11.09.2002

Halt march to war

Echoing George Bush, Tony Blair, speaking at the TUC, branded Saddam Hussein a "threat that has to be dealt with". The question of exactly how to deal with Saddam - through UN arms inspectors, a palace coup, a light invasion, an overwhelming force - takes up acres of column space in the mainstream press day after day and, for the moment, remains an open one. But the message from Blair and Bush is essentially the same - something has to be done, and soon. Reflecting the increased tempo of the war drive, there are clear signs of preliminary softening up. For example, the number of air strikes launched against Iraqi targets is rising sharply. The targets - air defence commands and control centres, anti-aircraft guns and missile sites - are natural ones for an airforce looking to establish total air superiority in preparation for an invasion. There are also big troop movement on the ground. ArabicNews.com reports the deployment of some 60,000 American and British troops along the Kuwait-Iraq border (September 7). Still well short of the estimated 250,000 needed to invade Iraq, but, combined with the 15,000 on the Jordan-Iraq border and 30,000 in the Kurdish area in the north of Iraq, they provide a significant basis on which to build an invasion force. But there are continuing complications on the political front. After a week of silence Bush finally interceded into the debate around the way forward by inviting Congressional leaders to the White House for light refreshments - and, no doubt, a little arm-twisting. Significantly, they obtained a promise that Congress would be allowed to vote on launching a military attack. The significance of this lies in the fact that Bush may well feel that he can ultimately overcome opposition on the UN security council if it can reasonably be portrayed as dithering in the face of a tangible threat, but to do so he would certainly need to be backed by Congress. He no doubt hopes that this will help him win support from the American people. However, in the current climate, leaving aside continuing concerns about the ramifications of unilateral American action on its allies and its world standing, many minds will also be exercised by equally germane domestic concerns. Power is currently finely balanced on Capitol Hill. In the House of Representatives the Republicans have a small majority of 13. The Senate is a slightly different matter - thanks to the defection of senator John McCain, the Democrats possess a wafer-thin majority of one. Mid-term elections in November will probably change the complexion of both houses, though in whose favour nobody knows. The most recent New York Times/CBS opinion poll put the Democrats on 41%, slightly ahead of the Republicans' 37%, but the difference is within the margin of error. However, if, as is widely expected, a vote on Iraq takes place before the recess in mid-October, then it could be the decisive factor in settling an already finely balanced equation - and both Republicans and Democrats know it. Those contesting seats are bound have one eye on opinion polls which show less zeal on the part of the American people for a unilateral attack on Iraq than they once did. At least there is one consolation for Bush. While divisions between Congress and the White House are yet to be resolved, his intervention seems to have gone some way to healing rifts within the administration itself. Colin Powell - the administration's most prominent 'dove' - argued that seeking the approval of the UN security council did not mean that the US would lose its "option to do what we might think is appropriate to do". A subtle shift of emphasis in the direction of unilateral action - away from arguing for the necessity of multilateralism. Meanwhile, the language of opposition coming from Middle Eastern countries is becoming more strident. After a two-day meeting of Arab foreign ministers Arab League chief Amr Mussa warned that the US would "open the gates of hell" if it attacked Iraq. In their closing statement the ministers rejected "any threat of attack against any Arab country, particularly Iraq, and believe such threats are directed against the security of all Arab countries" (Middle East Times September 6). Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan put his own twist on this notion of "collective security" by demagogically calling on Arabs to fight against any US aggression "through their representatives and on their soil ... by all means" (The Guardian September 11). As well as appealing to the Arab street and perhaps fearing an implosion of his regime, Saddam Hussein is attempting to shore up his support among the Iraqi people. Thus on October 5 a referendum will be held to decide whether he retains the position of president. Of all the major imperialist powers Britain has been the most vocal in its support of Bush. Speaking to the TUC, Blair might have avoided using the formula 'regime change' as an overt goal of any military action. Nevertheless that was the message. Iraq is "unrivalled as the world's worst regime: brutal, dictatorial, with a wretched human rights record". Allowing for a certain amount of hyperbole, the substantive point - Saddam is bad - is undoubtedly true. It is certainly a charge that has more substance to it than claims about Iraq's nuclear capability. While debate between the world's leaders continues, opposition is welling up from below. The governments of France and Germany not only have their own Middle Eastern agenda but fear mass protests on a huge scale if they were to be seen to give any backing to the US. The same applies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc. An anti-war movement has begun to emerge in America too. Last weekend small anti-war gatherings/marches took place in Los Angeles, Santa Monica and San Francisco. In Los Angeles a few thousand demonstrators gathered in MacArthur Park, one of the sites of protest against the Vietnam war. Of course, anti-war sentiment exists on nowhere near the scale seen then. But there can be no doubt that that can change, especially if the war begins and does not come to a swift end. The more protracted the war, the larger the opposition will grow. Here all our efforts need to be focused on building for September 28 and, beyond that, building the Socialist Alliance within the anti-war movement as the most consistent voice of internationalist opposition to the drive to war. We need a clear message - the main enemy is at home. Against the US-UK war but no support for Saddam Hussein. In other words we must deal with Blair and New Labour: the people of Iraq must use the opportunity represented by the war to deal with the Ba'ath regime. For his part Blair is vulnerable. Support for a war in the Parliamentary Labour Party is narrow, the TUC is equivocal and, more to the point, a clear majority of the population is opposed to an attack. In the event of a protracted war in Iraq and perhaps beyond (seizure of Saudi oil fields in the aftermath of the overthrow of the corrupt royal family) Blair's determination to align himself with US imperialism could see him increasingly isolated and facing the sort of choice that confronted Ramsey MacDonald in 1931. The bigger the anti-war movement, the more determined it is to use militant tactics, the greater chance we have of driving Blair and the Blairites out of the labour movement and putting it on a new, genuinely socialist, footing. James Mallory