No. 522

28/01/03

***************************************************************

** GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT THE CRITICAL
WORLD SITUATION, By Franz J. T. Lee.

** Blueprint for a US colonial regime

in Baghdad.

** Washington insists Iraqi scientists

submit to private interviews.

V** Prepare for War With Iraq, Bush to Tell America. .

** U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq.

** How to deal with America? The European dilemma.

** The war against Iraq and America’s

drive for world domination.

**************************************************

GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT THE CRITICAL WORLD SITUATION

Folks, Friends, Amigos,

****************************************

Blueprint for a US colonial regime

in Baghdad

By Peter Symonds
21 January 2003

As US troops pour into the Middle East for an imminent invasion of Iraq, Washington’s preparations for setting up a colonial-style regime in Baghdad have reached an equally advanced stage. The plans themselves are secret, but progress reports have been periodically leaked to the American media, partly because of sharp feuding within the Bush administration.

A detailed account appeared in the Washington Post last Friday. While Bush has yet to give his final approval, “blueprints for Iraq’s future” have been drawn up which “outline a broad and protracted American role in managing the reconstruction of the country”. As the article indicated, behind the façade of a civilian government, Washington is preparing for a lengthy US military occupation.

“The [Bush] administration’s plans, which are nearing completion, envision installing a civilian administration within months of a change of government, US officials said. But the officials said that even under the best of circumstances, US forces likely would remain at full strength in Iraq for months after a war ended, with a continued role for thousands of US troops there for years to come,” the newspaper explained.

Central to the colonial blueprint is firm control over Iraq’s oil, which will be used to fund the occupation: In turn that requires the suppression of any attempts at secession by the Shiite majority in the south and the Kurdish minority in the north, where many of the oil fields lie. US officials have already assured Turkish authorities, concerned at the prospect of a Kurdish uprising, that American troops will be stationed in the key northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk in the event of war.

The Washington Post commented: “Among key roles for US forces would be the preservation of Iraq’s borders against any sudden claims by neighbours and the defence of the country’s oil fields. Oil revenue is considered the primary source of funds for Iraq’s reconstruction, and the proceeds of the oil trade are seen as the glue most likely to hold the country’s communities together.”

One element of the plan—the appointment of an international civilian administrator, possibly through the aegis of the UN—marks a shift in recent months. Previously, the US administration had touted the idea that one of its generals would run the Iraqi state along the lines of the American post-war occupation of Japan and Germany. But as opposition to the war has grown in the US and internationally, Washington has felt the need to try to disguise its intentions.

An article in the New York Times on January 6 reported that official Arab reaction to plans for an American military administration was unfavourable: “[T]he Arabs wanted no American Caesar in Iraq, no symbol of a colonial governor.” Alluding to General MacArthur’s role in post-war Japan, a senior US official told the newspaper: “The last thing we need is someone walking around with a corncob pipe, telling Iraqis how to form a government.”

However the Bush administration, with or without UN assistance, attempts to dress up its plans, the charade is a thin one. While US officials self-righteously claim that the aim of the occupation will be to “democratise Iraq,” the Iraqi people will have absolutely no say in the running of the country. Any, even nominal, popular vote has been relegated to the distant future.

Washington intends to leave largely intact the repressive government apparatus through which Saddam Hussein has exercised his autocratic rule. The CIA has drawn up a list of top civilian and military officials who will be hunted down for prosecution. But, according to the New York Times, a relatively small number of key senior officials will be removed. Likewise, the only institutions to be eliminated will be those closely identified with Hussein, such as the so-called revolutionary courts or the special security organisation.

Much of the debate within the Bush administration has focussed on the role of the Iraqi exile opposition groups, which have been carefully nurtured with US money for more than a decade. Rightwing ideologues such as US Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld had advocated the establishment of a “democratic” Iraqi government, along the lines of Afghanistan, with a loyal American flunkey, such as the Iraqi National Congress (INC) chairman, Ahmad Chalabi, as nominal head.

The CIA and State Department opposed the proposal on tactical grounds, pointing out that Chalabi and other INC figures have no significant support inside Iraq. Some of the ex-generals vying for a role in a post-Hussein regime are accused of carrying out wartime atrocities. Moreover, those opposition groups with support inside Iraq—two Kurdish parties and the Shiite-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)—may, against Washington’s wishes, push their separatist and communal demands.

The issue was decided in favour of the CIA and State Department at a gathering of opposition groups in London last month. US officials circulated a memo to opposition leaders prior to the conference opposing the formation of a government-in-exile—a move that would complicate plans for direct US rule. As a report in the New York Times put it, American officials, including US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, were “on hand to monitor the conference, cajoling its leaders in private to meet the goals set by Washington, while ensuring that they did not overstep the American-drawn boundaries.”

The conference was dominated by haggling between rival groups over positions on a joint guiding committee, which had to be expanded to 65 members to accommodate all the various ambitions. It concluded with a call for “a democratic, federal, parliamentary government” and an appeal for the US to allow Iraqis to take immediate control of the country after the fall of Hussein. But as the New York Times reported, the declaration was largely to provide the Iraqi groups with some political cover, as “none of the opposition groups wants to be seen as an American patsy”.

The conference also proposed holding a further meeting in the northern Iraqi city of Salahuddin on January 15. Northern Iraq has been virtually autonomous since the US and Britain unilaterally declared it a “no-fly zone” in April 1991. INC chairman Chalabi declared that the meeting was “crucial because it is taking place within Iraq” and would send “a strong message to [Hussein] that liberation is coming”. But the gathering was postponed after the US announced that it could not guarantee the security of the delegates.

Last Friday’s Washington Post article noted that the Iraqi exile groups have been sidelined. “Iraqis relegated to advisory roles in the immediate postwar period would gradually be given a greater role, but they would not regain control of their country for a year or more, according to current US thinking,” it stated.

However, the opposition groups continue to pin their ambitions on a US military ouster of Hussein. Last week hundreds of exiles began reporting to military bases in the US and Europe for screening. Those chosen will be flown to Hungary, where they will receive rudimentary training to enable them to act as auxiliaries to US troops inside Iraq.

The INC, which supplied most of the names, hopes that the 3,000 trainees might form the nucleus of a new Iraqi army. But the role assigned to the Iraqi exiles is a secondary one—to act as translators, guides, police and to liaise between US combat troops and the Iraqi population.

Some opposition groups have ruled out any involvement. A SCIRI spokesman in London director, Hamid Bayati, declared: “We will be seen as being part of the invasion, of being with the Americans. In general, we are already suffering in Iraq from a media campaign representing us as puppets of the Americans.”

The preparations for a post-Hussein administration are yet to be finalised and depend on a variety of contingencies. If any of the intrigues currently underway to either force Hussein into exile or foment an internal coup succeed, the Bush administration may have to include military or civilian figures inside Iraq in its plans. But whatever the variants, the central thrust of the blueprint will remain: to establish US military and political hegemony over Iraq and its supplies of oil.

Casting about for a pretext for war

Washington insists Iraqi scientists

submit to private interviews

By Peter Symonds
25 January 2003

Amid mounting domestic and international opposition, the Bush administration is increasingly desperate to find a pretext for war against Iraq. With the issue due for debate in the UN Security Council after weapons inspectors present their progress report on Monday, Washington’s repeated denunciation of Iraq’s “non-cooperation” and “non-compliance” has gone into overdrive.

