Conformity, blind allegiance, complacency, uniformity and silence are also useful in the war against the working class

The UN resolution passed on 8th November 2002 has started the clock ticking for the US’s new war with Iraq. The period of manoeuvring and phoney opposition to the US by its rivals has ended with the US achieving more or less everything it wanted. The resolution is virtually impossible for Iraq to comply with without the removal of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, and will, within weeks give the US the pretext it wants for its war. Once the US forces are fully prepared, the war will be unleashed.

The US was determined to go to war with or without a resolution from the UN and is even now not prepared to wait for a report from the weapons inspectors as required by the resolution. However, the resolution paves the way to war, and represents the fig leaf which the more intelligent sections of the US ruling class demanded to conceal their predatory motives. Now they can anoint themselves as the guardians of international law and international morality while they get on with the business of looting Iraqi wealth.

US imperialism dominates the UN

Despite the feeble attempts by Bush to link Iraq to Al Qa’eda and the pathetic dossier prepared by Blair, the UN resolution was passed unanimously. Even Syria, who could be next on the US hit list, voted in favour. This shows the influence which the US is able to exert on the other members of the security council through its economic and military power. All the present temporary members of the security council, except Syria, are dependent on US markets for their exports, are in receipt of direct foreign investments or receive military assistance from the US. Threats from the US were enough to send them scurrying to vote for whatever the US put on the table. As for the permanent members of the security council such as France, Russia and China, who had significant interests in Iraq, their votes were up for auction.

The US started from the position that it alone would decide what happened after it had installed a new regime in Iraq. It was therefore in a position to bribe its rivals with the loot it expected to gain from the war. If these countries wished to keep their large oil concessions granted by the Saddam regime, and if Russia wanted to get its $7bn sovereign debt repaid, they should co-operate with the US. If they agreed to co-operate, they would be allowed to keep what they had already got, if not, these deals would be torn up. Thus through threats and bribes the US secured what it wanted. The venal dealings which lie behind this resolution are mere details which can only confirm the general Marxist understanding that international bodies, like the UN, will necessarily express the interests of the dominant imperialist powers or else they will be irrelevant. ⁽¹⁾

US Imperialism’s bold move

The invasion of Iraq is a bold move by the US ruling class and one which throws down the gauntlet to its rivals. Though they will not dare to take up the challenge they will certainly oppose US ambitions as far as they are able. The ambiguity of the resolution’s demand for a security council debate if the weapons inspectors found Iraq in breach of the resolution, and the need for the inspectors to prevent a report lays a certain basis for undermining the legality of the US war. While this will not prevent the US doing what it wants, it is an attempt to put a spoke in the US wheel. France, Germany and Russia can in this way distance themselves from the invasion and possibly gain from the longer term upheaval which will follow in the Arab world.

For the US, the situation is more problematical than that faced in Afghanistan because of the likelihood that Iraq will break apart once the Saddam dictatorship is broken. Both the Kurds in the north and the Shi’ites in the south have ambitions to secede from Iraq, as was shown by the uprisings at the end of the gulf war in 1991. This has been recognised and encouraged by the US through its imposition of no-fly zones in the north and south of the country to protect these groups. The US will now have to snuff out these ambitions, since any concessions to Kurdish nationalism could precipitate war in the north, drawing in both Turkey and Iran, while a Shi’ite statelet in the south could gravitate towards Iran producing upheaval in the south. The bourgeois ambitions of the Kurds and the Shi’ites are reflected in the external opposition to the Saddam regime which is hopelessly split. This will make it more difficult for the US to cobble together a puppet regime than was the case in Afghanistan. If civil war does break out, assistance to the warring factions by Iran or Syria could precipitate invasion and occupation of these countries also. This move could therefore lead to the US occupation of the entire northern area of the Persian Gulf.

