socialist standard              september 2006    
Page 7
 
Contents Page    Previous page 6  Next page 8

when the attack came. ..continued from previous page 6

American, British, and Israeli ruling circles saw the main threats to their economic and strategic interests in the Moslem world as coming from "communists" and secular nationalists backed by the Soviet Union (e.g. Nasser in Egypt, Ghaddafi in Libya, the PLO). When Khomeini's theocracy took power, Iran was added to the list of enemies, together with associated Shi'ite Islamist movements in other countries. Sunni Islamist movements, however, were encouraged - largely on the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," although also because they seemed more interested in imposing ritual conformity on their own communities and in fighting "communism" than in challenging the substantive interests of the "infidel" powers.

 The Islamists were also beneficiaries of the "neo-liberal" economic policies of Western institutions. In Pakistan, for example,the secular state schools collapsed in the1980s as a result of IMF-mandated public spending cuts. This left the Saudi-financed religious schools (madrassas) as the only educational option available to boys who were not from wealthy families. (Girls, needless to say, didn't even have that option.) It was from these madrassas that the Taliban drew its recruits.

 Moreover, relations with the leading Sunni Islamist power, Saudi Arabia, were and still are vital to Britain and the US in economic terms. The Saudi capitalist class, led by the royal family and influential families like the bin Ladens, not only sells these countries' oil but uses much of the proceeds to buy arms from them and invest in their economies.

 There are close and long-established personal and business ties between wealthy Saudis and British and American capitalists and politicians, including the father of the current US president and several members of his administration.

 The Saudi-US alliance also entailed close military cooperation, above all in the fight against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden went to Pakistan in 1979 as an official of the Saudi intelligence service to finance, organize, and control the anti- Soviet Afghan resistance in collaboration with the CIA. It was here that Osama, who had trained as an engineer and economist with a view to taking part in the family business,
acquired his taste for war. Osama fell out with the Saudi royal family in 1991 when they allowed the US to set up military bases on the "holy" soil of Arabia following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

 But even in exile Osama received frequent visits from relatives, who provided a channel
of communication between him and the royal family. An understanding appears to have
been reached. Osama would abstain from attacking targets inside Saudi Arabia and in
return no action would be taken against his Saudi supporters, who included various
members of his own and of other wealthy families (such as Khalid bin Mahfouz, the
"banker of terror") and even certain royal princes. And the Saudi authorities did protect
these people, refusing to provide US intelligence agencies with any information that
might compromise them. So September 11 originated in a "betrayal" by the Saudi capitalist class of their American friends, allies and partners.

 How can we account for such strange ingratitude to those to whom they owe their vast
riches? It probably has to do with the circumstances in which the Saudi capitalist class came into being. It did not make itself through independent entrepreneurial activity.
It was made when oil was discovered in Arabia (in 1938) and property rights in that oil
were vested in the pre-existing royal house.It is a class of bedouin patriarchs turned rentiers who became capitalists by investing their revenue. As a result, it retains to some
extent a pre-capitalist mentality that it expresses in religious terms, and has a deeply ambivalent attitude to the capitalist world in which it now operates.

The endless "war on terror"

Despite the shock effect, US ruling circles did not necessarily regard September 11 as
an unalloyed evil. In his book The New Crusade, anti-war analyst Rahul Mahajan draws
attention to a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, issued in September
2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank with
links to the Bush administration. The authors call for increased military spending to preserve US "global pre-eminence," but add that such a programme will be politically impossible unless there is a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor".

 The purposes for which the fear generated by the al-Qaeda attack was exploited
suggest that it filled this bill. The threat of "terrorism" has been used to push through
military programs ranging from anti-missile defence to germ warfare. Thus, a vast lab is
being built near Washington called the National Biodefence Analysis and Countermeasures Center, where in violation of the1972 biological and toxin weapons convention the most lethal bacteria and viruses are to be stockpiled (Guardian Weekly, 4-10 August, 2006). What a tempting target it will make for terrorist infiltration or attack!

The "war on terrorism" unleashed in the aftermath of September 11, against first Afghanistan and then Iraq, is not - so Mahajan argues - a war on terrorism, just as the
"war on drugs" is not a war on drugs. Combating terrorism and drugs are both low priorities, and the "wars" against them are covers for the pursuit of higher-priority interests.

 In Afghanistan the US had turned against the Taliban (previously welcomed as a force for "stability"), mainly because they were unwilling to host oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia to Pakistan, and was looking for a pretext to overthrow them. Capturing
Osama was that pretext, for it was obvious that the chaos of war would create ideal
conditions for him to escape.

 Iraq was invaded to secure control over its oil and in the hope of establishing a new
strategic beachhead in the Middle East. Saddam had no ties with Islamic terrorism, just
as he had no nuclear weapons. To the likes of Osama he was not even a genuine Moslem. Bush demanded of his experts that they find ties between Iraq and terrorism; when they replied that there were none, he pretended not to hear and reiterated his demand. In October 2001 Vice President Dick Cheney declared that the war on terrorism"may never end -- at least, not in our lifetime"(Washington Post, 21 October, 2001). Am I alone in finding this suspicious? Ordinarily in a war it is considered important for morale to hold out some prospect of victory, however remote. Does Cheney want and need the "war" to go on forever?

The torture system

To sustain the facade of the "war on terror" it is necessary to arrest lots of people. As there is no real evidence against them, they are held without trial in secret facilities throughout the world, where - like the victims of Stalin's purges - they are tortured to extract the non-existent evidence. In her book The Language of Empire, Lila Rajiva describes for us the sickening tortures at Abu Ghraib, the prison complex outside Baghdad that the US occupation authorities took over from Saddam. The accounts and photos (some taken as exposés, others as souvenirs) are monotonous in their sameness.
 This is a clue: it strongly suggests that the torture is not a spontaneous practice of jailers and interrogators but a system designed by government experts and approved at the top.
The system goes by the code name R21 and is taught to British and American military
intelligence personnel at the British Joint Services Interrogation Centre at Gilbertine
Priory, Chicksands, near Bedford (Guardian, May 8, 2004). It is designed to
shock Moslem cultural sensibilities. Victims are stripped naked and hooded, savaged by
dogs, and forced under threat of beatings to masturbate and simulate sexual acts in front
of sniggering female soldiers (another triumph for sexual equality). That's just for starters, of course; it gets worse. I leave it to the reader to ponder what this means for the
relative merits of Western and Middle Eastern "civilization."

 And yet the people who authorize all these horrors know very well who is responsible
for terrorism (the Islamist variety, that is) and where they are to be found. But no bombs have been dropped on the wealthy suburbs of Riyadh. No scions of the bin Ladens and bin Mahfouz, no princes of the House of Saud have been stripped naked, set upon by dogs or sexually humiliated. That's class justice for you! A few incidents, however
regrettable, can't be allowed to spoil British and American relations with a vital
ally and business partner.

STEFAN
 
Contents Page    Previous page 6  Next page 8
Socialist Party