Lacking evidence that Iraq either has or is seeking to construct so-called weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration yesterday latched on to the opposition of Iraq’s scientists to being interviewed by UN inspectors without the presence of Iraqi officials. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declared that “Iraq’s refusal to allow Iraqi scientists to submit to private interviews” was a “willful act of defiance”.

“Iraq has an obligation to comply. This is not a matter for negotiation. This is not a matter for debate. Saddam Hussein has no choice. His refusal is further evidence that Iraq has something to hide,” Fleischer stated. “To protect the peace, Iraq must allow and encourage its scientists to participate in private interviews and must do so without delay and without debate.”

Fleischer ignored the fact that Iraq had already agreed last Monday, as part of a 10-point pact with UN inspectors, to encourage scientists to grant private interviews. General Hussam Muhammad Amin, Iraq’s top liaison official with the inspectors, announced on Thursday that six scientists wanted for interview had refused to speak without the presence of a government official or unless the proceedings were recorded.

An exasperated Amin told reporters: “How can we solve this? Should we put him [the scientist] in prison and say to him: ‘Make an interview in private.’ This is contrary with his rights and his human rights. This is unrequired indeed.” There is every indication, however, that Iraq’s refusal to hand over its scientists, despite their objections, is being prepared by the US as a pretext for war.

The clearest sign was a statement yesterday by US Deputy Secretary for Defence Paul Wolfowitz, a right-wing ideologue, whose obsession with invading Iraq stretches back more than a decade. He declared in a speech in New York: “Today, we know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered that any scientist who cooperates during interviews will be killed, as well as their families. Furthermore, we know that scientists are being tutored on what to say to the UN inspectors and that Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as scientists to be interviewed by the inspectors.”

Like every other claim made by the Bush administration about Iraq’s alleged weapons’ programs, Wolfowitz’s statement was simply a bald assertion, devoid of any evidence. He made no mention of the sources of the information. He did not identify the Iraqi intelligence officers or who they were meant to be impersonating. After years of UN inspections following the 1990-91 Gulf War, all of Iraq’s top scientists are well known.

The Hussein regime is certainly not averse to thuggery. But all the evidence in the public arena indicates that it is the UN inspectors, under pressure from Washington, who have attempted to manipulate and bully Iraqi scientists. Only a few scientists have been interviewed. In two cases, those involved have publicly denounced the UN inspection teams for trying to distort their evidence and to coerce them into private interviews.

The first case took place in late December. UN spokesman Hiro Ueki confidently announced in Baghdad on December 27 that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors had interviewed “a metallurgist from a high visibility state company” who had provided them with “technical details of a military program”. He said that the program was being viewed “as a possible prelude to a clandestine nuclear program”. Ueki also indicated that UN officials were preparing, for the first time, to take the scientist out of the country for further questioning under the extraordinary terms of UN resolution 1441.

Within hours, however, the UN’s claims had begun to unravel. The scientist, Kazem Mijbil, insisted to reporters that he had provided no such information. Plans for him to leave the country were rapidly put on hold. At a press conference the following day, Mijbil branded Ueki’s statement as grossly exaggerated, bordering on fabrication. “I strongly deny this,” he said. “Frankly I am very disturbed... over these statements because they don’t relate to reality.”

As a metallurgist, Mijbil was involved in the restoration of aluminium tubes that had corroded since their purchase in the 1980s. He insisted that his company had simply been cleaning the piping, which was used in the production of short-range 81mm missiles permitted under UN resolutions. “Does cleaning an aluminium tube from corrosion with basic elements... lead to a secret program?” he asked.

He said he had refused to be interviewed at the UN headquarters because he was concerned over what might happen to him and how his testimony might be distorted. Referring to the hundreds of prisoners being detained and interrogated by the US military in Cuba, he said: “I look at this place [UN headquarters] as Guantanamo Bay and I am not a prisoner, I am a free Iraqi man.”

Appealing to his fellow scientists to refuse to go abroad or be interviewed in private, he declared: “My interview was in my country with the presence of the [Iraqi] representative... and you saw what happened in the press. So what will the situation be when someone is interviewed abroad? There will be lots of misunderstandings, fabrications and lies.”

The issue of the tubes was not a minor one. The US has repeatedly claimed that Iraq has imported aluminium tubes in order to construct uranium enrichment devices known as gas centrifuges. When Bush appeared before the UN last September, one of his few concrete claims was that Iraq had attempted to purchase the tubes in order “to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon”.

Many questions have been raised about this claim. The aluminium tubing is perfect for making 81mm rockets, but not gas centrifuges. As one expert cited in the Washington Post explained: “It is technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium. But you’d have to believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each piece.” Moreover, there is no evidence that Iraq has attempted to import other key components, including motors, metal caps and special magnets.

Following Mijbil’s public comments, the UN inspectors were forced into an embarrassing, although little publicised, backdown. In a second public statement to “clarify” his original remarks, Ueki acknowledged that the scientist “was not involved in Iraq’s past nuclear program”. The UN official insisted that he “did not make a judgement” that Iraq had a secret nuclear weapons program but only that Mijbil’s “non-classified information was of interest to the Agency [IAEA].”

In a preliminary report in early January, the IAEA was forced to conclude that the aluminium tubes—both in the country and the attempted imports—were “not directly suitable” for uranium enrichment but were “consistent” with making ordinary artillery rockets.

The second case involved the Iraqi nuclear physicist Faleh Hassan, 55. He was one of two scientists whose homes were searched unannounced on January 17. UN inspectors questioned him and his family and scoured their house for six hours, seizing a large number of documents and papers. At their insistence, Hassan took the inspectors to a farm that he previously owned, and then accompanied them to their hotel. After hours of argument, the team finally agreed to provide Hassan with photocopies of the documents.

Great play was made in the media of the seizure of “3,000 pages of documents, some of them concerning enrichment of uranium with lasers”. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei insinuated to reporters that the find was further proof of Iraq’s failure to co-operate and to keep its nuclear programs secret. “We shouldn’t have to find these on our own. Why should these documents be in a private home? Why are they not giving them to us?” he asked.

The following day Hassan angrily accused the UN inspectors of “mafia-like behaviour”. While at the farm, Hassan explained, he had been approached by a female inspector, an American, who had offered, out of earshot of Iraqi officials, to provide medical treatment overseas for his sick wife. He, of course, would have to act as an “escort” and submit to questioning over Iraq’s weapons programs.

“We would rather live as beggars in our country than live as kings abroad,” Hassan told the media, implying that the pair had been offered other inducements. He said he would not leave even if instructed to do so by the Iraqi government. “I am not accused of any crime. No one can force me to go somewhere that is not under the control of Iraqi institutions.” He refused to be interviewed alone, saying: “Perhaps they would lock me up and claim that I had asked for political asylum.”

Hassan described the documents as “old, not worth photocopying”. He explained that research into the use of lasers for uranium enrichment had been abandoned in 1988—a point later acknowledged by the UN’s chief inspector Hans Blix. Hassan also offered to go through the documents with IAEA chief ElBaradei “page by page, line by line and even word by word to prove that everything they found is in alignment with what we declared in 1991.”

