------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the March 6, 2003 issue of Workers World newspaper -------------------------
EVEN AS TROOPS ARE READIED: U.S. POURS ON THREATS TO GET WAR VOTES By Fred Goldstein The political effects of the massive worldwide ant-war demonstrations are being felt with a vengeance in Washing ton, in the United Nations Security Council and in capitals around the globe. The anti-war resistance has forced the Bush administration, against its will, to introduce a new resolution in a last-ditch attempt to get Security Council approval for its unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. Despite this accomplishment, the danger of war looms larger as the Bush administration is preparing to defy the world. Nevertheless, the lesson of recent events is that a further escalation of the anti-war struggle is the only answer to Washington's intransigence. When the Bush administration went to the Security Council last November with Resolution 1441--which allowed the U.S. to proceed with its war plans against Iraq--the vote for it was 15 to 0. Washing ton then firmly rebutted the French government's argument that a second follow-up resolution would be required for any authorization to go to war. To get the unanimous vote, however, the U.S. grudgingly agreed to language in the resolution to the effect that, after the inspectors came back with their report, there would be "further consultation" with the Security Council. Since then, the anti-war movement has exploded around the globe. On Jan. 18, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in Washington and San Francisco, as well as hundreds of thousands more in Europe. This was followed by Feb. 15, when more than 10 million demonstrated around the globe, including nearly 2 million in London. BUSH'S ALLIES SHAKEN BY MASS PROTESTS These demonstrations shook the foundations under Washington's main ally in Europe, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as Bush's two other imperialist supporters there, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy. And it was precisely these three countries that saw the largest anti-war demonstrations in the world. "As recently as last month," wrote Patrick E. Tyler in the New York Times of Feb. 25, "the White House acted as if it would not return to the Security Council for a second resolution. But Mr. Blair, stung by criticism at home, urged the administration to reconsider. ... "Late last week," continued the Times, "it was not clear whether Mr. Bush would gamble on the prospect of a highly visible loss in the Security Council after the ebullient highs of last November, when the Council voted 15 to 0 to affirm the administration muscular stand... "But suddenly on Saturday morning, Mr. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reported a conference call involving the president, the Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, Mr. Blair, and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy to map out the steps at the United Nations that would pave the way to war. "That conference call set off a cascade of diplomatic lobbying on four continents that is continuing," wrote the Times. The lobbying is aimed at overcoming the French, German and Russian position. They are circulating a memorandum calling for more protracted and intensified inspections and opposing immediate war. Washington needs nine of the council's 15 votes and no veto by France, Russia, or China in order to pass its war resolution. THREATENING AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA According to an Associated Press dispatch of Feb. 24, "Senior U.S. officials have been quietly dispatched in recent days to the capitals of key Security Council countries where they are warning leaders to vote with the United States on Iraq or risk 'paying a heavy price.'" Washington is zeroing in on the African countries of Angola, Guinea and Cameroon and the Latin American countries of Mexico and Chile. The article quoted an unnamed U.S. diplomat as saying: "The order from the White House was to use 'all diplomatic means necessary.' And that really means everything." Continued the article, "The wording of the order is a twist on 'all means necessary'-the diplomatic terminology that authorizes going to war." A Mexican diplomat told the AP: "They actually told us: 'any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a very heavy price.'" The visits from U.S. diplomats were described as "hostile," showing little regard for the fact that the Mexican people are "overwhelmingly opposed to a war." The U.S. is hoping to capitalize on the desperate poverty of the African countries to both threaten and bribe them into line. On his trip to Asia, Secretary of State Colin Powell lobbied the Japanese imperialists to press the African countries. Japan has investments and influence in the region. The mass anti-war demonstrations not only shook Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi--they also sent a message to sections of the ruling class in the U.S. that the Bush administration had better try to bolster its political position in Europe and around the world before it plunges into Iraq. Most importantly, the demonstrations helped to deepen the split between the two imperialist camps: France and Germany on the one hand and the U.S. and Britain on the other. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, feeling the heat of the masses in their own countries, gained confidence and incentive to ride the growing anti-Bush, anti-war wave and formulate a position counter to Washington. ANTI-WAR FORCES GAIN TIME The demonstrations both pushed back the Pentagon's timetable for war and forced the Bush administration into a bitter diplomatic struggle, thus gaining time and opportunity for the anti-war forces to further escalate their efforts. However, the movement must deal with the overriding fact that the Pentagon has 180,000 troops in the region; that each concession made by the Iraqi government to the demands of the inspectors is met with rejection or further demands by the Bush administration; and that the right-wing hawks in Washington are determined to go to war. Some of them would even relish doing it in defiance of the UN Security Council. The struggle of the French and German imperialists to slow down and obstruct the U.S. war drive has at least temporarily increased the political isolation of Wash ing ton and