At the same time the further slaughter of Iraqis which the invasion is bound to produce could cause violent repercussions in the US allies Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Relations with Saudi Arabia have deteriorated sharply since 11th September 2001, with some US advisers openly calling for the bombing of Saudi and others demanding “regime change.” Leading Saudi businesses and individuals also face a $ 1000bn damages case in the US from victims of 11 September, and as a result Saudis have withdrawn £200bn from their US assets. The Saudi regime has also stated that it will not support an attack on Baghdad even if there is a UN resolution authorising it. It is possible that, in the turmoil of an attack on Iraq, US interests in Saudi Arabia could come under fire and the US could find itself having to support the monarchy or installing a new regime. This, in turn, could lead to occupation of Saudi Arabia. The US, therefore, faces many risks in this adventure. US policy makers speak of the need for reshaping the whole region of the Middle East which shows they are well aware of these risks. Why do they feel it is necessary to undertake such a risky strategy?

Real reasons for US action

The US ruling class has advanced a number of reasons for its actions, such as the necessity to uphold the rule of international law and UN resolutions, to eliminate Iraqi terrorism and prevent the regime linking up with Al Qa’eda, to prevent Saddam gaining weapons of mass destruction and so on and so forth. Although all these reasons are lies, they are repeated so often by the capitalist media that they are widely believed. We will briefly examine these arguments before turning to the underlying causes of US actions.

If the US were serious about the need to uphold international law it would not treat it with such contempt. The US has never considered international law applied to itself. Both the Kosovo and Afghan campaigns were conducted in flagrant breach of international law. As we have pointed out in previous texts ⁽²⁾, the US is the only country to have been found guilty of terrorism in a judgement of the World Court and to have subsequently vetoed a UN resolution calling on all nations to obey international law prompted by its support for terrorism in Nicaragua during the Reagan presidency. The US enthusiasm for international law is further demonstrated its refusal to sign up to the International Criminal Court (ICC) set up by the UN in July because it wants the crimes committed by its soldiers to be outside the jurisdiction of the court.

As far as obeying the resolutions of the UN goes, if this were the issue we might expect something more than the resounding silence we get over Israel’s continued violation of all UN resolutions restricting its annexation of Arab lands. Nor does the US, as it claims, oppose terrorism. Rather, it is in favour of it and uses it whenever it advances its imperialist interests. Since 11th September, the CIA has been authorised to assassinate US opponents all round the world and, in early November, boasted that it had blown up Al Qa’eda suspects and killed them in central Yemen with a missile from a pilotless aircraft. This is, in fact, a relatively minor incident in a spectrum of terrorism which it has employed since World War II and which includes such events as the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba to the training arming and funding of the resistance to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. All imperialist powers use terrorism as an extension of normal political activity and no country knows anything which it can teach the US about this.

The argument that Saddam regime is evil and that its weapons of mass destruction threaten the civilised world is breath-taking hypocrisy. We only need to remind ourselves that Saddam, like Osama Bin Laden, was a creation of the US and was a key ally for over a decade of his rule, to understand that the US itself does not believe this.

Saddam has been a tool used by the US in their quest to dominate the gulf and in particular to weaken Iran. During the eight year war with Iran, which the US encouraged him to start, they enthusiastically embraced the regime. In fact the envoy sent to reopen the US embassy by Reagan in 1983 and to shake the hand of the monster, whom Bush now describes as both Hitler and Stalin, was Rumsfeld himself. And the president who sent the US navy to the Gulf to protect Iraqi shipping against the Iranians and who granted Iraq $1.5bn of US food aid to help it prosecute its war on Iran was Bush senior. This aid was extended after Saddam had gassed Kurds at Halabja - something which the present Bush never stops shedding tears about. Not only did Bush senior do this, but he also provided Saddam with germ seed for developing anthrax and the notorious dual purpose materials that could be used for developing biological weapons, which we never hear the end of.

When Saddam was the US ally, there was no concern about his use of chemical weapons, nor did the US notice that he was the reincarnation of Hitler and Stalin. When he was no longer of any further use to the US, he was tricked into invading Kuwait by the US, thereby bringing US forces to the head of the Gulf. Now he is the pretext for occupation of Iraq and looting its wealth. The weapons Saddam used were never the issue. The question was simply whether he could be trusted to use these weapons in the defence of US interests. If the US were really worried about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons we would surely hear some protest about Israel’s development of these weapons and its refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and treaties controlling biological and chemical weapons. As for the weapons themselves, the US thinks they are excellent weapons and continues to develop them while itself sabotaging international treaties to restrict or limit them by refusing to submit to international inspections of its facilities. In fact, in the foreign policy statement presented to the US congress in September, the US ruling class advocate using mini-nuclear weapons more widely and as a first strike weapon.

