>Washington wants to quiet the protests so it can regain the >initiative in isolating Iraq. > >Albright's statement coincided with a major public relations >campaign designed to "prove" that Iraqi President Saddam >Hussein, not the United States, is politically responsible >for the deaths of 1.2 million Iraqis from lack of food and >medicine. > >The Clinton Administration wanted to maintain the status quo >with sanctions frozen in place. For this to happen, >Washington needed to make the Iraqis look intransigent, >while the U.S. could posture as the reasonable and non- >aggressive party, if only for the moment. > >If the Iraqi government wouldn't allow weapons inspectors >back into the country, then it could be blamed for "non- >compliance with the UN" and the sanctions could stay in >place. > >That was Clinton's and Albright's game plan. Albright's new- >found pacifism toward Iraq also signaled the >administration's fear that the sight of cruise missiles >crashing into Baghdad and Basra again would bring hundreds >of thousands of people into the streets around the world. > >The Middle East, especially, is a powder keg. The hatred for >the sanctions is widespread among the Arab masses. That >sentiment, combined with the recent U.S.-Israeli hard line >against the Palestinian people, makes for a combustible >situation. > >The Clinton administration's problem is how to maintain the >sanctions without causing an angry eruption that could both >end the so-called peace process between Israel and the >Palestinians and destabilize pro-U.S. regimes in Egypt, >Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. > >DIPLOMATIC OFFENSIVE UNRAVELS > >Within days of Albright's declaration, the diplomatic >offensive began to unravel. Cohen's Sept. 18 speech >pronounced the plan "dead." > >What happened? Of course, the Pentagon brass are loath to >ever renounce in advance their "right" to use military >power. But there's more than Pentagon posturing behind this >fiasco. > >Instead of diminishing, resistance to U.S. imperialism >intensified following Albright's "no military force" >declaration. First, two Russian planes defied the no-flight >zone over Iraq created by the United States and Britain. The >planes flew directly to Baghdad to deliver supplies. > >The Iraqi government took certain initiatives, too. Baghdad >warned the Kuwaiti monarchy that it would be forced to take >action unless Kuwait stopped drilling in a huge disputed oil >field located mainly in Iraqi territory. > >At the same time rumors spread that one of the main Kurdish >organizations in northern Iraq was poised to openly align >itself with the Iraqi government. That would allow Iraqi >forces to re-enter the northern part of their country, which >has been a virtual U.S./UN protectorate since 1991. > >Then, on Sept. 14, two Iraqi MIG fighter plane successfully >defied the U.S. and British air patrols in southern Iraq. >This bold military action was accompanied by a denunciation >of the U.S.-backed Saudi monarchy as "traitors to the Arab >people" for allowing their country to be used as a staging >ground for endless bombings of Iraq. > >What is the lesson of these developments? Immediately after >the momentary suspension of U.S. military threats, signaled >by Albright's speech, the struggle against U.S. imperialism >deepened. > >This explains the hurried renunciation of the "peace >offensive" by Cohen, who flamboyantly outlined how the >United States was poised to unleash cruise missiles, smart >bombs and other high-tech weapons in another comprehensive >bombing campaign. > >The U.S. government was again required to bring out its big >club to defend its anti-Iraq strategy. This resort to >militarism--especially if it moves beyond threats to a large- >scale military attack--will intensify the worldwide movement >against sanctions. It could easily destabalize imperialist >interests throughout the Middle East. > >NEW REVELATIONS BLOW AWAY LIES > >The U.S. continues to grow more isolated on its policy of >Iraq sanctions. In part this is fueled by a former U.S. >weapons inspector's revelations that Washington is lying to >its own people when it claims sanctions are necessary to >"eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." > >The ex-inspector is none other than Scott Ritter, the former >intelligence official who functioned throughout the 1990s as >a key member of the UN weapons inspection team. > >Ritter is not a progressive voice. He is a loyal Marine and >represents, in fact, a variant of U.S. militarist thinking. > >Ritter, however, has now broken with the administration. He >revealed that "Iraq had been disarmed" of biological, >chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities and that this was >known by the administration since early 1997. > >Let's leave aside for the moment the obvious problem that it >is the United States that has the biggest stockpile of >weapons of mass destruction of any country and it alone has >used nuclear weapons--and against a civilian population, at >that. Or that it's the United States which is bombing Iraq, >not the other way around. > >Ritter's revelations confirm what anti-sanctions activists >have