>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Anti-Sanctions Movement: Which way forward? > >International Action Center >39 West 14th Street, #206 >New York, NY 10011 >212-633-6646 >fax 212-633-2889 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.iacenter.org > >Which way for the anti-sanctions movement >By Brian Becker >It�s no surprise that there is increasing >worldwide opposition to the U.S.-imposed economic >sanctions against Iraq. Five thousand perfectly >blameless infants and children perish each month >in Iraq because they are unable to get clean >drinking water, adequate food and even the most >basic medicines. > > >There is now a worldwide movement demanding an >end to sanctions. Unfortunately, one sector of >this growing movement has injected a new demand >into its slogans: calling for the continuation of >�military sanctions� against Iraq. > > >Some of these same groups actually raised the >slogan �sanctions not war� back in 1990. > > >The International Action Center, which has >campaigned relentlessly for the last 10 years >against sanctions, has issued a powerful statement > explaining the disastrous effects of adopting a >demand that sanctions be reshaped instead of >immediately terminated (on the World Wide Web at >http://www.iacenter.org/delink.htm). > > >Unless this slogan is repudiated it could >seriously weaken and derail the movement. > > >�Those who want to stop the Iraqi people�s >suffering must direct their demand at the >aggressors, at the U.S. and Britain whose war >planes bomb Iraq routinely, almost daily, who have > dropped thousands of bombs on Iraq in the last >year,� says Sara Flounders, co-director of the IAC. > > >The United States and Britain are bombing Iraq. >Iraq has never bombed the cities of the United >States. The progressive movement must ask itself: >Does Iraq have the right to defend itself against >such attacks? Shouldn�t anti-war forces in the >United States call for demilitarizing the Pentagon > instead of demilitarizing the victims of U.S. >aggression? > > >A tactic in a larger war > >Why does the United States maintain the sanctions >and blockade of Iraq? > > >Is it just a mistaken policy by U.S. political >leaders that needs some �humanitarian� fine- >tuning? Or should sanctions be understood as a >tactic in a larger multi-pronged war to return >Iraq to the status of semi-colonial slavery? > > >Should the progressive movement oppose sanctions >because that tactic causes undue harm to >civilians? Or should it also reject the >imperialist goals and objectives that are the real > motivation for a destabilization strategy that >includes economic sanctions, routine bombings of >the country, CIA covert operations, plans to >assassinate the Iraqi leadership, creating no- >flight zones over most of the country, and placing > tens of thousands of U.S. troops, warships, >aircraft and advanced missiles on the outer >perimeters of Iraq? > > >The sanctions against Iraq began 10 years ago, in >August 1990. The Bush administration bullied the >United Nations into imposing economic sanctions as > a prelude to the full-scale 1991 air war against >Iraq. > > >The sanctions were initially put into place to >help evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait, according to >the propaganda of the Bush administration. Iraq >had invaded Kuwait, an oil-rich territory under >the domination of an U.S.-backed monarchy, in >August 1990, after a protracted and complicated >dispute between the two countries. > > >The original pretext for the economic sanctions >was a lie. It was purely for public consumption. >If the sanctions were meant only to drive Iraqi >troops from Kuwait then why, nearly a decade after > the last Iraqis left, does the United States >still impose the �most complete embargo of any >country in modern times,� in the words of Samuel >Berger, President Bill Clinton�s national >security adviser? > > >Two blockades: Iraq and Cuba > >The unstated but fairly obvious reason that >Washington carries out the economic blockade of >Iraq is that it wants to destabilize the country, >overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein and >replace it with a pro-U.S. regime. The United >States has tried the same thing against socialist >Cuba. > > >The political leaderships in Iraq and Cuba are >very different. Cuba�s leadership is communist and > the Iraqi government is anti-communist. But both >governments have one thing in common. Iraq and >Cuba both suffered the impoverishment and >humiliation of colonialism and neo-colonialism >imposed by U.S. and British imperialism. > > >Both countries had far-reaching revolutions >within a year of each other�1958 and�1959. Both >revolutions immediately came under direct >aggression from the imperialist overlords who had >colonized or enslaved their countries. > > >The Iraqi Revolution in 1958 prompted Britain to >rush thousands of troops to fortify its hold on >tiny but oil-rich Kuwait. As it had with Hong Kong > in China, British colonialism sliced the key port > area of Kuwait out of Iraq and declared it a >British protectorate. While British troops secured > Kuwait in 1958, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower >dispatched 10,000 U.S. marines to Lebanon the very > next day to shore up Washington�s own interests. > > >In the case