GULF CRISIS
Chronicle of a war foretold THE biggest deployment of US forces since the Vietnam war, the biggest British military intervention since the Malvinas war, the biggest French expeditionary force since the Algerian war - three reference points which speak volumes on the nature of the imperialist crusade underway against Iraq. The concentration of imperialist and allied troops and arms in Saudi Arabia, in the coasts and waters of the Gulf and in the Red Sea, bear no relation to their declared objective. SALAH JABER
Turkey, and so on) under the aegis of the United States. But a big part of the kitty will go into financing the US intervention, whose cost is incessantly being revised upwards by the Pentagon — $15 billion on the latest estimates.
This estimate is a revealing one. It corresponds officially to the cost of a year's stationing of the US forces deployed on the ground - whereas Baker vows, to whoever will listen, that the departure of troops will take place "as soon as the crisis ends". But to envisage a cost of $1.25b a month for 12 months, as much as for the first two months ($2.5b in total to the end of September) with their enormous costs of transport and installation on the ground, shows that there is something in the wind.
Taking account of the fact that in addition to direct financing, the Saudi monarchy furnishes oil, water and other
V ERY MUCH less would be neded to dissuade Saddam Hussein from attaking the Saudi kingdom, supposing that was the intention. Infinitely less would be needed to impose the embargo decreed by the UN Security Council. And it is not over! Beyond the continued build up of their own troops on the ground (the Pentagon envisages 250,000 in total), the United States is maintaining pressure on its imperialist partners and on their Arab, Muslim and other Third World henchmen to send new forces.
Thus, on September 15 and 16, it was announced in quick succession that France would send 4,200 more men; Pakistan 3,000; Bangladesh.3,000; Egypt 15,000; and Syria 10,000. These thousands of soldiers, with equipment including several hundred tanks, are to be added to the thousands already sent by the same countries since the beginning of the crisis. They will all be deployed on Saudı territory, in coordination with the 150,000 US troops already in place. The French reinforcements are specialist anti-tank and antihelicopter troops, representing a significant boost for the US plan of action. The presence of the others has a primarily political function, that of giving an Arab and Muslim cover for the essentially American and western character of the deployment underway - and of the aggression which is being prepared.
The countries concerned are to receive a fat reward. Egypt, already the principal world beneficiary of US aid after the state of Israel, will see its military debt of $7 billion to the United States simply written off. To this can be added the billions of dollars which will undoubtedly be channelled to it by the Arab potentates of the Gulf, as well as by the pool of imperialist backers rounded up by Washington. Syria, previously struggling with a grave financial crisis, will be bailed out and have its projects financed by the oil sheikhs. James Baker himself came to Damascus to assure himself of the good intentions of the regime of Hafez El-Assad, not long ago held up to obloquy by the White House.
Assad has given the green light for the sending of Syrian reinforcements which will be put, for extra security, under the command of a Saudi Emir. Nonetheless, the US administration cannot, at this stage, and faced with the pro-Israeli lobby in Congress, directly pay off Syria. It has therefore pushed Thatcher, who Bush himself has publicly declared to be his most trusty ally, to lift her veto on the granting of 146 million ECUs that the EEC had promised to Syria. United States divides up the cash
In all these operations, the US has imposed itself not only as military master of the imperialist world order, but also — and this is new - as apportioner of the international financing of this order. Certainly, the Saudi kingdom with its petrodollars, has been a reliable additional backer for Washington, both for operations in accord with US legality (Afghanistan) and illegal operations (Nicaragua). But this time, the pool of backers being asked to contribute is much bigger. To the $12 billion from the Arab oil sheikhs, including the Kuwaiti government in exile (from its supposedly frozen assets), must be added $4b from Japan, $2b from Germany, $2b from the EEC and even $150 million from Italy.
This "Band Aid" of gigantic proportions (how deep must be the bitterness of those who have struggled to raise a few millions for the famine in Africa!) is destined, in part, to compensate and reward the efforts of the local participants in the imperialist encirclement (Egypt, Jordan, products and services free to the US forces, the proposed budget corresponds much more closely to a scenario of armed confrontation(albeit of short duration) than to that of a simple application of the embargo decreed by the Security Council.
In this respect the disclosures made to the Washington Post by Michael Dugan, then chief of staff of the US Air Force, which led to his dismissal, should be taken seriously.