The statements yesterday by Bush administration officials Fleischer and Wolfowitz reveal that the US will be insisting on even more aggressive and provocative methods—insofar as the UN inspections continue at all. As Fleischer put it, Iraqi scientists must “submit” to private interviews “without delay and without debate”. Already facilities are being prepared for interviews outside the country. This week Cyprus announced that it had agreed to a UN request to act as a venue for inspectors to question Iraqi scientists.

WASHINGTON -- As the Pentagon continues a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst.

Although they consider such a strike unlikely, military planners have been actively studying lists of potential targets and considering options, including the possible use of so-called bunker-buster nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets, says analyst William M. Arkin, who writes a regular column on defense matters for The Times.

Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of tactical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one, Arkin says. His report, based on interviews and a review of official documents, appears in a column that will be published in The Times on Sunday.

Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, nuclear arms may offer the only way to destroy deeply buried targets that may contain unconventional weapons that could kill thousands.

Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation effects of such strikes would be limited.

But that is in dispute. Critics contend that a bunker-buster strike could involve a huge radiation release and dangerous blast damage. They also say that use of a nuclear weapon in such circumstances would encourage other nuclear-armed countries to consider using such weapons in more kinds of situations and would badly undermine the half-century effort to contain the spread of nuclear arms.

Although it may be highly unlikely that the Bush administration would authorize the use of such weapons in Iraq -- Arkin describes that as a worst-case scenario -- the mere disclosure of its planning contingencies could stiffen the opposition of France, Germany and Middle East nations to an invasion of Iraq.

"If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab country, it might be a military success, but it would be a diplomatic, political and strategic disaster," said Joseph Cirincione, director of nonproliferation studies at the Carnegie Endowment for Interna- tional Peace in Washington.

He said there is a danger of the misuse of a nuclear weapon in Iraq because of the chance that "somebody could be seduced into the mistaken idea that you could use a nuclear weapon with minimal collateral damage and political damage."

In the last year, Bush administration officials have repeatedly made clear that they want to be better prepared to consider the nuclear option against the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. The current planning, as reported by Arkin, offers a concrete example of their determination to follow through on this pledge.

Arkin also says that the Pentagon has changed the bureaucratic oversight of nuclear weapons so that they are no longer treated as a special category of arms but are grouped with conventional military options.

A White House spokesman declined to comment Friday on Arkin's report, except to say that "the United States reserves the right to defend itself and its allies by whatever means necessary."

David J. Smith, an arms control negotiator in the first Bush administration, said presidents would consider using such a weapon only "in terribly ugly situations where there are no easy ways out. If there's a threat that could involve huge numbers of American lives, I as a citizen would want the president to consider that option."

Smith defended the current administration's more assertive public pronouncements on the subject, saying that weapons have a deterrent value only "if the other guy really believes you might use them."

Other administrations have warned that they might use nuclear weapons in circumstances short of an all-out atomic war.

In January 1991, before the Persian Gulf War, Secretary of State James A. Baker III warned Iraqi diplomat Tarik Aziz in a letter that the American people would "demand the strongest possible response" to a use of chemical or biological weapons. The Clinton administration made a similar warning to the Libyans regarding the threat from a chemical plant.

But officials of this administration have placed greater emphasis on such possibilities and have stated that preemptive strikes may sometimes be needed to safeguard Americans against adversaries who cannot be deterred, such as terrorists, or against dictators, such as Saddam Hussein.

Instead of making such a warning from time to time as threats arise, the Bush administration "has set it out as a general principle, and backed it up by explaining what has changed in the world," Smith said.

In a policy statement issued only last month, the White House said the United States "will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all of our options -- to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States."

One year ago, the administration completed a classified Nuclear Posture Review that said nuclear weapons should be considered against targets able to withstand conventional attack; in retaliation for an attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." And it identified seven countries -- China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria -- as possible targets.

The same report called on the government to develop smaller nuclear weapons for possible use in some battlefield situations. Both the United States and Russia already have stockpiles of such tactical weapons, which are often small enough to be carried by one or two people yet can exceed the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in World War II.

The administration has since been pushing Congress to pay for a study of how to build a smaller, more effective version of a 6-year-old nuclear bunker-buster bomb called the B-61 Mod 11. Critics maintain that the administration's eagerness for this study shows officials' desire to move toward building new weapons and to end the decade-old voluntary freeze on nuclear testing.

The B-61 is considered ineffective because it can burrow only 20 feet before detonating. The increasingly sophisticated underground command posts and weapon storage facilities being built by some countries are far deeper than that. And the closer to the surface a nuclear device explodes, the greater the risk of the spread of radiation.

The reported yield of B-61 devices in U.S. inventory varies from less than 1 kiloton of TNT to more than 350. The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons.

Discussion of new weapons has set off a heated argument among experts on the value and effects of smaller-yield nuclear weapons.

Some Pentagon officials contend that the nation could develop nuclear weapons that could burrow deep enough to destroy hardened targets. But some independent physicists have argued that such a device would barely penetrate the surface while blowing out huge amounts of radioactive dirt that would pollute the region around it with a deadly fallout.

Wade Boese of the Arms Control Assn. in Washington said there is no evidence that conventional arms wouldn't be just as effective in reaching deeply buried targets.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012703B.us.nuke.htm
****************************************************************************************************

WASHINGTON -- President Bush will tell the nation to prepare for war in next week's State of the Union address, the White House said Friday, as the State Department alerted U.S. citizens overseas to be ready to evacuate on short notice.

While other U.N. Security Council members are seeking ways to avert a military conflict, the president will say in his address Tuesday that the U.S. is getting ready for an invasion, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said Friday. But the president won't go so far as to declare war on Iraq, Bartlett said.

"This is an opportunity for him to talk directly to the public about the prospect of war, to talk about why the world came together in the first place requiring the disarmament of this regime," Bartlett said. "This is not a declaration speech. This is not a speech where he will be declaring war."

But signaling the serious consequences of a potential military action, the State Department told its embassies around the world Friday to alert U.S. citizens living and traveling abroad to be prepared for possible evacuation.

The warning was not sparked by any specific threat, and it was not a "worldwide caution" of the sort the State Department issued in November advising U.S. citizens abroad to be vigilant about the threat of terrorism. Rather, it was a general reminder of the need for preparedness at a time of "heightened tensions in the world," a State Department official said.

The alert was being cabled Friday to every U.S. embassy and consulate worldwide, more than 200 posts in all, instructing U.S. citizens to keep their passports updated and to be ready to leave quickly if necessary.

About 4 million U.S. citizens live overseas, and thousands more are traveling outside the country on any given day, the State Department said. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, expatriate Americans became more aware that they could be potential targets for terrorism.

In the case of a war on Iraq, there is increased concern about possible retaliation against Americans. "If you're talking, as we are, about possible military action, it usually results in drawdowns or evacuations at a number of embassies around the world," a State Department official said.

In Baghdad on Friday, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's son Uday added to those anxieties, warning that if Iraq is attacked, the U.S. will suffer calamities that would make Sept. 11 look like a "picnic."

"It is better for them [the Americans] to keep themselves away from us," he was quoted as saying Thursday night by Al Shabab Television, which he owns.

"Because if they come, Sept. 11 -- which they are crying over and see as a big thing -- will be a real picnic for them, God willing," he said.

The younger Hussein said that Washington would fail in ousting his father and that Americans could gain more from Iraq through peaceful relations. "They can get much more from Iraq by dialogue without resorting to the logic of force and war," he said.

