington is zeroing in on the African countries of Angola, Guinea and
Cameroon and the Latin American countries of Mexico and Chile.
The article quoted an unnamed U.S. diplomat as saying: "The order from
the White House was to use 'all diplomatic means necessary.' And that
really means everything."
Continued the article, "The wording of the order is a twist on 'all
means necessary'-the diplomatic terminology that authorizes going to
war."
A Mexican diplomat told the AP: "They actually told us: 'any country
that doesn't go along with us will be paying a very heavy price.'"
The visits from U.S. diplomats were described as "hostile," showing
little regard for the fact that the Mexican people are "overwhelmingly
opposed to a war."
The U.S. is hoping to capitalize on the desperate poverty of the African
countries to both threaten and bribe them into line. On his trip to
Asia, Secretary of State Colin Powell lobbied the Japanese imperialists
to press the African countries. Japan has investments and influence in
the region.
The mass anti-war demonstrations not only shook Blair, Aznar and
Berlusconi--they also sent a message to sections of the ruling class in
the U.S. that the Bush administration had better try to bolster its
political position in Europe and around the world before it plunges into
Iraq.
Most importantly, the demonstrations helped to deepen the split between
the two imperialist camps: France and Germany on the one hand and the
U.S. and Britain on the other. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder,
feeling the heat of the masses in their own countries, gained confidence
and incentive to ride the growing anti-Bush, anti-war wave and formulate
a position counter to Washington.
ANTI-WAR FORCES GAIN TIME
The demonstrations both pushed back the Pentagon's timetable for war and
forced the Bush administration into a bitter diplomatic struggle, thus
gaining time and opportunity for the anti-war forces to further escalate
their efforts.
However, the movement must deal with the overriding fact that the
Pentagon has 180,000 troops in the region; that each concession made by
the Iraqi government to the demands of the inspectors is met with
rejection or further demands by the Bush administration; and that the
right-wing hawks in Washington are determined to go to war. Some of them
would even relish doing it in defiance of the UN Security Council.
The struggle of the French and German imperialists to slow down and
obstruct the U.S. war drive has at least temporarily increased the
political isolation of Wash ing ton and helped to expose its fanatical
dedication to carrying out its war of aggres sion. And any thing that
even temporarily stays the hand of the Pentagon is helpful to Iraq and
to the anti-war movement.
At the same time that the movement strives to take advantage of the
opportunities opened up by this split, it must clearly reject the
fundamental premise being promoted by the nuclear-armed, high-tech super-
power, U.S. imperialism: that it has the right to go into a sovereign
state, disarm that country, and threaten to overthrow its government--
all in violation of international law, of the UN Charter and of the
fundamental right of a formerly colonized people to self-determination.
In this regard, there is not a ray of daylight between the French and
U.S. positions. The memorandum being circulated by France, Germany and
Russia states that, "So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq
are not fulfilled." It further states that "the pressure on Iraq must be
increased" and outlines the steps to increase that pressure. This
includes increasing the number of inspectors, setting up "mobile units"
to check on trucks and a "new system of aerial surveillance."
It states that the inspectors shall "report immediately to the Council
any interference by Iraq with the inspections activities as well as
failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations."
It concludes that "the combination of a clear program of action,
reinforced inspec tions, a clear timeline and the military buildup
proved a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert
maximum pressure on Iraq."
In other words, the French imperialists are posing to the world as the
"anti-war" party. They and the Germans are trying to improve their
relations and their penetration of the oppressed countries by cleverly
adopting an anti-U.S. position, knowing that the vast majority of the
world is opposed to the war and to Bush.
IMPERIALIST 'PACIFISM' OF CONVENIENCE
It must be remembered that the French were a brutal colonial power in
Vietnam and southeast Asia, in the Middle East and in West Africa. Now
they are a weakened power forced to rely heavily on economics, politics
and diplomacy in fighting for spheres of super-exploitation.
They would be quick to send their forces to aid in the destruction of
the Iraqi people and the recolonization of the country if they thought
French oil companies, bankers and other multinationals could benefit
from it. And they may very well do so. The same is true for the German
imperialists, who enslaved South West Africa, participated in the "open
door" division of China, and who presently have troops in Afghanistan.
But for now, as weaker powers, they prefer "multilateral" colonial
ventures rather than U.S. "unilateral" ventures that leave them with
little or none of the loot.
The weakness of Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi, the confidence of the
French and the Germans, and the political struggle in the Security
Council against the U.S. rush to war is based upon the pressure of the
masses of the people. It is the struggle that has produced a renewed
effort to extend the inspections.
Among those states promoting the extension of the inspections are two
basic camps. The imperialist camp, headed by Paris and Berlin, wants to
protect their own imperialist interests.
However, the vast majority of poor and oppressed countries, as seen in
the African Summit Conference and the conference of the Non-Aligned
Movement, as well as most of the UN General Assembly, are voting for
more inspections because they are really against this war of colonial
conquest. But they feel powerless to express this opposition in any
other way than to side with the French position.
The Non-Aligned Movement, which now comprises 116 countries
representing
55 percent of the world's population, recently met in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. The overwhelming sentiment was to stop the war.
The real sentiment of the people represented by those governments was
expres sed by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who opened the
second
and final day by denouncing Bush as a "big brother" proliferating arms
and Tony Blair as a "neocolonialist." (Reuters, Feb. 24)
"Iraq might have developed or desired to develop arms of mass
destruction," said Mugabe. "But the United States has massive arms of
that magnitude. Why can't they demonstrate what Iraq should [do] by
destroying their own massive heaps first."
The United States, Britain and the West "have turned themselves into
ferocious hunting bull-dogs raring to go," Mugabe continued. "We, their
hunted game, are for slaughter."
The weakened governments of the world, however, many of them simply
dependencies subject to the political, economic and military
strangulation of the imperialist powers, bowed to the pressure of the
masters in the White House and the Pentagon and repeated the line about
urging Iraq to comply.
Right now, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has told the Iraqi government
to destroy missiles that allegedly can go beyond the prohibited range of
150 kilome ters. The Iraqis have said that these missiles are within the
range, once they are mounted with their payload. Yet Blix has told them
that this is not a discussible item.
So the premise of inspections, on which all the imperialists agree, is
that the U.S. and Britain have the right to surround Iraq with a
military force powerful enough to destroy the country while at the same
time the UN will force the Iraqis to give up one of their important
means of self-defense.
This is the logic of the inspections regime. It is a criminal regime
calculated to render the victim as defenseless as possible. It harkens
back to an earlier colonial period when the European powers were able to
plunder entire defenseless continents.
The anti-war movement must be independent of all attempts to impose the
will of imperialism on Iraq or any other country. Iraq has the right to
defend itself. The movement should keep doing what it has been doing,
except on a larger and more forceful scale of resistance: demanding no
war on Iraq, under any conditions or for any pretext.
- END -
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe wwnews-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the
voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
------------------
This message is sent to you by Workers World News Service.
To subscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- End Message ---