The real reasons for the US move on Iraq are to be found in its long term imperialist aims in regard to firstly, its oil supplies and control of oil supplies to its rivals and, secondly, preventing any threat to its position as supreme imperialist global power. This move, like all major events in capitalist society, is dictated by the needs of imperialism which are an expression of the needs of capitalism. The real threat to the US comes not from Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, or indeed from Al Qa ’eda, but from the economic crisis which threatens the US economy.

Consolidation of US control over the Middle East oil supplies and opening up another long term oil source would be of great benefit to the US. It could provide the short term solution to the present US slump. Ideally, what the US would like to see is cheap oil for itself,

while it is able to restrict oil supplies to its rivals and thereby increasing their energy costs. Occupation of Iraq would be a significant step in achieving this.

The US is the largest consumer of oil on the planet burning 25% of all the oil consumed every day. The percentage of oil imported to the US rises relentlessly and today amounts to 55% of its needs, which equates to about 9 million barrels per day. In the 3 decades since the 1973 oil crisis, US imports have risen from 36% of consumption to the present figure and it is expected that this rise in imports will continue at a similar rate in the decades ahead. This rise will occur despite the Bush government’s attempts to open up fresh oil fields in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. The US ruling class are, of course, trying to diversify sources of oil and are now taking significant supplies from areas outside the Middle East such as West Africa, Central America, the Caspian Basin and most recently Russia. It is intended to take more oil from most of these regions and the US is funding major pipelines from the Caspian fields to the Mediterranean and planning others running eastward to the Pakistani port of Karachi. The US is also negotiating the construction of a new military base on Sao Tome Island in the Gulf of Guinea to protect its African oil interests in Nigeria and Angola, which today supply 15% of its imports. While all these moves show the US is trying to diversify its supplies and to protect them by force, it remains true that the Middle East is destined to become more important as a source of supply in the future, not less important. This is because the countries with the 5 largest reserves of oil are all in the Persian Gulf region and, with the exhaustion of other fields, they will inevitably become more and more important as sources of supply. The country with far and away the largest reserves is Saudi Arabia, which has reserves of 262 billion barrels, and the country with the second largest reserves, 112.5bn barrels, is Iraq. It is thus inevitable that the long term interests of the US will be directed to the Gulf.

Today, Iraqi production is restricted by sanctions, which prevent the import of essential equipment for development of its oil fields. Production amounts to approximately 3 million barrels per day (mbd). At present, only 24 of its 73 oil fields are in production, but with fresh capital it is estimated that production from Iraq could rise to 7 mbd. ⁽³⁾

If such large volumes of additional oil could be brought onto the market this would inevitably produce a steady decline in the oil price bringing it back to the levels of the boom years of the 1990’s. If this increase in production could be controlled by the US, it could be used to increase the profitability of US capital and pull the economy out of its present crisis. Further, if the US could ensure that it had preferential access to this oil and could limit its rivals’ access, its competitive position would be improved. While all these are aims for the medium term, the long term aim remains securing oil supplies for the next 2 decades and gaining a controlling position over supplies of oil and routes of oil transport through which it can threaten and disadvantage its European and Japanese rivals.

Imperialist Rivals

US rivals have, in their turn, been increasing trade with Iraq and trying to get their hands on her oil wealth themselves. Surrounding states have also increased trade with the result that the sanctions regime enforced since the end of the Gulf War was slowly collapsing. Oil was being sold outside of the UN sanctions control to Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iran, while countries such as Syria and Egypt established free trade zones with Iraq. This led to massive increases in Iraqi trade and calls for the ending of UN sanctions. To the fury of the US, and sub-lieutenant Blair, France, Russia and China negotiated potentially valuable oil concessions with Iraq and also joined in the calls for the ending of sanctions. ⁽⁴⁾

The US and British, who were daily bombing Iraq were excluded from such concessions. The US with its British camp follower have tried to prevent their rivals from cashing in on their gains in Iraq and one of the first moves was the attempt to introduce a new sanctions regime, the so-called “smart” sanctions. ⁽⁵⁾

This failed when Iraq’s Arab neighbours refused to implement it, unless the US made a move to end Israeli butchery of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. When the US made it clear that it was not prepared to make any such move on Palestine, Iraq found itself in a position to exploit the general crisis in the region and start to free itself from the sanctions stranglehold and to rearm. This produced even more fury in Washington and a search for a means of checking Iraqi advances. The 11th September gave the US the opening it needed to overturn the situation by force.