At the United Nations, key Security Council members -- France, China, Russia, Germany, Mexico and now even staunch U.S. ally Britain -- insisted that inspectors deserve more time for their disarmament work and that war must wait.

An isolated U.S. is exploring its options: Give peace a chance, or go it alone? White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Friday that if Bush concludes that "we have reached the point of last resort" and that force is needed to disarm Iraq, the president would prefer "to have all of the world with the United States."

In the face of growing resistance in the Security Council, "that may not be achievable," Fleischer said. "But will that stop the president and the coalition from doing what it believes is necessary to protect the world? No, it will not."

A crucial factor in the decision about when and if to go to war comes Monday, when the chief U.N. arms monitors deliver a 60-day assessment of the inspectors' progress.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear watchdog, said his inspectors have received "reasonably good cooperation" from Iraq. But he said his counterpart overseeing chemical, biological and missile program inspections will report that his monitors feel that they have received considerably less than they need.

Under U.S. pressure to make Iraqi scientists available, Baghdad said Friday that the United Nations had asked to interview three more experts this weekend. Although a U.N. spokesman had no comment, Iraq's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the U.N. had requested interviews with three scientists Saturday and that Iraqi authorities had encouraged them to go.

The inspectors have been empowered to take scientists and their relatives away from the eyes of Iraqi minders -- even out of the country -- for confidential interviews. So far, the inspectors have formally interviewed four Iraqi weapons experts, and all of them insisted on having Iraqi witnesses present, claiming they didn't want their words misused.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, citing intelligence reports, said Thursday that the real reason was that scientists and their families have been threatened with death if they cooperate with inspectors. The White House has homed in on Iraq's apparent intimidation of scientists as "unacceptable" and a clear demonstration that Iraq has no intention of complying with the United Nations.

Former weapons inspector Timothy McCarthy, however, warned that even if the scientists agree to leave the country, the move might be a red herring. "It sounds to me like a typical Iraqi trap," he said. "There's going to be a hugely publicized trip of a scientist out of the country, and then he'll say there's nothing there."

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - World pressure mounted on the United States on Saturday to allow United Nations weapons inspectors more time to do their work in Iraq after they make a key report to the Security Council on Monday.

European Union president Greece said there was an emerging consensus in the 15-nation bloc that the inspectors should be given more time if chief inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei requested it.

"Obviously there is a consensus that, yes, we should give them the necessary time if they ask," Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou told a news conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The United States has said that time is running out for Iraq to disarm peacefully or face U.S.-led military action. But Western officials have said U.S. and British forces would not be fully in place for any war until late February.

Switzerland said it had offered to host last-ditch talks between the United States and Iraq on its neutral soil in a bid to head off a looming war. But Secretary of State Colin Powell played down the move.

In 1991, then Secretary of State James Baker met senior Iraqi leader Tareq Aziz in Geneva in an unsuccessful bid to persuade Baghdad to withdraw its troops from Kuwait on the eve of the Gulf War.

Papandreou said he expected EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday to declare full support for U.N. efforts to deal with the problem of Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction and urge a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

He said he had discussed the issue extensively by telephone with Powell on Friday and expected a further exchange in Davos later on Saturday.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, whose country agreed this week to send troops for a possible war, spoke of giving the arms monitors three more weeks to continue trying to eliminate Iraq's weapons programs.

"It would be our view that the inspectors need some more time to complete their work.

"There is a proposal that there be a further report (from Blix and ElBaradei) by mid-February. And we would think that's appropriate," Downer told reporters in Davos. "But it is already clear that Iraq has not fully cooperated."

Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, who met Powell in Washington on Friday, said Madrid would support extending the inspectors' mission by two or three weeks if it would help produce a breakthrough.

Any deadline for the inspectors to complete their work would have to be "close and very clear," she told the Spanish-language television channel CNN+.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa told Reuters in an interview that a war on Iraq would likely inflame the Middle East, fueling popular anger and anti-American unrest.

The former Egyptian foreign minister asked why the world would take that risk when U.N. weapons inspectors were able to do their job in Iraq.

Powell met Turkish leaders in Davos on Saturday and said he had discussed extensively U.S. requests to use Turkish bases for any war in Iraq but had not discussed deadlines.

In an interview with Saturday's Financial Times, he attacked calls to give the inspectors' significantly more time.

"I have yet to hear from any of my European colleagues as to when they would be satisfied with respect to inspections. And the trouble with this is...the issue is not inspectors. The issue is Iraq," Powell said.

How to deal with America? The European dilemma

By David North
25 January 2003

There comes a point in the development of every major political crisis when the essential underlying motivations and issues, long hidden from view, come to the surface. We have now arrived at that point in the crisis produced by the decision of the Bush administration to invade Iraq.

It is Iraq that is the immediate target of America’s military arsenal. But what is being foreshadowed in the increasingly bitter diplomatic dispute over the fate of Iraq is a direct and open conflict, potentially violent, between the major imperialist powers.

Much of the discussion of American war aims has focused on the Bush administration’s determination to seize control of Iraq’s oil wealth. This is, of course, a major factor in the calculations of the US government. But that objective, however important, is only part of a far broader and more ambitious goal. The United States seeks world hegemony, which means the political and economic reorganization of the entire world in the interests of the American ruling elite. This requires the subordination to its will of not only weak and underdeveloped countries such as Iraq, but also, and above all, its powerful imperialist rivals in Western Europe and Japan.

US War Minister Donald Rumsfeld’s contemptuous dismissal of the opposition of Germany and France to America’s war plans has brought into the open the long-simmering conflict between the United States and Europe. When asked by a reporter about European criticism of the Bush administration’s drive toward war, Rumsfeld replied, “You’re thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don’t. I think that’s old Europe. You look at the vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They’re not with France and Germany on this. They’re with the United States.”

Never before has the United States so openly attacked its long-time allies, called into question the unity of bourgeois Europe, and expressed so explicitly its goal of creating its own special sphere of influence on that continent, in direct opposition to France and Germany.

In his typically artless manner, Rumsfeld left no doubt that the United States has promoted the expansion of NATO—with the inclusion of weak former Warsaw Pact states that are easily manipulated by the United States—as a means of undercutting French and German influence in Europe.

The far-reaching implications of America’s hostility to Europe have not been lost on France, and this is the reason for its decision to drop its stance of studied equivocation and state its opposition to a war against Iraq more directly. It is not a humanitarian concern for the fate of Iraq’s people that accounts for the French shift, but rather the belated recognition that America’s drive for hegemony poses a threat to core political, economic and geo-strategic interests of the European bourgeoisie.

Throughout the 1990s the European ruling elites have lived in a state of semi-denial, pretending that their relationship with the United States would not be substantially affected by the demise of the USSR and that their own continental and global interests were in the long term compatible with those of the United States.

This exercise in wishful thinking ignored the fact that America’s postwar relationship with Europe between 1945 and 1991 was determined fundamentally by its appraisal of its own essential economic and geopolitical interests within the specific context of the Cold War. America’s attitude toward Europe was determined by the overriding need to (1) enforce the isolation of the Soviet Union and minimize its influence in Western Europe (“containment”) and (2) prevent social revolution at a time when the European working class was extremely militant and highly politicized.