asserted: that the disarmament rationale for sanctions >was simply a pretext. > >WHAT DOES RITTER SAY? > >"Iraq had been disarmed, [it] no longer possessed any >meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it >possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce >these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to >stringent monitoring [since as early as 1997]. The same was >true of Iraq's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities," >Ritter reports in an article published in the June edition >of Arms Control Today. > >Ritter writes that "from 1994 to 1998, Iraq was subjected to >a strenuous program of ongoing monitoring of industrial and >research facilities ... [which] provided weapons inspectors >with detailed insight into the capabilities, both present >and future, of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. It allowed >UNSCOM to ascertain, with a high level of confidence, that >Iraq was not rebuilding its prohibited weapons programs...." > >Ritters' admissions are remarkable. From the horse's mouth, >so to speak, comes verification that the assertions of the >International Action Center and other anti-sanctions >crusaders have been accurate. > >While the anti-sanctions movement has been accused of "being >na=EFve" for "believing Iraqi propaganda," it turns out that >the only na=EFve people were those who believed the U.S. >government's propaganda that its main goal was "disarmament" >in Iraq. > >BEHIND U.S. STRATEGY > >The real function of U.S./UN sanctions is to weaken Iraq as >an independent nation, to stop its forward progress and to >delay its economic development. The United States wants to >weaken and degrade Iraq for about the same reason that it >wanted to weaken Iran after the 1979 revolution that ousted >the Shah. > >Iraq, like Iran, has the oil resources, water, population >and geographic size to develop into a regional power. The >Persian/Arabian Gulf contains two-thirds of the world's >known oil reserves. The strategy of U.S. imperialism for >many decades has been to maintain its domination over this >area. > >Key to this strategic outlook is crippling both Iraq and >Iran, regardless of any attempts by their governments to >seek an accommodation with imperialism. > >Neither the Iraqi Revolution of 1958 or the Iranian >Revolution of 1979 were completely anti-imperialist in >character. That would have required a socialist revolution >of the type that took place in Cuba. > >However, the bourgeois-nationalist regimes that took power >in Iraq and Iran did nationalize the holdings of the British >and U.S. oil monopolies. The Baathist regime in Iraq used >its oil revenue to develop the industrial, scientific, >educational and health-care infrastructure of the country. >In Iran, the United States lost its most important ally in >the region when the Shah's monarchy toppled. > >OIL'S DUAL ROLE IN WORLD POLITICS > >Oil is not only a source of spectacular profits. It is >considered a strategic resource. > >Those who control the oil control the world economy, or at >least its central arteries. Japan and Germany, for instance, >do not possess oil. Although they are the central economic >competitors to U.S. capitalism, control over oil reserves >becomes a critical issue for them during times of crisis and >conflict. > >Washington's unstated goal is to weaken Iraq and any other >country that stands as an impediment to undiluted U.S. >control of the region. The United States would like to >replace Hussein's government with a puppet regime. Short of >accomplishing that objective, U.S. strategy aims to >strangle, subvert and starve the country. > >People in the United States have a political responsibility >to challenge the genocide being carried out in their name by >the U.S. government. The Iraqi people are not our enemies. >They are victims of the greatest weapon of mass destruction. > >Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark will lead a fourth >Iraq Sanctions Challenge to Iraq in January 2001, on the >tenth anniversary of the Gulf War. Readers who want to >participate should call the International Action Center at >(212) 633-6646 or e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >- END - > >(Copyleft Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to >copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but >changing it is not allowed. For more information contact >Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org) > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:14:44 -0400 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Subject: [WW] Yugoslavia Poll: U.S. EU wield Carrot & Stick >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >------------------------- >Via Workers World News Service >Reprinted from the Sept. 28, 2000 >issue of Workers World newspaper >------------------------- > >YUGOSLAVIA ELECTIONS: U.S., W. EUROPE USE CARROT & >STICK > >By John Catalinotto > >With the big vote set for Sept. 24, the European Union and >the U.S. government have stepped up their already blatant >intervention in Yugoslavia's national election. Both the >Yugoslav government and anti-war forces in NATO countries >have reacted