An analysis of the "War on Terror":

Summary:

This is not just a war for oil but part of an overall drive for global hegemony (‘full spectrum dominance’) by the dominant section of the US elite. The US also wishes to strengthen its regional dominance replacing Saudi Arabia with Iraq. Even if the UN backs war it does not change by one iota the reasons for or consequences of the war.

The war could be short and sharp but its aftermath will be prolonged

US wishes to capture and control Iraq’s oil reserves because:

1. Failure of expected Caspian Sea oil bonanza.

2. Quantity and Quality of Iraqi oil reserves.

3. Benefit to US/UK companies.

4. Weaken or destroy OPEC, prevent switch to euro.

5. Ensure continued oil supply to US.

6. As part of resolution of a problem of accumulation of capital.

US is not concerned with democracy or human rights in Iraq:

1. Supported Saddam’s regime in the past

2. Will impose military occupation but not de-Baathicisation of Iraq.

3. Supports dictators and human rights violators worldwide.

The Saddam regime is now a corrupt family/clan/security apparatus structure and its most resolute opponents are the Kurdish and progressive opposition.

This war will only strengthen fundamentalism and terrorism (but no real link between the secular Baathist regime and the fundamentalists of Al Qaeda has been proven). Socialists should oppose all terror, whether its militant Islamic or state imperialist.

This war will be a massive waste of expenditure, money which could be spent eliminating poverty worldwide.

Israel, a state which constantly flouts UN resolutions, may use this war as a cover for escalation of the offensive against the Palestinians or possibly mass expulsions.

Saddam developed/used weapons of mass destruction with western assistance in the 70s and 80s, but since the Gulf War this capacity much reduced or ended.

The EU elite is reluctant to fall in behind drive to war, fearing US dominance and wishing to retain some influence in Middle East and elsewhere.

This war not in interests of the American people as it will cause further suppression of civil liberties and diversion of resources to the military.

Ireland & the War:

There are three competing pressures on the Irish elite, who will violate democratic rights if necessary in pursuing its policy:

1. All out support for the war under US pressure.

2. More nuanced approach ‘pro UN’ to conform to European mainstream.

3. Simulating an ‘anti-war’ stance under pressure from below.

The Anti-War Movement:

1. What’s needed now is a mass anti-war movement with open democratic structures.

2. Socialists need to link anti-war sentiment to anti-capitalism.

3. The movement must be broadened to working class communities.

4. Properly planned civil disobedience/non violent direct action and mass protest are complimentary components of anti-war activism.

Anti War Strategy:

What is needed now is to build a mass democratic anti-war movement. It is not sufficient for the IAWM to continue as a coalition of groups. The local groups must be democratically constituted. A geographical carve up by various groups will not do. Let the groups cooperate to build a mass movement and within that movement there can be an open struggle of ideas with the best ones winning. The leadership of the movement must reflect its base and should be democratically chosen and operate transparently. The organisational representatives could remain if necessary to ensure diverse political representation. The movement must be collectively controlled by the steering committee.

There is a need to link the anti-war sentiment with anti-capitalism, since this war is so intimately linked to capitalism. This is a unique opportunity to openly argue for and win over people to socialist ideas. It is a fact that the majority of those interested initially in the movement will be from the upper sections of the working class, commonly called the middle class, especially youth and students. Of course it would be a positive result to win them to socialist politics, though they are most likely to be attracted to the SWP and just as likely to fall away again. All left parties are likely to recruit to a greater or lesser degree as a result of the growth of the movement though it is the SWP that will initially benefit most, given their central role in building the movement and their control of local groups. The Labour Party is also set to benefit, given their large organisation, resources at their disposal and greater media coverage. Their vague and opportunistic politics means it is easier for them to recruit ‘middle class’ people coming into contact with progressive politics for the first time. It’s also very likely that they will now maintain their anti-war position even if the invasion gets UN backing because they see how much benefit they can reap from it.

We should work for the broadening of the IAWM but continue to openly argue for socialist politics within the movement and continue the ideological struggle against social democracy. It is crucial that we argue and work to embed the movement in working class communities and work with others such as the SP who shares the same class orientation.

We should continue to work with Grassroots Gathering because it has mobilised a section of young people committed to anti-capitalist political activity. They have given a lead in developing new innovative types of direct action and a useful antidote to the authoritarian and conservative nature of the traditional radical left. At the same time they have made a fetish of individual direct action to a certain agreed and have little or no connection to workers struggles. However the WSM offer a constructive link between Marxists and these people. We should continue to argue for a combination of planned, focused direct action and mass protest.

