{"id":959,"date":"2019-03-10T15:12:41","date_gmt":"2019-03-10T15:12:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=959"},"modified":"2019-10-21T00:43:44","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T23:43:44","slug":"iraq-the-continuing-war","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/iraq-the-continuing-war\/","title":{"rendered":"Iraq: The Continuing War"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This article has been reproduced from the Socialist Standard<\/em> (August\n2000),\nthe monthly journal of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Competitive imperialist strategies to gain control of and\/or access to oil continue to cause the murder of the workers in Iraq. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Even by the barbaric standards of contemporary capitalism, the \nsituation in Iraq is dire. A deadly combination of routine daily \nbombings since December 1998 and economic sanctions imposed after the \ninvasion of Kuwait has led to the “destruction of a society” in the \nwords of former\nUnited Nations (U.N.) official Denis Halliday. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nHowever, how many people realise that “their country” is still \neffectively at war? Moreover, how many are aware that half-a-million \nIraqi children have been killed as a direct result of the sanctions? The\n answer to both these questions is, of course, not many but this should \ncome as no surprise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nIt would appear that the media in the west has imposed a blanket over \nthe sufferings in Iraq, which is only removed periodically to lambast \nSaddam Hussein and to justify a U.S.A.\/U.K.-led policy which is \nterrorising tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqi people, yet \nparadoxically making Saddam’s brutal Ba’thist regime even stronger \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A brief history<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\nIt will be remembered that the Gulf War of 1991 was initiated by Iraq’s \ninvasion of Kuwait in August 1990. When Iraq refused to withdraw, the \nU.N. imposed economic sanctions and in January 1991 after the apparent \nfailure of diplomacy, the U.N.-led coalition went to war which resulted \nin victory a few weeks later. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nWith the end of the conflict, uprisings took place in Kurdish northern \nIraq and the Shia and Marsh Arabs in the south. These risings which were\n anti-Saddam were initially supported and encouraged by the West only to\n be betrayed and for Saddam to be allowed to crush the rebellions in \nblood. However, it created the veneer of legitimacy required by the U.N.\n to pose as protectors of the anti-Saddam minorities and create the \ninfamous “no-fly zones” over northern and southern Iraq. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe U.N., of course, had access to this airspace. They patrol these \nareas with the mandate to shoot down any undesirable flying objects, so \nlong as these are not Turkish fighters which routinely bomb northern \nIraq as part of their continuing war against the Kurds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nIt scarcely needs to be mentioned that oil is the reason for all this \nattention on Iraq. Iraq has the world’s second largest known oil \nreserves and this fact should underline any understanding of the \ncompetitive imperialist strategies to gain control and\/or access to that\n oil. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran-Iraq war<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\nSaddam Hussein was not always out of favour. In 1980 he was positively \nencouraged to invade Iran as the U.S.A. wanted to nip the “Khomeini \nrevolution” in the bud in order to prevent Iran becoming the regional \nsuperpower. However, they did not want Iraq to dominate either, so in \nthe words of Henry Kissinger “The ultimate American interest in the war \nis that both sides should lose”\u2014a policy of duel containment. The U.S.A.\n got their wish. After eight years of brutality\u2014with millions of \ncasualties on both sides\u2014a draw was declared and the balance of power \nmaintained. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nFor Saddam’s part the Iraqi economy was severely weakened, accruing \ndebts from various powers not least of all the Kuwaiti ruling family. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe rest is history. A combination of a disputed oil field and a row in \nO.P.E.C. about oil prices (Iraq wanted higher oil prices)\u2014normally at \nleast led to Iraq’s decision to invade Kuwait, thus setting the scene \nfor the next decade. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each against all<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\nThe end of the Cold War saw the demise of the bipolar East and Western \nblocs with the defeat of the Soviet Union and the victory of the U.S.A. \nas the undisputed world superpower. The allied action taken over \nIraq\u2014under the auspices of the U.N.