The attacks of 11th September provided the US with a new enemy, “terrorism” and a new ideology “war on terror”. This war has come to replace the “Cold War” as a rallying cry of the US bourgeoisie and has formed a banner to which they can summon reluctant allies. Despite the crudity of this ideology and the feeble attempts by Bush and his henchmen to link Iraq to “terror” and Al Qa’eda, the issue of Iraq has been joined to the unending war on terror. Iraq has been drawn into the sights of the US war machine and has become part of the terror threat. The war with Iraq is now openly called self-defence of the US, and the US congress and now the UN have given Bush the authority to go to war. As mentioned above, the US presented its rivals with an ultimatum. Support us and we will allow you to keep your gains in Iraq or oppose us and you will lose everything. In all this Britain has been the keenest supporter of the US and hopes that by clinging to the coat tails of Uncle Sam it will gain a share of the spoils when Iraq’s wealth is divided among the victors. An indication of what is hoped for is shown by the discussions about future oil concessions ⁽⁶⁾ that US and British oil companies have already opened with possible future leaders of Iraq such as Chalabi of the “Iraqi National Congress”.

In this sordid spectacle we see the reality behind the present campaign. The arrogant preachers of morality and international law are, in fact, a gang of thieves quarrelling over how to divide the wealth of a victim they have cornered.

The Anti-War Movement

As can be seen from even a brief examination of the forces behind the proposed war, the war is an expression of imperialism. Its immediate motive comes from the economic crisis gripping US capitalism, and the longer-term motives are future oil supplies to the US and control of the supplies to the US’s economic rivals. The war is therefore an expression of capitalism itself. Capitalism remains its fundamental cause. The Italian communist left, which is the tradition from which the CWO and International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party spring, has always argued that any resistance to imperialist war must be based on opposition to capitalism itself. Any other opposition is necessarily, not merely useless, but a disguised support for war and imperialism.

In Britain the CWO has consistently opposed the “Stop the War Coalition” because its overall support for capitalism which can only lead to ridiculous lies about war in general and the future war with Iraq in particular. In a leaflet distributed at the demonstration of 28th September the Coalition declared that

An enormous demonstration can make Tony Blair think again.

This statement was above a list of signatories who included MPs, Trade Unionists, Muslims for Peace, and the usual assortment of capitalism’s left-wing organisations such as the Socialist Alliance, SWP, Workers Power etc., etc.

This shows how the peace movement is actually part of the capitalist war game, since they expect peace to come through a change in heart in the ruling class. Before both the world wars of the last century there were massive movements who believed this was possible. The “Neutrality League” was such a movement before World War I, and the “Peace Pledge Union” was a similar movement before World War II. Both enjoyed enormous popular support in their time but both ended in massive failure and support for imperialist war. The central weakness of these peace movements, the CND and the present “Stop the War Coalition” is that they obscure the fact that the dream of a war-free capitalism is nonsense. War is not caused by the wickedness of Bush, Blair, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and the rest, it is caused by the operation of the laws of capitalism itself. The present series of barbaric wars, which started with the Gulf War of 1991, are simply the next phase of the imperialist battles which ravaged the planet in the period 1945 to 1990. Over 50 million people have been killed in wars since the period of “peace” which followed W orld War 2 started in 1945. So long as capitalism exists we will have imperialist wars. This is the simple truth and it needs to be said loud and clear.

Wars are never ended by the ruling class seeing the wickedness of its ways and “thinking again” as the Coalition pretends. Only once in the history of capitalism has the ruling class “thought again” and that was at the end of the World War I. This was not because it saw the wickedness of its ways, it was because it was threatened with workers’ revolution across the whole of Europe. This was caused by the struggle of the working class through strikes, mutinies and finally revolution in Russia in 1917. This caused panic in the ruling class and caused them to “think again.” This is the only way to end war.