helped to expose its fanatical dedication to carrying out its war of aggres sion. And any thing that even temporarily stays the hand of the Pentagon is helpful to Iraq and to the anti-war movement. At the same time that the movement strives to take advantage of the opportunities opened up by this split, it must clearly reject the fundamental premise being promoted by the nuclear-armed, high-tech super- power, U.S. imperialism: that it has the right to go into a sovereign state, disarm that country, and threaten to overthrow its government-- all in violation of international law, of the UN Charter and of the fundamental right of a formerly colonized people to self-determination. In this regard, there is not a ray of daylight between the French and U.S. positions. The memorandum being circulated by France, Germany and Russia states that, "So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled." It further states that "the pressure on Iraq must be increased" and outlines the steps to increase that pressure. This includes increasing the number of inspectors, setting up "mobile units" to check on trucks and a "new system of aerial surveillance." It states that the inspectors shall "report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with the inspections activities as well as failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations." It concludes that "the combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspec tions, a clear timeline and the military buildup proved a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq." In other words, the French imperialists are posing to the world as the "anti-war" party. They and the Germans are trying to improve their relations and their penetration of the oppressed countries by cleverly adopting an anti-U.S. position, knowing that the vast majority of the world is opposed to the war and to Bush. IMPERIALIST 'PACIFISM' OF CONVENIENCE It must be remembered that the French were a brutal colonial power in Vietnam and southeast Asia, in the Middle East and in West Africa. Now they are a weakened power forced to rely heavily on economics, politics and diplomacy in fighting for spheres of super-exploitation. They would be quick to send their forces to aid in the destruction of the Iraqi people and the recolonization of the country if they thought French oil companies, bankers and other multinationals could benefit from it. And they may very well do so. The same is true for the German imperialists, who enslaved South West Africa, participated in the "open door" division of China, and who presently have troops in Afghanistan. But for now, as weaker powers, they prefer "multilateral" colonial ventures rather than U.S. "unilateral" ventures that leave them with little or none of the loot. The weakness of Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi, the confidence of the French and the Germans, and the political struggle in the Security Council against the U.S. rush to war is based upon the pressure of the masses of the people. It is the struggle that has produced a renewed effort to extend the inspections. Among those states promoting the extension of the inspections are two basic camps. The imperialist camp, headed by Paris and Berlin, wants to protect their own imperialist interests. However, the vast majority of poor and oppressed countries, as seen in the African Summit Conference and the conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, as well as most of the UN General Assembly, are voting for more inspections because they are really against this war of colonial conquest. But they feel powerless to express this opposition in any other way than to side with the French position. The Non-Aligned Movement, which now comprises 116 countries representing 55 percent of the world's population, recently met in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The overwhelming sentiment was to stop the war. The real sentiment of the people represented by those governments was expres sed by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who opened the second and final day by denouncing Bush as a "big brother" proliferating arms and Tony Blair as a "neocolonialist." (Reuters, Feb. 24) "Iraq might have developed or desired to develop arms of mass destruction," said Mugabe. "But the United States has massive arms of that magnitude. Why can't they demonstrate what Iraq should [do] by destroying their own massive heaps first." The United States, Britain and the West "have turned themselves into ferocious hunting bull-dogs raring to go," Mugabe continued. "We, their hunted game, are for slaughter." The weakened governments of the world, however, many of them simply dependencies subject to the political, economic and military strangulation of the imperialist powers, bowed to the pressure of the masters in the White House and the Pentagon and repeated the line about urging Iraq to comply. Right now, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has told the Iraqi government to destroy missiles that allegedly can go beyond the prohibited range of 150 kilome ters. The Iraqis have said that these missiles are within the range, once they are mounted with their payload. Yet Blix has told them that this is not a discussible item. So the premise of inspections, on which all the imperialists agree, is that the U.S. and Britain have the right to surround Iraq with a military force powerful enough to destroy the country while at the same time the UN will force the Iraqis to give up one of their important means of self-defense. This is the logic of the inspections regime. It is a criminal regime calculated to render the victim as defenseless as possible. It harkens back to an earlier colonial period when the European powers were able to plunder entire defenseless continents. The anti-war movement must be independent of all attempts to impose the will of imperialism on Iraq or any other country. Iraq has the right to defend itself. The movement should keep doing what it has been doing, except on a larger and more forceful scale of resistance: demanding no war on Iraq, under any conditions or for any pretext. - END - (Copyright 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] Subscribe wwnews- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php) ------------------ This message is sent to you by Workers World News Service. To subscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