The United States’ emphasis during that period on its alliance with Western Europe was, in fact, a departure from the historical norm. The more basic tendency of American capitalism, rooted in its somewhat belated emergence as a major imperialist power, had been to augment its world position at the expense of Europe.

The preconditions for the maturation of the United States as a major capitalist power during the nineteenth century was its persistent undercutting of European influence in the Americas, from the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s to the expulsion of Spain from Cuba in the late 1890s.

In the first half of the twentieth century, the United States expanded its global influence by undermining the colonial empires of the European imperialist powers. This was done not in the interest of democracy, but to open up world markets restricted by the colonial system.

To the extent that generally favorable economic conditions and its own immense wealth made it possible, the United States masked its predatory imperialistic appetites with a pose of altruistic benevolence. But despite its humanitarian posturing—as the defender of “four freedoms” and as the “arsenal of democracy”—the United States never for a moment forgot its own self-interest.

Nothing better illustrates the ruthless core of American diplomatic philanthropy than the bone-crunching terms laid out by Roosevelt to Churchill in 1940-41 as a precondition for American financial and military assistance during the height of Nazi Germany’s bombardment of Britain. Yes, Roosevelt agreed to “save” Britain, but it would cost a pretty penny. By the time the United States was finished with Britain, the old roaring imperial lion had been turned into America’s pussy cat—a transformation exemplified in the person of Britain’s present prime minister.

The exigencies of the post-World War II situation compelled the United States to nourish its alliance with the old imperialist powers of Europe and hold its own aggressive tendencies somewhat in check. Moreover, the general recovery and expansion of the world economy worked in favor of a mitigation of inter-imperialist rivalries. But the tendency toward the unilateral assertion of American interests, regardless of European concerns, remained active beneath the veneer of multilateralism. Indeed, a deterioration of world economic conditions generally had the effect of bringing latent conflicts into the open.

For example, in August 1971, when the American dollar came under attack in financial markets, President Richard Nixon abrogated the system of dollar-gold convertibility that had been the foundation of the international capitalist monetary system for a quarter century without bothering to consult with European leaders in advance. They were informed only that Nixon would have some interesting things to say about the world economy and that they could stay up late and watch his speech on American television. When asked whether the British, French and Germans might object to the American measures, US Treasury Secretary John Connolly replied, in his own distinct fashion, “F—k them.”

The collapse of the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the international framework upon which postwar diplomatic relations were based. There was no longer any need for the United States to prop up the Western European bourgeoisie as a line of defense against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the demise of the USSR created a vacuum of power that the United States was determined to exploit to its own advantage.

But the most important reason for the now unbridled aggressiveness of American foreign policy is to be found in the protracted and accelerating deterioration of the American economy. The use of military power is seen by significant sections of the ruling elite as a means of counteracting the long-term consequences of the decline in the world position of American capitalism and the threat posed by international competitors.

In words that appear prophetic, Leon Trotsky, among the greatest Marxists of the twentieth century, made the following warning in 1928:

“In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.”

Officials in the Bush administration have become increasingly blunt in laying out the consequences of a European refusal to fall into line behind the United States. As one official told the New York Times on Thursday, “Our goal is to rub their nose in reality, and then proceed to discuss what we do about it.”

And what is this reality? The Bush administration has indicated not all too subtly that French and German companies will be excluded from participating in the carve-up of Iraq’s oil industry in the aftermath of war. Even more serious, there have been suggestions that the United States, after occupying Iraq, will exert pressure on Iran, which is a critical supplier of oil to Western Europe.

From the standpoint of France and Germany, the behavior of the United States is utterly reckless and raises the danger of a complete breakdown of whatever remains of the entire legal and institutional framework that regulated the affairs of world capitalism. For the Western Europeans to submit to the diktats of the United States would mean to accept their relegation, in the words of the conservative French daily Le Figaro, “into a simple protectorate of the United States.” But to openly resist would raise the risk of a potentially catastrophic military confrontation with the United States. Either alternative, or even some middle road between the two, would profoundly destabilize relations among European countries. Moreover, the social consequences of conflict between the US and the “old” Europe would inevitably intensify internal class tensions.

The war against Iraq and America’s

drive for world domination

By David North
4 October 2002

The following is a report given by David North, chairman of the World Socialist Web Site editorial board, to a well-attended public meeting at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on October 1, 2002.

On September 17, 2002 the Bush administration published its “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” So far, there has been no serious examination of this important document in the establishment media. This is unfortunate, to say the least, because this document advances the political and theoretical justification for a colossal escalation of American militarism. The document asserts as the guiding policy of the United States the right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become, a threat to American interests. No other country in modern history, not even Nazi Germany at the height of Hitler’s madness, has asserted such a sweeping claim to global hegemony—or, to put it more bluntly, world domination—as is now being made by the United States.

The message of this document, stripped of its cynical euphemisms and calculated evasions, is unmistakably clear: The United States government asserts the right to bomb, invade and destroy whatever country it chooses. It refuses to respect as a matter of international law the sovereignty of any other country, and reserves the right to get rid of any regime, in any part of the world, that is, appears to be, or might some day become, hostile to what the United States considers to be its vital interests. Its threats are directed, in the short term, against so-called “failed states”—that is, former colonies and impoverished Third World countries ravaged by the predatory policies of imperialism. But larger competitors of the United States, whom the document refers to, in a revival of pre-World War II imperialist jargon, as “Great Powers,” are by no means out of the gun sights of the Bush administration. The wars against small and defenseless states that the United States is now preparing—first of all against Iraq—will prove to be the preparation for military onslaughts against more formidable targets.

The document begins by boasting that “The United States possesses unprecedented—and unequaled—strength and influence in the world.” It declares with breathtaking arrogance that “The US national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests.” This formula is so striking that it should be committed to memory: American Values + American Interests = A Distinctly American Internationalism. It is a very distinct sort of internationalism that proclaims what’s good for America is good for the world! As President Bush asserts in the introduction of the document, America’s values “are right and true for every person, in every society...”

These values are none other than a collection of the banal nostrums of the American plutocracy, such as “respect for private property”; “pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity”; “tax policies—particularly lower marginal tax rates—that improve incentives for work and investment”; “strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use”; “sound fiscal policies to support business activity.” The document then declares: “The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies—industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world.”

All these right-wing platitudes are asserted in the midst of a deepening world economic crisis, in which entire continents are suffering the consequences of market economics that have shattered whatever once existed of their social infrastructures and reduced billions of people to conditions that defy description. One decade after the dismantling of the USSR and the restoration of capitalism, the death rate of Russia exceeds its birthrate. South America, a laboratory where the International Monetary Fund has gleefully practiced its anti-social experiments, is in a state of economic disintegration. In Southern Africa, a substantial portion of the population is infected with the HIV virus. According to the World Bank,

These catastrophic conditions are the product of the capitalist system and the rule of the market. The strategic document acknowledges in passing that “half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day,” but, as to be expected, the prescription drawn up by the Bush administration is the more intensive application of the economic policies that are responsible for the misery that exists all over the world.

Defining its idea of a “distinctly American internationalism,” the document states that “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone...” In another passage, the document warns that the United States “will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.” In other words, the actions of the leaders of the United States will not be restrained by the conventions of international law.