They confirmed what many other declarations coming from Pentagon spokespersons have already made clear. The only serious military option for the US generals is to strike a heavy military blow at Iraq at the beginning, in such a manner as to bring about a rapid surrender, or even rout, of its troops. Iraq is to be brought to its knees, whilst three major risks are avoided: a vast confrontation between ground forces, with a high human cost which US public opinion would tolerate with difficulty; the extension of fighting to the Saudi oilfields by the Iraqis — their major dissuasive option; and/or an intensive conflict of longer than 72 hours which could spread to the whole Arab region, where long accumulated frustrations nourish a solid
Death threat to anti-imperialist activist Said Seit, leader of the Bahraini
Popular Front, has been arrested In Damascus, where he was living in exile, The reason for his arrest is the position that his group has taken against the
Imperalist intervention in the
Gult, In contradiction with the
Syrian regime a stand. He is in danger of being extradited to
Bahrain, where he Is under a death sentence. Action to demand his immediate release 3 is needed.
GULF CRISIS
Palestinian leaders play musical chairs Daleatinion landlara niou milainal anoira
THE GULF CRISIS has presented the Arafat leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) with one of the most serious dilemmas in its history.
It is torn between the Saudi kingdom, which has always been one of its main sources of funds and Iraq, with which it has developed close links in the past decade, after some years of conflict.
In the Iran/Iraq War, Saudi money was also going to Iraq and at this time Arafat became strongly compromised with Saddam Hussein, with whom, besides he shared a common hostility to the Syrian regime. Arafat moved most of the forces loyal to him to Iraq, where a number of command posts are also located. Now, Arafat finds himself in the same uncomfortable position as Jordan's King
Hussein, caught between economic dependence on Iraq and its links with world imperialism and its local satraps. The PLO leadership, furthermore, like the Jordanian king, faces strong pro-Iraq popular feeling, which is evident on both sides of the Jordan.
The Arafat leadership is trying to face both ways. It has not condemned Iraq and is maintaining its good relations with Saddam Hussein, trying all the while to convince the Saudis that they would be just the people to mediate. On the other hand, it has sent a public message has been sent to the Saudi King Fahd, putting their forces at His Majesty's disposal for the defence of his kingdom.
The leftwing of the PLO is facing a rather different dilemma. Its close ties with the Syrian regime now come into conflict with its anti-imperialism (and Arab nationalism), which tend to push it into supporting Iraq. George Habash of the popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) has gone the furthest towards the latter position. In the early days of the crisis he went to the Iraqi capital Baghdad for a mutual admiration session with Saddam Hussein. Thus there is a reconciliation between the two men. Moving in fixed opposition to Arafat, the PFLP has been violently opposed to the Iraqi regime for the past ten years, after being its protégé in previous years. — S. J. * no resolution of this crisis which does not involve an unconditional Iraqi withdrawal". • In other words, no compromise is acceptable. For the masters of the world imperialist order, the only choice open to Saddam Hussein is that of grovelling or being crushed.
And there is no point in looking to Moscow to dissuade the US from exercising the military option. More bogged down than ever in its internal problems, more concerned than ever to benefit from the political and economic benevolence of the imperialists, Gorbachev is literally selling them his connivance, indeed his complicity. Such is the meaning of the transaction of September 9 at Helsinki; George Bush went there accompanied by a host of American businessmen, who waited in the antechamber of the summit for authorization to continue their voyage to Moscow with investment proposals.
The go ahead was not long in coming, and Bush was able to publicly congratulate himself on the "remarkable cooperation shown by the USSR" on the subject of the Gulf crisis, the theme of the summit, promising to recommend to Congress on his return "as close a cooperation as possible in the economic sphere". Moscow gives green light for military action
The common declaration of the two presidents at the end of their meeting did not limit itself to confirming the collusion already realized at the UN Security Council. In envisaging "supplementary measures" , it legitimized in advance a recourse to force, if the embargo should prove insufficient. As Newsweek commented on September 17: "Moscow insists that the Gulf crisis can be settled peacefully, but Gorbachev shows no sign of actively opposing Bush's strategy, even if the American president chooses to use force"
For a number of reasons, including climatic considerations, the need to complete the deployment, and the necessity of at least trying to obtain the capitulation of Saddam Hussein by sanctions, Washington must mark time for the moment, before passing to the offensive. This time must be put to good use by all the anti-imperialist forces of the world to assemble a genuine anti-war movement. Some progress has begun to be registered in this area: to the popular mobilizations in the Arab world, we can now add political or social reactions in countries like France or the Spanish state which are not negligible. It is necessary to intensify our campaign around the following demands:
• Immediate withdrawal of the imperialist forces from the Gulf region.
