Imperialist Games in the Gulf

Recent imperialist chest beating over Iraq has left the U.S. state in an unusual position of actually having to face organized opposition from the imperialist powers of France, Russia, and China. Although the news media in the U.S. played down such opposition, there was for the first time a solid front against U.S. imperialist interests in the Persian Gulf. Long term objectives of the U.S. state still include maintaining a permanent military presence in the Gulf. With the closing of U.S. military bases in the Philippines, Panama, and Germany also closed the era when U.S. foreign policy focused on Germany, South-East Asia and Central America. Despite claims from the left in the U.S. that a few hecklers managed to score some sort of victory against American military aggression, the problem of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf cannot end with this confrontation, on the contrary it will merely become more violent the more U.S. state objectives are thwarted by other powers who have interests in the region.

First, it is necessary to summarize the important events as they have occurred in the Gulf during this latest threat of war, paying particular attention to the intervention of other imperialist powers in the region. As far back as January, the Russian and Chinese governments urged the U.N. to certify that Iraq had ended its' nuclear weapons program, against the wishes of the United States.1 By February second, Russia, France, and Turkey agreed to press forward in an attempt to end the conflict before it started.2 On February second Russian President Boris Yeltsin intervened in an attempt to break another deal to allow access to U.S. weapons inspectors access to eight of the so-called Presidential palace sites, a deal which was rebuffed by the U.S. government bent on demonstrating its' military muscle.3 By February 4, the U.S. government was desperately looking for allies. Aside from the government of the U.K., the only countries that supported the U.S. were Kenya, Sweden, Slovenia, Portugal, and Gabon, none of which have any say on the U.N. security council and whose governments were most likely seeking support from Washington.4

What was particularly notable was the fact that opposition to the U.S. state was more unified than at any time since before the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia's president Yeltsin who in a provocative statement said, "By his actions, Clinton might run into a world war," was not completely off base in his comments.5 It is exactly this kind of action that can ultimately lead to a world war. However, the powers opposed to the latest intervention in the Gulf aren't motivated by any humanitarian interest any more than Washington is. Russia has done business in Iraq for a long time and has a major interest in oil pipelines that are going from Russia's oil producing regions to the Gulf. France as well has interests in the region, and benefits at home from the appearance of opposing Washington's imperialist interests.

At home the U.S. government itself faced serious divisions over the question of military action in Iraq. Clearly there was no consensus among the ruling class in Washington over the nature of military action. This was not out of some pacifist concern but from disagreement over whether to bomb, invade, or simply crush Iraq with a cold war type campaign complete with a "Radio Free Iraq" and a well funded insurgency to oust the Baath party from power.6

Another notable feature of these events was that the Iraqi government also took measures against any potential insurgency in Iraq like the one that occurred after the end of the Gulf War.7 Secretary general of the U.N. Koffi Annan undercut the U.S. war drive by offering Iraq a deal to sell over twice the oil from some 2.1 billion dollars to 5.2 billion dollars of oil.8 Congressional leaders, both Democrat and Republican, urged the overthrow of the Iraqi government as the ultimate objective of any military action on the Gulf, thus leaving the U.S. in an awkward position of having to either overthrow the Baath regime or give in to pressure from other Imperialist powers.9 At the same time it became apparent that the Chinese government would not support the U.S.

action in the Gulf.10

In Clinton's official justification for military action on the Seventeenth of February included such favorite themes as biological-warfare scare tactics, God, Country, and Democracy.11 This marked the start of the governments concerted drive to sell workers on military action. It was unusual in that it was surprisingly ineffective, and received more opposition than the Clinton administration thought it would receive. The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson was heckled by protesters at the University of Minnesota and had to cut short his speech right after Albright was heckled in Ohio.12 Ironically the state propaganda mill countered with a half hearted attempt at raising the scare of chemical warfare terrorism by issuing military bio-hazard suits to various government institutions around the country. By this time the French government came forward with criticism of U.S. policy and with Russia and China formed a more official, permanent opposition to U.S. foreign policy that will continue to be an important factor in the future. The inability of Europe to unite around a unified foreign policy clearly puts the U.S. at an advantage, for the present period imperialist opposition to the U.S.

will coalesce around France, Russia, and China.

The costs of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf for the latest military buildup are already over 600 million dollars and probably closer to a billion dollars or more.13 The Iraqi government has declared February 23 a holiday, yet further conflict is inevitable as the U.S. government will not tolerate any imperialist opposition to its' own imperialist interests. That a unified imperialist bloc against the U.S. has finally come together is the first difference between this latest diplomatic conflict and the Gulf War. This means that the U.S. will have a harder time trying to bend the imperialist powers of the world to its own ambitions.
Any imperialist peace can only lead to more war unless the working class can find a way to overthrow the capitalist warlords once and for all.

ASm

Footnotes
1 APnews. Russia, China Urge Inspection Halt. APonline. Jan 22, 1998.
2 NYTimes. Russia, France, and Turkey Try to End Standoff. Feb 2, 1998.
3 APnews. Iraq May Allow Access to U.N. Feb 4, 1998.
4 APnews. U.S. Ambassador Seeks Support on Iraq. Feb 4, 1998.
5 APnews. Yeltsin: Clinton Risks World War. Feb 4, 1998.
6 APnews. Republicans question Goals on Iraq. Feb 9,1998.
7 APnews. Iraq Readies Strategy if Attacked. Feb 10, 1998.
8 APnews. Annan Proposes Oil Talks with Iraq. Feb 12, 1998.
9 Schmitt, Eric. Saddam's Ouster Urged, But Other Options Are Considered.
NYTimes. Feb 17,1998.
10 APnews. Chinese Official Denies Iraq Pledge. Feb 17, 1998.
11 APnews. Text of Clinton's Statement on Iraq. Feb 17, 1998.
12 APnews. Protesters Jeer U.N. Ambassador In Minnesota. Feb 20, 1998.
13 APnews. Iraq Deployment Costs Top $600 million.