By Rob Sewell
The recent missile attacks on Baghdad by America and Britain, with the loss of two civilian lives and over 20 wounded, marked a further escalation in the undeclared war against Iraq. Since the Gulf war ten years ago, nearly 200,000 allied sorties have been carried out against the regime. The most powerful imperialist power on the planet, together with its lap-dog, Britain, have attempted to terrorise the Iraqis as a warning to all those in the 'third world' who dare threaten their interests.
After the defeat of Saddam Hussein at the hands of the Coalition, no-fly zones were unilaterally imposed by the United States in the north and south, under the pretext of helping the Kurd minority and the Shi'ite Muslims. Draconian sanctions were applied to bring the Iraqi regime to its knees, severely limited its ability to import food, medicine and other essentials. The blockade went so far as to prevent the import of lead for schoolchildren's pencils lest it be put to military use! Such measures had devastating effects on the Iraqi population, with the resulting death of around one million children. Rather than weaken the regime of Saddam, these measures simply served to strengthen his position, as the population blamed the imperialists for their desperate plight.
The excuse given for the latest bombing attacks was that Britain and the US felt that Baghdad had improved its air defences to a point where the loss of an allied aircraft had become increasingly likely. President Bush shrugged off the air strikes as "a routine mission conducted to enforce the no-fly zone." He added: "I was informed, and I authorized it." The Pentagon came forward with the justification for bombing as "protective retaliation". Tony Blair, eager to demonstrate his loyalty and "special relationship" with the new American administration, also endorsed the action as "the steps necessary to protect our forces, and to prevent Saddam from once again wreaking havoc, suffering and death".
Things change
How things have changed! When it suited their foreign policy interests the imperialists were prepared to arm and back Saddam to the hilt in "wreaking havoc, suffering and death" against Iran during the 1980s. Then the enemy was the Iranian Khomenei regime. Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran, but the West was silent. Robin Cook constantly repeats the fact that Saddam has used gas "against his own people", without mentioning he did so against Iran in which Britain enthusiastically supported the "Beast of Baghdad".
The Kosovo war illustrated vividly the crushing superiority of US military might, which reduced the Europeans to a secondary supportive role on their own territory. Since the Second World War, Britain has been reduced to a virtual client state of US imperialism. This reflects the decline of Britain and the colossal might of America. This humiliating dependence lies at the bottom of the so-called special relationship of Blair and Clinton, or the new master in the White House. Blair has even signaled his support for the US missile defence project that is threatening to drive a wedge between the US and Nato. He has proved even more subservient than the Tories in his fawning before American power.
"This government is more authoritarian than the previous Conservative government and its subscription to US foreign policy is just contemptible", states the former Labour sympathizer and playwright Harold Pinter. "We have been bombing Iraq for years and killing people. The sanctions are killing even more people."
The hypocrisy of the bullyboy imperialists is nauseating. They say they need to enforce the no-fly zones to protect the population. However, a close ally of the American imperialists is Turkey, which is currently allowing its military bases to be used by the US to carry out their attacks on Iraq. From these very same bases, the Turkish government is carrying out its own murderous attacks on the same Kurdish people the US is supposed to be protecting! The US "concern" for the lives of oppressed peoples is touching, given its record of crushing all ex-colonial peoples that stood in its way, not least in the Middle East, where they have whole-heartedly backed the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
So the Americans and British imperialists continue to bomb, insisting that their attacks were aimed at "sites well away from civilian areas". The Foreign Office has stated that the warplanes were "well within the 33rd parallel" - the limit of the self-imposed no-fly zone - and used "stand-off" missiles - those fired at a safe distance - to hit their targets.
However, the Coalition of 1991 against Iraq has fallen to pieces. In reality, it has been reduced to the United States, with Britain in tow. The recent military actions have met with growing opposition, even amongst members of the UN Security Council. France, who was not consulted, condemned the bombing. Its opposition is linked with developing lucrative contracts in the wake of any Iraqi rapprochement. Russia and China who view the expansion of American power with growing alarm also condemned the action. The whole of the Middle East, accept for Israel, and the Arab states of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which allowed the American and British to use their bases, has been forced into opposition. Mass demonstrations and flag burning against America and Britain have spread throughout the region. Saddam has not wasted any time in linking Iraq to the issue of Palestine.
The United States sees its role as the world's 'policeman'. Iraq has to be made an example of to the rest of the ex-colonial world. The American administration, and in particular the new US Secretary of State Colin Powell, wants the sanctions strengthened. But the sanctions are breaking down as more trade deals are extended to Iraq via intermediates. The missile strike, while being regarded as a success, has caused considerable diplomatic and political fall-out. The Middle East as a consequence is far more unstable when the bombing is coupled with the breakdown of the Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement.
"The likely radicalization and heightened anti-US feelings the air strikes will create among Arab public opinion could exacerbate the region's instability and add pressure on moderate Arab governments to follow a harsher line towards Mr Sharon", states the Financial Times (19th February).
The regime of Saddam Hussein is no friend of the working masses of Iraq or the Middle East. However, the responsibility for its removal lies not with the robber-imperialists, but with the workers and peasants of Iraq itself. The British Labour movement must condemn the imperialist aggression against the people of Iraq, who are the only ones to suffer from the bombing and sanctions. Instead we have to offer the hand of solidarity to our brothers and sisters in the Middle East in their struggle against capitalism, landlordism and imperialism. Only a socialist federation of the Middle East can offer a way out of the present nightmare.