Facts:

This is an attempt to present a Marxist analysis of the developing drive towards war on Iraq. This does not entail a ‘prophetic’ mode of analysis, which predicts with certainty what will happen, but by looking at the current balance of forces and socio-economic situation at a local and world level, attempts to outline possible outcomes. The primary purpose of this is to be able to build a coherent anti-war strategy based on a correct analysis of the nature of unfolding events.

This war is not just about oil but is about continued US political hegemony in the Middle East. To this end Iran and Syria could well be the next target for American intervention. The US elite are particularly worried about Saudi Arabia on two counts. Firstly they are worried about the destabilisation or overthrow of the Saudi regime and its replacement by a militant Islamic regime, hostile to the West, with all the economic consequences that would entail, especially the loss of control of vast oil resources and the cataclysmic effect on the whole Islamic world and especially the Middle East. Secondly, and more likely, is either a sudden or gradual shift in position of the Saudi elite, with the more anti-Western and militant section becoming increasingly dominant again leading to loss of political influence and control of oil for the US. US control of Iraq could be seen as preventing the first scenario emerging and retaining control of large oil resources and major influence in the Middle East, in the case of the second scenario of the loss of Saudi through regime slippage. Iraq would also provide an alternative base for US military forces if they had to leave Saudi. Finally capture of Iraq would weaken Saudi Arabia’s ability to dominate OPEC.

Key sections of US ruling class now believe they can dominate the world as never before, full spectrum domination. Other sections may have misgivings about the efficacy of this strategy but these misgivings are gradually waning, as evidenced by the fact that all but one Democrat voted in Congress to give Bush special wartime powers. So its not just war for oil or even dominance of the Middle East but part of a rolling campaign to ensure world dominance. The Bush regime has made it quite clear that this is part of a greater and continuing ‘War on Terror’ with unlimited remit, rules being written as they go along. This is illustrated by the fact that the initial focus of the War on Terror was those countries ‘harbouring’ terrorists whereas now the focus is on weapons of mass destruction (except the USA, Israel, Britain, Russia etc.) American capitalism is fighting to extend and deepen its global political and economic dominance. It wants to crush key enemies or rivals, will move on to Iran, North Korea, China next. This war will involve the US acting alone or in shifting coalitions with other nations. This is at a time when world capitalism has been on the offensive for over two decades, with the working class movement at its weakest. This view has been gaining increasing currency since the end of the cold war…that the US can unilaterally lay down the rules of a new world order. This is illustrated by a quote from a Bush admin National Security Strategy document (Sept. 17th 2002) which states that the US will ‘use its unparalleled military strength… to extend the benefits of free markets and free trade to every corner of the world’. Central to their thinking is the view that military might translates easily into political advantage, a view clearly disproved by the post ‘liberation’ situation in Afghanistan. The US may topple the Baathist regime quickly but face a chaotic and messy post-war situation, not only in a splintered Iraq but also in the rest of a disturbed Middle East. The war might also cause a short term jump in oil prices consequent inflationary pressure on the US economy. We are possibly entering a period of great instability at a world level.

It should be remembered though that no development is inevitable, that Marxism is not an activist’s crystal ball. Only the passage of time will tell whether a particular analysis based on the balance of forces in the present was correct or not. The US ruling elite are pragmatic and despite the dominance of the ‘lunatic fringe’ at the moment, they will adjust their actions if necessary. This depends almost wholly on the resistance their project encounter. This resistance can take many forms, whether from the ruling classes of rival states or blocs, mass resistance in the USA itself or popular resistance in the South or indeed growing doubts within the US elite itself about the efficacy of the project.

Professor David Harvey, the leading radical geographer, has put forward the thesis that the crucial element in explaining this war is the over-accumulation of capital in the United States economy. In recent years this has occurred because East Asian economies have recovered from the collapse of the late 1990s, generating vast capital surpluses, instead of opportunities for investment of American surplus capital. Combined with the US’s switch from domination of global production to domination of global finance since the 1970’s and the growing resistance to world expansion by trans-national corporations, this has brought about a crisis for US capital. The war on Iraq, indeed the whole ‘war on terrorism’ campaign) offers, at least temporarily, a solution to this crisis. Increased military spending on a massive scale will absorb some of the surplus. New markets will be opened to US capital or perhaps more accurately the US trans-nationals will gain a competitive edge in the markets newly won to the USA’s sphere of influence. The control of the supply of oil, as global reserves diminish will give the American capitalism a marked advantage over competitors.