In a study of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Telford Taylor—who worked as an assistant of the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson—wrote that “The laws of war do not apply only to the suspected criminals of vanquished nations. There is no moral or legal basis for immunizing nations from scrutiny. The laws of war are not a one-way street.”[2] The refusal of the United States to recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court is of immense international political significance, and testifies to the acute awareness of American leaders that their policies are of a criminal character and could subject them, if international law were enforced, to the most severe penalties.

As Telford Taylor stresses, the prosecution of the Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials was based on a new legal concept: that their planning for and decision to wage aggressive war constituted a crime. This charge took precedence even over the counts in the indictments that were related to the atrocities committed by the Nazis against Jews, civilians in occupied countries, and prisoners of war. In a memorandum prepared by Taylor arguing in support of indicting Nazi leaders for planning aggressive war, he wrote:

This issue is of extraordinary importance today—and not only in relation to the present ongoing and far-advanced preparations for an unprovoked American war against Iraq. If the precedent established at Nuremberg has any contemporary relevance, the entire strategy elaborated in this document proceeds outside the bounds of international law. The essential claim asserted in this document, which serves as the foundation of American strategy, is the right of the United States to take unilateral military action against another country without offering credible evidence that it is acting to prevent a clear and verifiable threat of attack. This assertion of all-encompassing powers to resort to violence whenever it decides to do so is justified with loosely-constructed language that cannot withstand even a cursory analysis: “We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.”

Who defines what a “rogue state” is? Is it any state that challenges, directly or indirectly, American interests? A list of all those countries that the Bush administration considers to be “rogue states,” not to mention potential “rogue states,” is a very long one. This list certainly includes Cuba. It might even, after the reelection of Gerhard Schroeder as chancellor, include Germany!

We should also ask for a precise definition of “terrorist.” This term is notoriously vague and subject to political manipulation. Moreover, what standard of evidence will be required to establish a link between a so-called “rogue state” and a “terrorist client” before the United States attacks the former? Just the other day, the president, his national security adviser and the secretary of defense announced that there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, without providing any factual substantiation to support this claim, and in contradiction to what is actually known about the antagonistic attitude of Iraq’s secular regime toward Islamic fundamentalist organizations.

Finally, the assertion of the right to take military action against “rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction” can only mean that the United States claims the right to attack whatever state it identifies as a potential threat. Though a state may not be, at present, a threat to the United States; though it may not at the present time be planning, let alone actively preparing, an attack against the United States, it may still be a legitimate target for an attack if the US government identifies it as a potential or embryonic threat to America’s national security.

A definition of “threat” that requires no overt action against the United States, but merely the potential to become a threat at some point in the future, would place virtually every country in the world on the list of possible targets for an American attack. This is not an exaggeration. The document speaks not only of “enemies,” but also of “potential adversaries,” and warns them not to pursue “a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” It directly warns China against attempting to acquire “advanced military capabilities,” asserting that by doing so “China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness”—that is, it will emerge as a threat that may require a preemptive military response by the United States.

While the report tells China that the pursuit of “advanced military capabilities” means following “an outdated path,” it proclaims hypocritically just two pages later that “It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge.” And this project entails a vast expansion of America’s military presence throughout the world. “To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of US forces.”

The document asserts repeatedly that the new doctrine of preemptive strikes against existing and/or potential threats, and the abandonment of the previous doctrine of deterrence, is a necessary response to the events of September 11, 2001, when the United States suddenly confronted a new, unprecedented and unimagined danger. “The nature of the Cold War threat,” the report asserts, “required the United States ... to emphasize deterrence of the enemy’s use of force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation.” Somewhat later, the document describes the Soviet Union as “a generally status quo, risk-adverse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense.”

For those of us for whom the 1980s is comparatively recent history, who still remember the 1960s, and even happen to know a few things about the history of the 1950s, these are remarkable words. Those unfamiliar with the history of the Cold War would hardly imagine that the authors of this strategic document—who now describe the USSR in almost nostalgic terms as a “status quo, risk-averse adversary” against whom a gentlemanly and polite deterrence was effective—are more or less the same people who, as recently as the 1980s, were describing the Soviet Union as the “focus of evil” against whom the United States had to prepare for all-out war. The present defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was closely associated with the right-wing Committee for the Present Danger, formed in the 1970s, which was bitterly opposed to arms control agreements with the Soviet Union. This organization demanded a massive military build-up against the USSR, and argued that it was possible for the United States to wage and win a nuclear war against the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration’s sponsorship of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), known as “Star Wars,” arose from the demand of extreme right-wing elements in the Republican Party—among whom are now to be found the principal dramatis personae who direct the policies of the Bush administration, especially Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz—for the development of technology that would make it possible for the United States to consider the use of nuclear weapons against the USSR to be a viable military option.

Here we come to the historical falsification and political deception that underlie the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy—the claim that the policies outlined in the report are essentially a response to the events of September 11, determined and shaped by the inescapable military obligations imposed upon the United States by the threat of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Far from being an exceptional response to the events of September 11, 2001, the plan for world domination outlined in the National Security Strategy of the Bush administration has been in development for more than a decade.

The origins of the National Security Strategy unveiled two weeks ago can be dated back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991. This had for the United States the most far-reaching significance. For nearly three-quarters of a century, the fate of American imperialism and the Soviet Union were inextricably linked. The October Revolution that brought the Bolshevik Party to power followed by only a few months the April 1917 entry of the United States into World War I. Thus, from the earliest days of its emergence as the principal imperialist power, the United States confronted the reality of a workers state that proclaimed the advent of a new historical epoch of world socialist revolution. Despite the Stalinist bureaucracy’s subsequent betrayal of the revolutionary internationalist ideals initially proclaimed by Lenin and Trotsky, the political aftershocks produced by the overthrow of capitalism in Russia continued to reverberate for decades—in the growth of the social consciousness and political militancy of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries, including the United States, and in the wave of anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggles that swept across the globe, especially in the aftermath of World War II.

Though it emerged from World War II as the leader of world capitalism, the United States was not in a position to organize the world as it saw fit. The initial expectation that the possession of the atomic bomb would enable the United States to intimidate and, if need be, destroy the Soviet Union was shattered by the Soviet production of a nuclear device in 1949. The victory of the Chinese Revolution that same year represented a devastating blow to America’s expectation that it would exercise unchallenged sway over Asia.

Throughout the early years of the Cold War a bitter battle raged within the ruling circles of the US government over how to deal with the Soviet Union. The ferocious anticommunist witch-hunting and political purges of the late 1940s and early 1950s were key elements of the environment in which this debate took place. A substantial faction of the ruling elite advocated a “rollback” strategy—that is, the destruction of the Soviet Union and the Maoist regime in China, even if this entailed the use of nuclear weapons. Another faction, associated with the State Department theorist George F. Kennan, advocated “containment.”