with anti-NATO actions. > >The EU offered the carrot. In a "message to the Serbian >people" from a Sept. 18 monthly foreign ministers' meeting >in Brussels, the EU said it would lift sanctions if >Yugoslavs voted out President Slobodan Milosevic in the >presidential election. > >"The elections ... will give the Serbian people the >opportunity to repudiate clearly and peacefully the policy >of Milosevic." Should they do so, "we will lift the >sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, we >will support the necessary economic aid for its >reconstruction, and we will support the reintegration of the >FRY into the international community," is how the EU >presented its bribe. > >Washington continued to wave the big stick. The U.S. Navy >plans maneuvers in the Adriatic Sea off the Yugoslav coast >on election weekend. Both U.S. and NATO leaders have >threatened intervention should there be conflict in >Montenegro, the smaller republic, which along with Serbia >makes up what remains of Yugoslavia. > >If Yugoslavia is treated like the other former socialist >countries of the Balkans, "reintegration" means that a >handful of Yugoslavs will grow rich while the bulk of the >population is driven deeper into poverty and the people as a >whole are forced to submit to Western imperialism. > >An article in the Sept. 19 New York Times makes it clear >that the only job opportunities for young Bulgarian women is >to work as prostitutes in the Czech Republic near the German >border. > >The only serious candidates for president of Yugoslavia are >Milosevic and Vojislav Kostunica, who is backed by 18 small >opposition parties, some of them openly pro-NATO and all pro- >Western. Kostunica is a long-time anti-communist with >credentials as a Serbian nationalist. > >Kostunica is also the only opposition figure who is not >tarnished by open association with NATO forces. He can >possibly attract voters who are weary of the assault on >Yugoslavia and who hope that removing Milosevic will end the >hostility. > >The U.S. and West European imperialists, however, want >Kostunica to defeat Milosevic in order to weaken the best- >organized anti-NATO structures inside Yugoslavia. These >structures include Milosevic's Socialist Party and the party >called the Yugoslav United Left, plus the security forces >and the army. > >Weakening this apparatus would leave the road open for >imperialist penetration and for turning all of Yugoslavia >back into a colony of the West, whether or not that is what >Kostunica plans. > >The Western media claim Kostunica is leading in election >polls. Pro-Milosevic sources point out that the polls were >taken by pro-NATO organizations that want to try to claim >Milosevic "stole" the election should he win. > >BELGRADE PUTS NATO LEADERS ON TRIAL > >Meanwhile, the Milosevic forces have run their election >campaign against NATO threats, pointing to the opposition as >NATO puppets. > >In addition, the Yugoslav government has gone on the >political offensive against NATO. In Belgrade Sept. 18 the >government opened a trial of NATO leaders for war crimes >committed during the 1999 aggression and 78-day bombing >assault. > >Yugoslavia charged Presidents Bill Clinton of the United >States and Jacques Chirac of France, British Prime Minister >Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, U.S. >Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and nine other NATO >and Western government leaders with war crimes. Their names >were attached to 14 empty chairs in the front of a Belgrade >courtroom. > >Serb authorities appointed a lawyer for each of the accused. >Yugoslav officials said it would take four days to present >the evidence. > >"They are charged with inciting an aggressive war...war >crimes against civilian population...use of banned combat >means, attempted murder of the Yugoslav president...the >violation of the country's territorial integrity. ..," the >charge sheet read. > >"They fired 600 cruise missiles and made 25,119 [air] >sorties during the 78-day aggression, attacking both >military and civilian targets, killing and wounding many >people, causing mass destruction of property," it added. > >The charges were similar in structure to those presented at >the dozens of "People's Tribunals" held in Germany, the >United States, Italy, Austria, Greece, Russia and other >countries in the past 14 months, all of which found the NATO >leaders guilty. The Yugoslavs will be able to present more >detailed, eyewitness descriptions of the crimes. > >Exposing NATO's crimes and especially the lies NATO leaders >used to justify their aggression has strengthened solidarity >with Yugoslavia in some of the NATO countries. > >In Italy, a traditional annual peace march from Perugia to >Assisi will take place Sept. 24 with a more clearly anti- >NATO position than it has had in recent years. Last year >former Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema led the march--but he >also had led the war against Yugoslavia. This year march >organizers invited forces carrying a banner "Against NATO, >against the embargoes" to play a big role in the march and >promised that none of the war criminals from the Italian >regime would be present. > >In Germany, a group of anti-war intellectuals have issued a >call from Berlin: "No new NATO-war on the Balkans!" The call >warns of U.S.