18.09.2002

Mobilise for September 28

What began as a triumphant week for the warmongering US/Britain axis was suddenly set back. Iraq's predictable move to allow the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors may not have halted US imperialism's drive to war, but it has certainly exposed the divisions once again. Nevertheless, despite the fact that real obstacles remain in the path of the United States strategic goal of 'regime change', the military build-up in the region continues unabated. All the signs indicate that the Bush regime is increasing the tempo, not slowing down its preparations for war. That means that we must hold the biggest possible demonstration in London on September 28. We must make the most of the opportunity presented by widespread public unease with US-British plans. Indeed, that unease must be turned to anger. The week began with George 'Dubya' Bush's address to the UN general assembly. The address itself contained no surprises. It was a lengthy indictment of Saddam Hussein for the violation of numerous UN resolutions. Totally hypocritical, but nonetheless substantially accurate attacks on the "all-pervasive" repression meted out to the Iraqi people, mingled with fear-mongering - or, as Scott Ritter, former head of the UN weapons inspectors, put it, "rhetorically laced speculation" (CNN.com, July 17 2002) about the military capability of Iraq. UN secretary general Kofi Annan, speaking just before Bush, warned that there was "no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations". Bush went some way towards accepting this view: the US would "work with the UN security council to meet our common challenge". However, he was careful to ensure that he left himself room to manoeuvre, telling the assembled worthies not to "doubt the purposes of the United States". His list of demands on Baghdad did not focus exclusively on the readmission of weapons inspectors. Among other things he called for the UN administration of funds gained by Iraq from the oil-for-food programme and for Baghdad to "release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown". Bush needs to ensure that the list is long and difficult so as to make full compliance unlikely - there has been little attempt to disguise the fact that the aim is 'regime change' and that failure to meet US demands is to serve as the alibi for bringing about Saddam's removal. For some there is no need even for this fig leaf. Democratic presidential hopeful senator John Edwards of North Carolina called for Saddam Hussein to be deposed. Even if the UN security council is "prevented" from supporting the US, he said, it must "lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein" (http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0912a-pr.html). From Bush's point of view the speech has to be considered a success. Domestically, dissident elements within the Republican Party were quick to fall into line. Sceptical voices were quieted or at least sounded half-persuaded. For example, Senator Chuck Hagel called the speech a "compelling first step in laying out what a dangerous situation the world faces" (New York Times September 13). Many Democrats too were fulsome in their praise for what Delaware Democrat senator Joseph Biden called a "very good job" (New York Times September 12). Bipartisanship with the administration is growing. Even initially wary figures such as Tom Daschle, majority leader in the Senate, are coming onside. On September 12 he remarked: "I don't think the case for a pre-emptive attack has been made yet. That doesn't mean it can't be made." By September 18 this equivocal position had hardened. He predicted a vote in Congress "well before the [mid-term] election". He was also keen to stress that the Democrats "have been supportive of a regime change from the very beginning" (New York Times September 18). Though it can by no means be ruled out that not all Democrats will toe the party line there seems to be little danger of history repeating itself. When the first president Bush asked Congress to authorise the use of force on the eve of the first Desert Storm, a majority of Democrats voted against military action, with a minority, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joseph Liberman - all subsequently Democratic candidates for president - defying the majority. September 11 2001 has virtually eliminated mainstream bourgeois pacifism. Unsurprisingly, Iraq's willingness to readmit weapons inspectors has done nothing to sway Democratic opinion. Richard A Gephardt, minority leader in the House of Representatives and in 1991 a leading figure of what was the anti-war majority, said that the move "does not address my concerns about the threat he [Saddam] poses to the United States and the international community" (ibid). Following on from Bush's speech US advances were also made on the international front. Most importantly, Saudi Arabia, having refused use of its soil as a base for US operations against Iraq, changed its stance - US pressure proved too much. Prince Saud al-Faisal ruefully observed that every country that has signed the UN charter is bound by security council resolutions. Specifically questioned about US use of the Prince Sultan airbase, he replied obliquely that, "Every country is obliged to follow through" (Daily Telegraph September 16). The House of Saud is clearly riven with divisions - with one faction closely aligning itself with the US, while the other, more sensitive to Saudi public opinion, prefers to keep its distance. So, the spotlight remains on the UN security council for the moment. Iraq's acceptance of weapons inspectors has split it and left Britain and the US somewhat isolated, at least among the permanent members. In total the security council is made up of 15 members. Of the five permanent members - France, Russia, China, Britain and the US - who hold a veto, three - France, Russia and China - are reluctant to giving security council sanction to US ambitions. In particular, France is explicitly opposed to action not connected to the issue of Iraqi weapons. Speaking to the New York Times, Jacques Chirac made it clear that the objective was the readmission of weapons inspectors. If this happened then he stated bluntly that "it's over". The security council "never wanted to change the regime in Iraq" (September 8). Arm-twisting will probably persuade a majority of the 10 other members (currently Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, Syria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, and Ireland), which are elected from the UN general assembly for two-year terms, to side with the US. Most are currently adopting a 'wait and see' approach. Syria, however, has already declared its opposition to the US. Whether any of the 'big three' will use their veto is another matter entirely. China has already indicated that it will abstain rather than vote against the Anglo-American axis. France and Russia pose slightly more of a threat to US plans. But, if the inspectors find something then, of course, that might change. Nonetheless, whether the US will be able to secure security council backing is still an open question. Meanwhile in Britain all eyes will be on parliament, which will be recalled to debate Iraq on September 24, and the huge anti-war demonstration on September 28. Blair is facing a sizeable rebellion on September 24. 133 Labour MPs have put their names to a motion against an "unwise" war on Iraq. When MPs vote on the technical question of whether to adjourn the house at the close of the one-day sitting, the rebels are expected to register their dissent by voting against. All of which will set the scene for September 28, where the left has the chance to place itself at the forefront of opposition to the war. During the war against Afghanistan 'Taliban defencism' was endemic on the left. Given its record as the most fervent cheerleader for this position, it is with some pleasure that we read in the latest Workers Power an explicit call for the "revolutionary overthrow of Saddam's regime" as part of the "fight for permanent revolution" (September). Quite right. Though the principal slogan of our movement must be 'The main enemy is at home', that cannot mean giving support to our enemies abroad. We must do everything to stop Bush and Blair in their tracks, without giving any comfort whatsoever to the Iraqi regime. James Mallory