The conflict between these factions came to a head during the Korean War, as the Truman administration came close to authorizing the use of nuclear weapons against the Chinese army. At a press conference held on November 30, 1950, Truman was asked how he intended to deal with the entry of China into the Korean War. The president replied: “We will take whatever steps are necessary to meet the military situation, just as we always have.” He was then asked specifically if that included use of the atomic bomb, to which Truman replied, “That includes every weapon we have.” When pressed by stunned reporters to clarify this statement, Truman reiterated that use of the atomic bomb was being actively considered.[5]

The international uproar that ensued compelled the US government to retract Truman’s statement. Finally, the Truman administration rejected General MacArthur’s demand that 30 to 50 nuclear bombs be dropped on the Manchurian-Korean border to spread “a belt of radioactive cobalt” from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea. This proposal was not the brainchild of one mad general. This and similar ideas had been seriously pondered and supported. Among those who publicly advocated the use of nuclear weapons was Congressman Albert Gore, Sr., the father of the future vice president. Two factors led to the decision not to use nuclear bombs in the Korean War. First, there were serious doubts that it would prove effective in the existing military situation. Second, and more decisive, was the fear that the bombing of Korea might set into motion a political chain reaction, leading to a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. During the remaining decades of the Cold War, the real meaning of “deterrence” was not what the United States prevented the USSR from doing, but what the possibility of Soviet retaliation prevented the United States from doing.

This is not the place for an exhaustive discussion of the United States’ nuclear strategy during the Cold War, let alone of the Cold War as a whole. But for the purpose of understanding the events of the last decade and the present actions of the US government, it must be stressed that broad sections of the American ruling class chafed under the restraints that the existence of the Soviet Union placed upon the exercise of US military power. Throughout this period, there remained a powerful constituency within what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” that pushed relentlessly for a confrontation with the Soviet Union. As I have already noted, many of those who presently occupy powerful positions in the Bush administration were frantically advocating a massive anti-Soviet military buildup in the 1970s and 1980s, and even arguing that a nuclear strike against the USSR had to be considered a viable option.

The increasing aggressiveness of American foreign policy was not an exclusively Republican Party project. The administration of Jimmy Carter hit upon the idea of inciting Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan in order to destabilize the Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union. As Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, acknowledged several years ago, American operations in Afghanistan were well under way before the Soviet Union decided to intervene militarily in that country.

One further point must be made about Soviet-American relations during the Cold War. I believe that it can be strongly and persuasively argued that the degree of American aggressiveness was related to the general state of the world capitalist economy. During the heyday of the post-World War II expansion of international capitalism, the bitter internal struggles within the American ruling elite tended to be resolved on the basis of the arguments of those who advocated compromise with the Soviet Union. To the extent that general conditions of worldwide economic expansion allowed American capitalism to operate profitably within the geopolitical framework of the so-called East-West Divide, the American ruling elite made a strategic decision to avoid, or at least postpone, a nuclear confrontation with the USSR. Open military conflicts were limited to peripheral areas.

However, as world capitalism entered in the 1970s into a period of protracted stagnation and slump that arose from deep structural and systemic problems—of which the present recession is an advanced symptom—far more aggressive tendencies asserted themselves and found a sympathetic response within ruling circles. One might also add that the two great oil shocks of the 1970s—the first occurred in 1973 as a result of the decision of Arab states to impose a boycott on the sale of oil, the second followed the Iranian Revolution of 1979—increased the determination of the American ruling class to prevent any future disruption of its access to oil, natural gas and other essential strategic resources.

The massive military buildup of the 1980s seemed to indicate that powerful sections of the US ruling elite were willing to risk a major confrontation with the Soviet Union. This bellicose international policy was the mirror reflection of the domestic policies pursued by the Reagan administration, which initiated an aggressive and successful program of union-busting and the “rollback” of social reforms that had been won by the working class over the previous 50 years.

In the end, it was the Soviet bureaucracy that decided to liquidate the USSR. The self-dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991—the final betrayal of the heritage of the October Revolution by the Stalinist bureaucracy—created for American imperialism an unprecedented historical opportunity. For the first time it could operate in an international environment in which there did not exist any significant restraints—military or political—on the use of force to achieve its aims. From this point on, internal discussions on the strategic aims of the United States were taken over by the most vicious and reactionary tendencies.

The demise of the USSR, they declared, created for the United States the opportunity to establish an unchallengeable global hegemony. The task of the United States was to exploit what right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer referred to in 1991 as a “unipolar moment” to establish an absolutely dominant global position. The United States, argued Krauthammer, should not hesitate to use military power to get whatever it wanted. The Europeans and Japanese should be treated with contempt, and compelled to recognize that they had to approach the United States as supplicants. While it might be politically advisable for US leaders to pay lip service to multilateralism, that policy was, in reality, dead. The time had come for the United States to exercise its power unilaterally, “unashamedly laying down the rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them.”[6]

The grotesque Mr. Krauthammer probably did not realize when he wrote these words that he was vindicating a prediction made many years before by the greatest Marxist of the twentieth century. Writing in 1933, Leon Trotsky recalled that Germany instigated World War I to “organize” Europe. But the aims of American imperialism would prove to be far more ambitious. “The United States,” Trotsky wrote, “must ‘organize’ the world. History is bringing humanity face to face with the volcanic eruption of American imperialism.”[7]

The first Bush administration responded to the demise of the USSR by initiating a full-scale review of US military strategy. Its overriding objectives were to exploit aggressively the power vacuum left by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and, by so doing, establish a geopolitical stranglehold that would prevent any country from emerging as a credible competitor of the United States. The key to this project was to be the use of military power to intimidate and, if necessary, smash any enemy or adversary, existing or potential. In 1992, Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and then-general Colin Powell called for the implementation of vastly expanded operational objectives for US military forces. They stipulated that the military should be able to complete one major war in 100 days and two in less than 180 days.

The election of Bill Clinton did not produce any significant change in the increasingly aggressive attitude of American military planners. Under the slogan, “Shaping the World through Engagement,” the 1990s saw the emergence of a political consensus within both the Democratic and Republican parties that saw military power as the principal means by which the United States would secure long-term global dominance.

This insistence on the decisive role of military power arises not from the strength, but rather the underlying weakness of American capitalism. In essence, militarism is symptomatic of economic and social decline. As it loses, and with good reason, confidence in the economic strength of American capitalism vis-à-vis its major international rivals, and grows increasingly fearful about fissures within the domestic social structure, the ruling elite views military power as the means by which it can counteract all the troubling negative tendencies. As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote in March 1999, “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist—McDonald’s cannot flourish without a McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.... Without America on duty, there will be no America On Line.”

The issue of Iraq has played a central role in high-level discussions on America’s strategic ambitions. In a sense, the first war against Iraq occurred just a few months too early for American imperialism. In January-February 1991, with the fate of the USSR still uncertain, the Bush administration considered it too risky to overstep the boundaries of the UN mandate and attempt unilaterally to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. But almost from the moment the war had come to a close, there was a sense within powerful sections of the ruling elite that an immense opportunity had been missed. Within the context of the new strategic aim to prevent the emergence of any power or combination of powers that might challenge American domination, the conquest of Iraq came to be seen as a crucial strategic objective. In countless documents produced by right-wing strategists, it was openly argued that the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein would provide the United States with strategic control over oil, the supremely critical resource that is essential to the economies of its potential economic and military rivals in Europe and Japan. Policy specialists George Friedman and Meredith Lebard argued in their influential book The Coming War with Japan, published in 1991:

Except in the American mass media, where discussion of this sensitive issue is virtually taboo, it is widely recognized all over the world that oil, not so-called weapons of mass destruction, is the central preoccupation of the United States. While the war in Afghanistan provided the opportunity for the establishment of new American military bases in Central Asia—which is believed to hold the second largest reserves of petroleum in the world—the conquest of Iraq would immediately place the second largest reserve of crude oil in the Persian Gulf region under the control of the United States. To quote the ineffable Thomas Friedman, “[H]aving broken Iraq, we own Iraq.”