\u2014was the first major event of the \nso-called “New World Order”. Since then the coalition of allies has \neffectively broken down with states such as Germany, France and Russia \npursuing their own imperialist strategies often in direct contradiction \nto those of the U.S.A.. The raison d’\u00eatre of this period is \never-shifting alliances and blocs which was not possible under \nbipolarity. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Operation Desert Fox<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\nIn December 1998 after nearly a year of brinkmanship over the role of \nU.N.S.C.O.M. (the U.N. inspectors looking for Iraq’s weapons of mass \ndestruction), Iraq was bombed by U.S.A. and U.K. forces without \nreference to the U.N. Security Council. It was alleged that the Iraqis \nwere preventing the inspectors doing their job so they were withdrawn to\n make way for the bombing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n“U.N.S.C.O.M. director Richard Butler removed inspectors from Iraq prior\n to the December 1998 bombardment of the country, contrary to what is \ncommonly reported. According to Butler’s own records, his team of \nweapons inspectors made numerous unimpeded visits before the December \nbombing” (Iraq Under Siege, edited by Anthony Arnove, p.69). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nEvidently, the U.S.A.\/U.K. were not concerned about “weapons of mass \ndestruction” when Iraq used chemical attacks during the latter stages of\n the war with Iran or the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988. In any \ncase what about other countries’ “weapons of mass destruction” such as \nthe U.S.A. and U.K. for example? \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oil-for-food <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\nOne way the U.N. has supposedly attempted to ameliorate the effects of \nsanctions on the civilian population has been via the oil-for-food \nprogramme. Under this programme Iraq is allowed to export a certain \nquota of oil so enabling it to obtain food and basic medical supplies. \nThings, however, are not as they seem. Thirty percent of Iraq’s revenue \ngoes into the U.N. Compensation Fund and until very recently with oil \nprices on the floor Iraq’s export earnings would have been minimal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThere are many advantages for the U.N. to pursue this policy. Firstly, \nit keeps Iraq’s oil infrastructure in use whilst keeping the vast bulk \nof the oil off the market and it allows the U.N. to pose as \n“humanitarians” whilst blaming Saddam for failing to distribute the \nbooty to the population at large. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nEven this accusation has been undermined by the man who actually ran the\n oil-for-food programme in Baghdad: Denis Halliday. Halliday who \nresigned in disgust because of the effects of the sanctions has said: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n” . . . oil-for-food was never intended to actually resolve the \nhumanitarian crisis. It was designed to stop further deterioration. It \nwas designed to build on what the Iraqi government was already doing and\n is still doing” (Iraq Under Siege, p.36). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nHalliday now spends his time campaigning against the sanctions after 34 years with the U.N.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nIn the light of this, how seriously can we take U.S.A. Secretary of \nState Madeline Albright’s assertion that despite the carnage sanctions \nare a “price worth paying”? \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imperialist rivalries<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\nThe effect of the sanctions and the bombings has been “to blow Iraq back\n to the Stone Age” and strengthen Saddam’s brutal dictatorship. Bearing \nin mind that official U.S.A. policy is to remove Saddam from power, one \nmay be mistaken for thinking that ending the sanctions would have been \nthe order of the day. The sanctions have continued unabated despite \nefforts from states such as France and Russia to rehabilitate and \nreintegrate Iraq into the world economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nBut of course, the U.S.A. and the likes of France and Russia do not want\n democracy for Iraq. Indeed, one of the opposition groups funded by the \nU.S.A. wants to restore the Iraqi monarchy! Only a brutal dictatorship \ncan hold Iraq together which guarantees the integrity of Iraq’s borders \nand hence a semblance of stability in a strategically vital part of the \nworld. Paradoxically, an internally strong Iraq must be counterposed by \nbeing externally weak so it too is unable to threaten the region’s \nequilibrium. Saddam and\/or the Ba’th Party are currently fulfilling this\n role so to some extent share a unity of purpose with the U.S.A.. In the\n words of Richard Haass\u2014the former director of Middle East affairs for \nthe National Security Council: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n“Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime” (quoted in Iraq under Siege, p.11). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Slaughter of the working class – just another job under capitalism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\nWith France and Russia first in line for contracts when Iraq oil comes \nback on tap it’s understandable that they are even more pro-Saddam than \nthe U.S.A.. Even a change of leadership could see them lose out to \nU.S.A.