of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, >Eisenhower ordered the CIA to begin planning the >assassination of Fidel Castro. Two years later, >under John F. Kennedy, the U.S. government >organized a mercenary invasion of Cuba by CIA- >trained counter-revolutionaries. > > >Cuba used socialist economic methods to bring >literacy, full employment and free universal >health care to its people. It was able to free >itself of economic neocolonial enslavement by >integrating into the trading bloc with the Soviet >Union, East Germany and the other socialist >countries. > > >Although Iraq nationalized its oil industry and >other economic sectors, its revolution never went >beyond the boundaries of capitalist property >rights. But because of its vast oil wealth and the > nationalist development model adopted by the >leadership, Iraq too was able to effect rapid >social and economic progress for the mass of the >population after the 1958 revolution. > > >Official U.S. policy has been hostile to both >Iraq and Cuba since their revolutions. The >�hostility� was remarkably consistent regardless >of whether a Republican or Democrat occupied the >White House. > > >The only exception to the policy of unmitigated >hostility was during the Iran-Iraq war between >1980 and 1988. The United States supplied weapons >to Iraq and encouraged Iraq�s initial military >actions against Iran in 1980. But this should be >understood for what it was: a cynical ploy to >weaken and exhaust the 1979 Iranian mass >revolution that had swept out the dynastic rule of > the shah�whose army had served as proxy and >gendarme for the Pentagon and CIA in the Persian >Gulf. > > >The United States armed Iraq to fight Iran in the >early 1980s�but it also sent arms to Iran, as was >revealed during the 1986 Iran-Contra hearings in >Congress. In the words of former Secretary of >State Henry Kissinger, �We wanted them to kill >each other.� > > >Once Washington had accomplished its objective of >weakening the Iranian Revolution through the war >between Iran and Iraq, Pentagon war doctrine was >reconfigured to target Iraq as the next �potential > enemy.� Plans and complex war games for a U.S. >war with Iraq were drafted in 1988, immediately >after the close of the Iran-Iraq war and two >years before Iraq fatefully sent its troops >against the Kuwaiti mon archy in August 1990. >(�The Fire This Time,� Ramsey Clark, >Thundersmouth Press, 1992) > > >Slogans should be consistently anti-imperialist > >The U.S. government represents the interests of >Big Oil and the biggest imperialist banks. It >seeks to dominate the Middle East not to bring >�human rights� and �democracy� but to possess and >profit from the fabulous oil wealth >under the soil. > > >Iraq has 10 percent of the world�s known oil reserves. Combined with Saudi >Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, this region contains the largest share of oil on the >planet. > > >Effective sanctions of any type, be they for economic or military commodities, >require the sanctioning countries to position military forces around the >targeted country so that ships, trucks and airplanes can be interdicted and >searched. Thus, calling for the United States or UN to maintain military >sanctions on Iraq provides a political and even �legal� justification for the > continued military occupation of the Gulf region by U.S. military forces. > > >>From a practical point of view, if the demand for U.S./UN economic sanctions >to be replaced by �military sanctions� were realized, it would still have a >devastating impact on Iraq�s civilian population. The United States would >claim that almost anything that the civilian economy imports could also be >used for military applications. > > >Referring to these items as �dual use� commodities, the United States has >already halted or postponed 450 out of every 500 contracts that were approved >by the UN Sanctions Committee under the much touted Oil-for-Food program. > > >Washington will use the category of �military sanctions� as a technical method >to prevent Iraq from acquiring commodities that are essential for sustaining >civilian economy and human life. For example, the United States has banned >pencils for schoolchildren because these pencils contain graphite, which is >also a lubricant. It has banned batteries, X-ray machines and ambulances >because they could be used in military conflicts. > > >Iraq is now barred from importing adequate supplies of chlorine to purify its >water. Why chlorine? It could be used as a component in a chemical weapon. > > >Computers too have potential military uses. So importing computers has been >prohibited for 10 years. > > >It can only miseducate the broad public about the >real issues in the Middle East if the progressive >movement supports the imperialist powers in >demanding the demilitarization of Iraq. The >movement cannot be consistently progressive >without thoroughly exposing the true dynamics of >imperialist military and political strategy that >tries to re-colonize the Arab people. > > > > >International Action Center >39 West 14th Street, Room 206 >New York, NY 10011 >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >web: www.iacenter.org >CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org >phone: 212 633-6646 >fax: 212 633-2889 > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