The Bush administration, whose leading personnel consists of people like Cheney who honed their criminal skills as oil industry executives, looks at the Persian Gulf as the potential jewel in the crown of an emerging American empire. If domination of that region were combined with effective control of the oil and natural gas reserves that will be eventually pumped out of Central Asia, the leaders of American imperialism believe that they will have achieved the long-term strategic hegemony that has eluded the United States for so long. This vision of a world dominion, secured through control of strategic global resources, is a reactionary fantasy that has found an enthusiastic audience among broad sections of the Establishment. The frame of mind that prevails within America’s political and financial aristocracy is reflected in a new book by Robert Kaplan, entitled Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos. In a typical passage, he declares:

This drivel is of interest only as a sort of bizarre cultural phenomenon—an example of the delusionary state of mind within a ruling elite that has lost all sense of history and of contemporary reality, not to mention common decency.

It does not seem to occur to Mr. Kaplan that to the extent that the United States seeks to implement these fantasies, it will encounter opposition: first of all, from those who are the immediate targets of American depredations—the masses in the countries targeted for conquest. There is also the opposition of America’s imperialist rivals in Europe and Japan, who simply cannot accept a situation that threatens them with economic strangulation. It is precisely the growing fears over the implications of America’s long-term strategic aims—the establishment of global domination—that find expression in the increasingly open opposition to the US plans for war in Iraq. A likely consequence of a US war against Iraq will be an enormous intensification of inter-imperialist conflicts—principally between the United States and its major economic and geopolitical competitors. The stage will be set for World War III.

So far, in discussing the reasons for the drive of the United States for war, we have concentrated on the global geo-strategic and economic motivations. But there is yet another crucial factor in the political equation—that is, the increasingly explosive state of social relations in the United States and the threat that this poses to capitalist rule.

Throughout the past decade US policy experts have expressed concern over growing signs of a decay of social cohesion. Samuel Huntington, who is best known for his book The Clash of Civilizations, warned several years ago that the end of the Cold War had deprived the US government of a cause that could foster mass support for the state. There did not seem to exist, he wrote, any genuine sense of national interests that commanded mass support. The problem noted by Huntington, however, is not primarily ideological. It is rooted in increasingly irreconcilable social conflicts within American society. It is becoming ever more difficult to mask the massive social inequality that presently characterizes American society. The concentration of extraordinary levels of personal wealth among a very small percentage of the population has far-reaching social implications, no matter how vigorously the mass media glorifies the rich and their lifestyles.

The erosion of democratic norms and the ever-more apparent dysfunctional state of American politics are objective consequences of social polarization. In the year 2000, for the first time since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, it was not possible to arrive at a democratic resolution of the election. In the end, the financial plutocracy handpicked the president.

The United States is beset by social problems for which the existing political setup has no answers. Indeed, it is unable to even address them. The existing two-party system, whose personnel are utterly dependent on the financial support of the plutocracy, is thoroughly unrepresentative of the general population. How else can one explain the fact that the deep unease and ambivalence felt by millions of Americans toward the drive toward war find virtually no articulation in the political establishment. Rather, the political establishment, whose constituencies are different fractions of the richest two percent of the population, is absolutely incapable of giving voice to the concerns and interests of the broad masses.

The current economic crisis has profoundly deepened the estrangement between the working class and the ruling class. The ongoing exposures of the criminality of the corporate elite threaten to transform the economic crisis—which is, in itself, of a fairly serious character—into a general crisis of class rule. To no small extent, the Bush administration hopes that dramatic successes overseas will somehow distract the people from the domestic crisis. But history provides many examples of the catastrophes that befell reactionary regimes that played with war to keep domestic problems at bay. Governments that prescribe war as a medication for a failing domestic economy and intensifying social conflict may suffer all sorts of unforeseen side effects—of which revolution may prove to be the most serious.

The drive of the Bush administration toward war confronts every student with political and, I might add, moral questions of the greatest magnitude. First of all, let me make this point as emphatically as I can. The policies of the Bush administration are not merely mistaken ... they are criminal. Those responsible for these policies are not misguided individuals. They are political criminals. But the criminality of their policy flows from the essentially criminal character of American imperialism—which strives to shore up a faltering capitalist system through a policy of plunder and mass murder. There is really no essential difference between the methods employed by the ruling elite within the United States and those it uses internationally.

The recent exposures of corporate corruption have a far-reaching social significance. The daily operations of American business have assumed a criminal character. The ruling elite has accumulated massive wealth through the willful and systematic plundering of industrial, financial and social resources. American CEOs could sum up their tenures at the corporations they wrecked by slightly modifying the words of Caesar: “I came, I saw, I stole.” There is not, in fact, any major difference, between the Mafia-like “biznessmen” who have plundered Russia during the past decade and the criminal gang of CEOs who have looted their corporations. Nor is there any fundamental difference in the methods used by the American capitalist class to achieve its international objectives. It wants Iraqi oil, and so it intends to steal it—with the help of the United States military.

It is the responsibility of students to oppose these criminals—but opposition must be based on a scientific understanding of politics and the social dynamics of capitalist society. A serious and sustained fight against imperialist war cannot be separated from a struggle against the socioeconomic interests which give rise to war—that is, to capitalism. Moreover, that fight can be successful only to the extent that it strives to mobilize the mass social force within the United States and internationally that stands objectively in opposition to capitalism. That social force is the working class, which comprises the overwhelming mass of the people in modern capitalist society.

Thus, at the very heart of the struggle against war is the organization and mobilization of the working class as an independent political force. Within the United States, this means, first and foremost, liberating the working class from the political domination of the Democratic Party and building a new, independent, socialist party. The programmatic cutting edge of such a party must be its commitment to a struggle against imperialism based on the perspective of the international unity of the working class.

Such a party exists in the United States. It is the Socialist Equality Party, which is in political solidarity with the International Committee of the Fourth International. I ask you all to consider joining it.

1. PovertyNet, Poverty Reduction and the World Bank, World Bank Executive Summary.
2. The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (New York, 1992), p. 641.
3. Ibid, p. 51.
4. Ibid, pp. 51-52.
5. Stanley Weintraub, MacArthur’s War: Korea and the Undoing of an American Hero
6. Foreign Affairs, vol. 70, no. 1, 1991, p. 33.
7. Writings of Leon Trotsky 1933-34 (New York, 1998) p. 302.
8. New York, 1991. pp. 210-11.
9. New York, 2002, p. 153. (New York, 2000) pp. 253-54.

** Blueprint for a US colonial regime

in Baghdad.

submit to private interviews.

drive for world domination.

Folks, Friends, Amigos,

****************************************

Blueprint for a US colonial regime

in Baghdad

By Peter Symonds 21 January 2003

Casting about for a pretext for war

Washington insists Iraqi scientists

submit to private interviews

By Peter Symonds 25 January 2003

How to deal with America? The European dilemma

By David North 25 January 2003

The war against Iraq and America’s

drive for world domination

By David North 4 October 2002

By Peter Symonds
21 January 2003

By Peter Symonds
25 January 2003

By David North
25 January 2003

By David North
4 October 2002