-based majors. As Noam Chomsky explained last year: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n“At the moment there is an oil glut. That’s one good reason why it’s \nbeneficial to the U.S.A. to keep Iraqi oil off the market. The U.S.A. \ndoes not want the price of oil to go too low. It’s always wanted it to \nstay within a range, not too high because of the harm to U.S.A. \nmanufacturers, but not too low because that’s harmful to the energy \nproducers, which are mostly U.S.A.-based and their profits would go \ndown.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nFurthermore: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n“The other problem with Iraqi oil is that the inside track on developing\n Iraqi oil is held currently by France and Russia, not by the \nU.S.A.-based majors. So, for the moment at least keeping Iraqi oil from \nbeing developed is a wise project” (Iraq Under Siege, p.53). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nAnother factor to consider is that the destruction of Iraqi civilian \nlife means a much more compliant working class when Iraq’s oil returns \nto the open market. As Chomsky explains: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n“So, if the population of Iraq were reduced or marginalized, maybe even \nreduced to such a level that they are barely functional, then when the \ntime comes to bring Iraqi production back on line, they will be less of \nan impediment” (quoted in Iraq Under Siege, p.53). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThis may prove to be significant in the light of the International \nMonetary Fund (I.M.F.)-style austerity measures that Saddam was \nattempting to bring in during the late 80s. Previously the policy had \nbeen “Guns and Butter”, but the war with Iran put paid to that. The \nIraqi working class was showing resistance to cuts in its living \nstandards then, of course, the Gulf War started. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nGenerally, in the period of “each against all” it can be argued that the\n U.S.A. has been attempting to reconstitute its own hegemony over the \nMiddle East at the expense of its main industrial rivals. And the Middle\n East is not the only region. The 1990s’ Balkans experience has \ndemonstrated that nominal co-operation between the big powers does not \nnecessarily mean that differing imperialist strategies were not actually\n being pursued. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nWith reference to Iraq, the differing policies between the likes of \nFrance, Russia, U.S.A.\/U.K. have become increasingly pronounced and as \npressure builds to life the sanctions and to stop the bombing, the \nbattle to re-control Iraq and its oil will begin again. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

End of sanctions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\nUnder which terms and conditions Iraq will be allowed to rejoin the \nworld economy remains to be seen, but it is reasonable to assume that it\n will happen eventually. If it is the case that the sanctions regime (by\n design or not) has helped to keep Saddam in power, how will the lifting\n affect him and the Ba’thists? It is worth remembering that any \ndifferences between the U.S.A. and its main rivals does not include \ndemocracy in Iraq. So the chances are that Saddam (or whoever is in \ncharge) will have to be rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nIraq remains one of the most obvious reasons why the world’s working \nclass has to organise to abolish capitalism and replace it with \nsocialism. We in the Socialist Party place on record our complete \nabhorrence with regard to the plight of our class brothers and sisters \nin Iraq and have no equivocation in denouncing the murderous gangsters \nwho have blood on their hands\u2014Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton and Tony \nBlair to name but three. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author: D Flynn <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Back to the Politics Index<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Back to the World Socialist Movement home page<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This article has been reproduced from the Socialist Standard (August 2000), the monthly journal of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Competitive imperialist strategies to gain control of and\/or access to oil continue to cause the murder of the workers in Iraq.  Even by the barbaric standards of contemporary capitalism, the situation in Iraq is…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"magazine_newspaper_sidebar_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-959","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/959","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=959"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/959\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2610,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/959\/revisions\/2610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}