-NATO military preparations for a possible new >assault on Yugoslavia, and asks for actions against this new >aggression. There are also vigils planned in Bonn on Sept. >22 and 29. > >- END - > >(Copyleft Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to >copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but >changing it is not allowed. For more information contact >Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org) > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:14:44 -0400 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Subject: [WW] Wide Support for Los Angeles Strikers >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >------------------------- >Via Workers World News Service >Reprinted from the Sept. 28, 2000 >issue of Workers World newspaper >------------------------- > >RIDERS BLAME TRANSIT BOSSES: WIDE SUPPORT FOR LOS >ANGELES STRIKERS >Shutdown Halts Buses, Subways & Rail Lines > >By Preston Wood >Los Angeles > >Members of Los Angeles United Transit Union, representing >4,300 bus drivers and train operators, headed for the picket >lines Sept. 16 after negotiations broke down with the >Metropolitan Transit Authority. > >The strike shut down the nation's second-largest transit >system, including buses, subways and rail lines. > >Los Angeles County Federation of Labor head Miguel Contreras >and UTU President James Williams denounced the MTA for >failing to negotiate in good faith with the drivers. > >"The union," Contreras said, "feels it is being forced out >on strike because of management's failure to bargain >seriously. > >"Talks have not been fruitful. Talks have not been >productive." > >Contreras explained that MTA negotiators sent to meet with >the union lacked any power to reach an agreement. Throughout >the talks negotiators were forced to confer by telephone >with elected officials before agreeing on points of >discussion. > >UNIONS HONOR PICKET LINES > >Two other unions--the Transportation Communications >International Union, representing 650 clerical workers, and >the Amalgamated Transit Union, representing 1,800 mechanics-- >struck the MTA in solidarity with the drivers and operators. > >Dozens of unions are honoring the drivers' picket lines. >Five shuttle buses from Union Station were cancelled June 18 >after Teamster drivers refused to cross picket lines, the >Associated Press reported. > >At stake is the workers' refusal to agree to $2 million in >givebacks. The MTA wants to reduce drivers' pay by 15 >percent by shifting to a four-day workweek. They would be >forced to work 10-to-12-hour days with no overtime pay. > >The MTA also wants to reduce overtime by hiring more part- >time drivers, who would eventually replace full-time drivers >through attrition. > >In addition to what the MTA calls "creating a new workweek", >management wants to cut benefits for union members. > >Today the MTA pleads poverty. But the agency has long been >wracked by charges that it mismanages funds and plans >poorly. Five years ago the MTA built itself a 26-story glass- >domed headquarters. > >Management now seeks to shift its deficit--said to be $430 >million over the next decade--onto the backs of drivers, >clerical workers, mechanics and engineers. The MTA threatens >to raise bus and subway fares if it doesn't get its way. > >The MTA falsely claims that all drivers and operators make >around $50,000 a year. In reality, entry-level bus drivers >make just $8 an hour. Only a tiny number of veteran drivers >make $20 an hour, after many years on the job. > >SOLIDARITY FROM RIDERS > >Despite a massive media campaign to pit the public against >the strikers, even the anti-labor Los Angeles Times admitted >Sept. 16 that there is overwhelmingly support for the >workers--especially from those who ride the buses and trains >every day. > >Sixty-eight percent of the 500,000 workers who use the buses >and subways each day earn less than $15,000 per year. Over >three-quarters are Black and Latino and many are immigrant >workers. > >"I blame the MTA for making it a difficult situation," said >Shepard Petit, a disabled student who takes the bus to >college. > >Meanwhile, unions and community organizations vow to mount >activities in support of the striking workers. > >"This fight concerns all of us," said John Parker of the Los >Angeles International Action Center. "We are eager to join >with everyone in Los Angeles to mount a campaign in >solidarity with the striking MTA workers. The banks and >corporations should be taxed to provide better wages and >benefits for the transit workers and more service for those >who depend on public transportation. > >"We're confident that the union will be victorious," Parker >said. > >- END - > >(Copyleft Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to >copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but >changing it is not allowed. For more information contact >Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org) > > > > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