The CWO has worked with the “No War But The Class War” grouping and marched in the demonstration of 28th September under the banner “No War but Class War”. We also distributed a leaflet pointing out that class struggle in the capitalist heartlands was the only real way to undermine the ruling class’s war plans. We pointed out that the coming firefighters’ strike was an example of this since by hitting at the bourgeois economy in the capitalist heartlands the ability of the capitalist war machine to unleash death and destruction on our class brothers abroad was weakened. In the case of the firefighters’ strike, this is obvious, since, by using the army to scab, the bourgeoisie had fewer troops to send to Iraq. It is no accident that recently the capitalist media has branded the fire-fighters leaders as “Stooges of Saddam”. ⁽⁷⁾

It is, however, also true that industrial action, which does not directly affect the armed forces, weakens the ruling class’ ability to wage war. In a parallel development, Bush branded the West Coast dockers in the US as saboteurs of the “war against terrorism” when their strike halted imports to western US, some of which were essential for the military industries. Bush subsequently used the power of the US state to force the dockers back to work. Both these actions are an indication of the only real power able to oppose capitalist war plans. Of course, such actions are only a first step and we know that a massive class movement is needed to prevent war. However they are a step on the only road to stopping war, the road which leads to revolution.

At the start of the march a large group of supporters rallied to our banner and joined in chanting slogans. Our slogans immediately marked us out from the surrounding sections of the march and provoked immediate hostility. Liberal pacifists, who made up a large contingent of the march, argued that they did not want any kind of war, they wanted peace. They thereby echoed the dominant ideology of the “Stop the War Coalition” that peaceful capitalism was possible. More marked hostility came from the Muslim sections of the march, who appeared the best-organised participants of the march. They shouted “Allah Akhbar” and argued for the creation of Islamic states. Our slogans “Workers have no Country and Workers have no God,” were met with incredulity. The totally reactionary nature of religion was matched by the left-wing of capital who called for defence of Iraq, namely solidarity with the Iraqi bourgeoisie, and for the creation of a Palestinian state, namely solidarity with the Palestinian bourgeoisie. All this was part of the hotch potch of political reaction which the organisers of the march told us would “cause Tony Blair to think again.”

Only the class war can prevent war

The only thing which can make our rulers “think again” is the class war.

The first step in the prosecution of this war must be the adoption of the tactic of revolutionary defeatism in the face of the bourgeoisie’s imperialist wars. This was the policy put forward by Lenin in 1914 which eventually bore fruit in the Russian Revolution 3 years later. It is just as valid today as it was 90 years ago. Today this must be our slogan of orientation, it should form a rallying cry to bring revolutionary forces together.

The choice is not between war or peace, the choice is between imperialist war or civil war. Peace can only be achieved by the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of a system of production based on social ownership of the means of production and with production being determined by human need. There is no other way to bring peace to the world. This in turn can only come about through a civil war which overthrows capitalist power. Such a war can only be the result of class war, social upheaval and the strengthening of the revolutionary party of the working class.

Against the calls of our rulers for the abandonment of the class struggle and sacrifices for our brave boys killing workers abroad, we call for the intensification of the class struggle.

Against calls for putting pressure on our rulers to “think again”, we call for their overthrow.

We call on all who support the political positions outlined above to contact us with a view to strengthening the class forces opposing war, strengthening interventions at future demonstrations and strengthening the communist forces which will be required for building a new world.

(1) See “Iraq and the New World Order” in this edition.

(2) See RP 25 “US imperialism advances into Central Asia”.

(3) Estimates are by Deutsche Bank. Quoted in The Financial Times 15/9/2002.

(4) Russia’s Lukoil has rights to 68% of the West Kurna field worth $4. 5bn. The potential value of this concession is hundreds of billions of dollars. FT 4/10/2002.

(5) See RP 21 “The Horrific Price of Imperialism”.

(6) It should be remembered that, before the Gulf War, all Iraqi oil extraction was nationalised and run by the Iraqi National Oil Company.

(7) See bourgeois press (e.g., The Sun, 14/11/2002).