04.09.2002

SA must take lead in anti-war movement

Take advantage of imperialist divisions

Ever since the infamous events of September 11 2001 the prospect of a US attack on Iraq has been the subject of constant media speculation. Of course, Afghanistan was the first to experience the full impact of George W Bush's 'war on terror'. But the 'axis of evil' - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - are also firmly fixed in American crosshairs. However, almost a year on, the future conduct of the 'war on terror' has suddenly become the cause of much debate between the two wings of the US administration, within the Republican Party and amongst the various imperialist powers. On the one side we have what is widely dubbed the hawk faction. US vice-president Dick Cheney and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld are its leading spokespersons. It was Cheney who ignited debate with a recent speech that was widely seen as heralding an imminent attack. Invoking the spectre of a nuke-wielding Iraq he spoke of his conviction that "Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon". A subtle shift of the goal posts. Early attempts to link Saddam Hussein's regime directly to September 11 missed their mark - for no other reason than a lack of any proof. Despite a recent poll for USA Today, where 86% agreed that Iraq is giving support to 'terrorist organisations looking to attack America', such claims are now heard less frequently from official White House sources. As Time pointed out, "The al Qa'eda connection looks too tenuous now to justify war with Iraq" (September 2). As the reader may well expect, Cheney's speech was an exercise in vagueness. Plenty of assertion and high-flown rhetoric backed up by little substance. However, that was not what was new or especially controversial. In it, he rubbished the notion that UN weapons inspections in Iraq would make any difference: "A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of [Saddam's] compliance with UN resolutions." This view is noticeably at odds with the that of so-called 'doves' like Colin Powell, who argue for the resumption of weapons inspections as a "first step" towards dealing with Hussein. The role of the UN security council is another central bone of contention between the two sides of the debate. One side feels that naked US aggression should be concealed behind the veneer of the dubious respectability offered by the UN security council. Such a covering would help bring reluctant allies into line and also, reason the 'doves', make it easier to win the hearts and minds of the masses. James Baker spelled out the benefits thus: "We will occupy the moral high ground and put the burden of supporting an outlaw regime and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on any countries that vote 'no'" (New York Times August 25). This has some basis. The blessing of the UN security council is viewed as crucial by many European leaders - especially those with a sceptical domestic audience to please. Tony Blair stated in a press conference on September 3 that "the UN has to be the route to deal with the problem, not a way of avoiding the problem". Another line in the sand between 'hawks' and 'doves' is over the importance or otherwise of coalition for the US. As far as the hardliners are concerned, unilateral action, though it may not be desirable, is quite acceptable - an argument articulated by defence secretary Rumsfeld himself: "It is less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decisions and doing the right thing" (Washington Post August 28). Provide strong, Churchillian, leadership and the flock will meekly follow. Do otherwise and you are guilty of appeasing a Hitler-like tyrant. While America has sufficient firepower to crush Iraq on its own, there are constraints imposed by global Realpolitik. Most serious, from both a logistical and political point of view, is the absence of support from any country in the Middle East. Israel has strongly argued for an invasion of Iraq. But, given Israel's extreme unpopularity among the Arab masses, such support is something of a poisoned chalice. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak voiced the fear commonly held by the Middle East's corrupt and autocratic ruling elites of "chaos happening in the region" in the event of a US attack - chaos which they fear would sweep them from power. Similar concerns have led to a refusal on the part of Saudi Arabia and Jordan to be associated with the US over Iraq. The story is much the same in Europe. Both candidates for German chancellor are hostile, with opposition to war being a central plank of Gerhard Schröder's campaign. Jacques Chirac echoed Powell in arguing that any use of force must be sanctioned by the UN security council. However, these noises from core European Union countries will be a secondary cause for concern for American policy-makers compared to the rumblings of discontent coming from Britain. Recent opinion polls have been lukewarm at best. And the Labour Party is divided. Around 140 MPs have supported an early day motion opposing an attack on Iraq and there are clear differences in the cabinet. However, the leaders of both Labour and the Tories are steadfast in their support for a Desert Storm II. Iain Duncan Smith and Tony Blair are united in their determination to align themselves as closely as possible to US super-imperialist power. When those above are divided those below find their opportunity. A US war against Iraq which proceeds without sanction from the UN security council could split the Labour Party and even leave Blair with a 1931 Ramsey MacDonald choice. The Socialist Alliance must push itself to the fore as the most consistent opponent of imperialist war. The September 28 demonstration promises to be huge. We must provide leadership to the potentially massive opposition to war on Iraq and recruit, recruit, recruit - never has the lack of a Socialist Alliance political paper been so keenly felt. The voice of principled internationalism must be loud, clear "¦ and organized. James Mallory