How might the war develop? There are a number of possible scenarios: It could be a short opening campaign, with intensive bombing followed by ground invasion, with an almost instantaneous collapse of the hated Baathist regime. Contrary to some left analysis, there would be no intense street fighting in Baghdad and most of the elite would turn sides immediately. The imperialists would have secured their goal of removing Saddam and controlling Iraq’s oil fairly rapidly. The goal of the Bush regime is to install a military proconsul in Baghdad before installing a puppet regime or even more drastically redrawing the whole map of the Middle East a la Sykes Picot to protect the Israeli and Saudi states i.e. uniting Jordan and Iraq under King Abdullah. However, their problems would only have begun: popular uprising in the south, expansion southward of Kurdish control, desire of population to de-Boathouse society, resentment at US military control, disagreement amongst the Iraqi opposition and the possible revival of the Communist Party/working class movement, the growth of fundamentalism in Iraq and surrounding countries. The less likely scenario is a prolonged campaign. This will only occur if the regimes forces hold firm and put up strong resistance or if the Iraqi people, particularly the Sunni population regard US rule as a worse alternative to Saddam. I think this is unlikely.

During the US oil companies vastly overestimated the quality and quantity of oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region and thought tapping into this vast reserve would reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East. This, along with geo-political factors such as encircling Russia and crushing the Taliban, played a certain role in the war in Afghanistan. The plan to bring a pipeline from Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and on to Pakistan amply illustrates this, as does the US backing for dictatorial post-communist regimes in the Central Asian republics. It has now emerged that the Caspian Sea reserves were vastly overestimated and that the oil is of very poor quality, though there are large reserves of natural gas, hence the sudden turning of attention to Iraq with its huge high quality reserves.

Iraq has worlds second largest oil reserves and its oil is very high quality and inexpensive to produce, making it one of worlds most profitable oil sources. US companies will benefit by getting contracts to upgrade Iraq’s deteriorating oil industry infrastructure. Top of list to get these contracts will be Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was chief executive. Already US companies refine 90% of Iraqi crude oil exports. They want full and undisputed control, they want exclusive rights. Oil companies are already conferring with the US government about post war control of Iraqi oil; this may even lead to privatisation of the Iraqi National Oil Company.

Opening up Iraqi oil industry would reduce price of oil rapidly, with devastating effects on other oil–producing countries. One reason the US regime wants to secure supply of oil is in case Venezuela’s supply is cut off by the left leaning Chavez government. US also greatly fears the spread of the Chavez initiative to barter oil with other commodities directly by computerised swaps or counter trade deals, effectively beginning a process of cutting the dollar out of the oil transaction currency cycle (Venezuela has already made an oil for doctors deal with Cuba and has made 12 barter deals with other Latin American countries). But its not just about giving US/UK companies control of Iraqi oil because petrol is of huge importance for the western capitalist economy and central to the whole system of capitalist production. General Anthony Zinni, commander in chief of US Central Command stated in 1999 that the US ‘must have free access to the region’s resources’.

Progressive Iraqi and Kurdish organisations oppose the war, replacing Saddam’s regime with a western client regime or just a neo-baathist government. Just look at the regime that has replaced the Taliban in Afghanistan..no democracy, women’s rights etc. In the course of ‘liberating’ Afghanistan US bombs killed more civilians than were killed in the twin towers and they replaced the Taliban with a bunch of drug dealing warlords, with Karzai correctly characterised as the major of Kabul. The ‘democracy’ the US installed in Afghanistan is an indication of what kind of ‘regime change’ we can expect from the Americans. The US is not concerned about human rights or democracy. US opposed the formation of an International War Crimes Court. In fact the US supports and arms human rights violators worldwide, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Colombia, Indonesia, and Turkmenistan.

It is only the struggle of the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples themselves who can liberate Iraq from this oppressive regime. ‘Salvation from dictatorship is a task for the Iraqi people and their democratic forces’. We need to build an effective solidarity movement. The actions of the Baathist regime have played a major role in the terrible situation of the Iraqi people. The US have never assisted the struggle against the Baathist regime: In 1991 the ordinary people and rank and file soldiers in southern Iraq rose in a massive revolt against Saddam US did nothing to help and allowed the regime to crush the revolt unhindered. In 1988 when Saddam’s regime gassed 5,000 Kurdish civilians in the town of Halabja neither the US nor Britain took any action, because they supported Saddam in the war against Iran. Two of the people short-listed by the US as possible puppet successors to Saddam in a US controlled Iraq are war criminals who defected from the Baathist regime: General Nizar Al-Khazraji was the commander in charge of the attack on Halabja and General Najib Al-Salihi played an important role in the invasion of Kuwait and the repression of the post Gulf War popular uprisings against Saddam.

The opposition is disparate, much of it simply favouring US intervention as the quickest way of removing the Baathist regime. Two important straws in the wind: the extreme disquiet of the INC with American plans to impose a military occupation administration and refusal to give a commitment to de-Baathicise Iraq post-Saddam or to hold elections in the immediate future. Hand picked Iraqi’s would only have a ‘consultative’ role in the ruling of the country during this period.