• An end to the blockade of Iraq and the treezing of its foreign holdings.
• Refusal of all the costs of the military intervention and immediate annulation of all austerity measures imposed on the masses.
hatred of the United States and popular solidarity with Iraq.
This scenario requires its "Tonkin Gulf Incident" (the pretext for the US aggression against Vietnam) to inaugurate the hostilities. The Pentagon strategists intend to have the initiative in any armed conflict — carrying out what they call, with breathtaking hypocrisy, a "preemptive strike". Surprise is moreover a major element of their military option - that of a lightning, intensive and massive bombardment (carpet bombing") which would flatten most of Iraq's defences as well as the morale of its troops and population.
The imperialist armies dispose of overwhelming air superiority over Iraq. The former have nearly double the number of aircraft in the theatre of operations than the Iraqi army (50% more for the US aircraft alone) whereas two thirds of the Iraqi machines are obsolete. But even supposing that the quantity and quality of the airforce were equal, the imperialist forces would still be superior in this domain.
Aviation is the favoured weapon of the technologically advanced countries, for more than material reasons, for after all material can be bought or delivered. It is also and above all for reasons of human competence — the sophistication of modern aircraft is such that they demand a high level of know-how to be fully utilized. It is this that explains, for example, Israeli air superiority over the Arab countries. When, on top of this, the quantity and quality of material is added, the super4 iority becomes overwhelming. It contrasts • with the relative vulnerability of the imperialist troops in the case of a land confrontation with the Iraqi army, be it only for psychological reasons. It is this superiority which the US generals wish to put to full use.
The aggressive intentions manifested by the Pentagon are in total harmony with the political attitude of the White House. The signs of a weakening of Saddam Hussein's position multiply — he has never in reality ruled out compromise, authorizing his friends, Yasser Arafat and King Hussein of Jordan, to continue their search for a face-saving solution. But contrary to the misinformation campaign in the media of the imperialist countries, it is Bush and Thatcher who are being intransigent rather than Saddam Hussein, champion in every kind of volte-face. Washington exercises permanent pressure on those among its allies, European as much as Arab, who might be tempted by an "Arab solution" to the crisis.
Thus, French imperialism, which has a lot to lose in Iraq, has expressed its preference for this type of solution. In the same way, the Moroccan, Jordanian, Algerian, Tunisian and Yemeni regimes, as well as the leadership of the PLO, are attempting to negotiate a compromise and avoid a regional conflagration which will rebound against them.
Washington is working non-stop to thwart them in this area. Baker is multiplying his trips abroad to this end. At the end of his last tour, on September 15, he declared at Bonn airport: "We have received political commitments to accept
International Viewpoint #190 • September 17, 1990
The politics of oil
WHATEVER Moscow's anxieties about the political and military consequences of the US crushing Iraq, it stands to gain economically from any conflict in the Arab-Persian Gulf which leads to higher oil prices. The Soviet Union is the world's biggest oil producer, with much underexploited potential. The Kremlin hopes that oil exports will become an important source of hard curren-
Icy.
For this to happen, the profitability of its oil extraction has to be improved, something that requires a long-term price rise. Technical aid from the United States is also needed. Bush is working on it. On his way to Helsinki, he told the businessmen with him that he wanted to see "the best American know how on oil production, drilling and seismic work going to the Soviet Union"
(Newsweek, September 17).
The US oil industry, to which Bush is personally tied, also has an interest in seeing a relatively high stable price. This would have the effect of reducing American dependence on oil imports, for two reasons: through a reduction in domestic consumption because of higher prices; and an increase in local production mak- an increase in local production making it profitable to reopen shut down wells and the drilling of new ones.
The American oil interest would be happy with a stable price of between
$25 and $30 per barrel, which the world economy could stand. In fact at today's dollar prices oil was selling for $70 per barrel in November
1980. Al the experts say that the present price rise was inevitable, with or without Saddam Hussein.
OPEC's production capacity was being used at 85% and demand was continuing to grow, owing to a price lower in real terms than in 1973, before the first "oil shock".
Washington also profits from the rise in revenues of the oil producing states consequent on a rise in the oil price, above all through the purchase of American Treasury bonds by Saudi Arabia, which can help to finance the US budget deficit. This is one of the most important aspects of the Saudi kingdom's involvement in the US economy.
The main motive for the rush to restore the emir of Kuwait is to maintain states of this type - underpopulated in relation to their oil wealth - in existence, so that the
"excess" capital is recycled in the imperialist countries (see /V190). -
S.J. *