The nature of the regime is that it is a corrupt state capitalist regime, though this has changed in recent years. The middle class and working classes which grew in the boom years of the 1970s have been decimated during the war and sanctions era of the 1990s. Saddam’s support base has shrunk to his family and Tikriti tribal circle along with the brutal security apparatus. Saddam has recently tried to shore up his rule by making pacts with the tribal elements in society, offering them bribes and seemingly arming them. He also hopes that this element along with MK exiled Iranian militia can be used to cow the restless population of Iraq’s cities. The regime has engaged in ferocious persecution of its own people. His greatest fear and the west’s greatest desire is an internal coup which would remove Saddam but leave the Baathist regime intact. Its most resolute opponents have been the Kurdish people and the Iraqi Communist Party not the ‘Johnny come lately’ of the CIA sponsored INC. Its massive oil revenues accrued from the nationalisation of the oil industry in 1972 meant ordinary Iraqi’s benefited from expansion of health and education services. These advances wiped out by involvement in war with Iran, First Gulf War and the sanctions.

Socialists oppose all terrorism, whether the imperial terrorism of the US or the vicious terrorism of Bin Laden and his pampered sons of the Saudi elite. We refuse to accept the spurious choice between them. We proudly support the democratic and progressive forces in the Middle East who strive to build societies based on freedom and equality in their struggle against both fundamentalism and imperialism. This war and the occupation of Iraq will further fuel fundamentalism and possibly drive large numbers of young Muslims into militant Islamic organisations. The so-called war against terrorism has also led to a rise in racism against Arab people and the demonisation of Muslim people. Fundamentalists only constitute a small minority of the Muslim community worldwide. George Bushes unelected regime is heavily influenced by Christian fundamentalists. This also raises the possibility of further 9/11 style attacks in Western countries, though we should be wary of warnings of imminent attacks from Western governments. This in turn would lead to further ruling class offensives against civil liberties and the working class movement. We should not underestimate how far they are prepared to go to implement their wish list by using these opportunities to further crush systemic opposition.

Massive amounts of money being wasted on this war; this could be spent on a war against poverty. In the US Bushes administration is cutting back drastically on public services while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, while the poor and ordinary working people of America who are the victims of Bushes crazy drive to war. White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey admitted that the war on Iraq could cost $100 to $200 billion. This estimate was based on the presumption that the war will run smoothly ‘to plan’. The price of a short war and a five year occupation of Iraq would cost the US up to $300 billion. It has been estimated that $2.36 billion would provide health insurance for the all the uninsured children in families below the poverty line in the USA. Not even counting the increased expenditure on the war against Iraq, one months normal military expenditure by the Bush administration would lift every American child out of poverty for one whole year!

Israel has flouted UN resolutions, maintains weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear ones, threatens her neighbours, illegally occupies the Palestinian territory, routinely abuses human rights, operates an apartheid system internally, targets civilians etc. yet US backs the rogue behaviour of the Israeli state. Many prominent Jewish people worldwide have stated their opposition to Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians and the US led drive to war. This is in the great radical Jewish tradition of denouncing injustice and working for peace and social progress. This war is not in the interests of either the Palestinian or Israeli peoples.

There is a grave danger that the ruling elite in Israel will use the cover of the war to complete the right-Zionist project of creating an exclusively Jewish state between the sea and the Jordan River by transfer of most of the Palestinian population or at least escalating the attacks on Palestinians. The US attack on Iraq and an Israeli offensive will strengthen fundamentalism amongst Palestinian, lead to more suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. This constant state of crisis also allows the Israeli ruling class to weather the storm of resentment caused by Likud corruption, increasing poverty of the Israeli working class and growing resentment at the influence of orthodox parties.

We have to redouble our efforts to bring about the end of the occupation and the creation of a democratic Palestinian state. This could lead to the exposure of the deep class and ethnic divisions in Israeli society and the utter corruption of the Palestinian elite, with the possibility of the emergence of radical left forces in both societies committed to the establishment of a united secular democratic state in all of historic Palestine. We also have to be aware of the dangers of reactionary forces whether fascist or Stalinist (such as the KPRF) using the current situation to promote anti-Semitism and attacks on Jewish communities. We reject any attempt to attack or blame Jewish people for the policies of the Israeli state. It is totally incorrect to denigrate the enormity of the holocaust or to compare Israeli repression and occupation with the Nazi’s. The important point here is that the Palestinian people bear no guilt for that enormous crime against humanity. While the Israeli states policies are based on racism and right wing nationalism, it is not fascism, although some of the extreme Jewish fundamentalist groups display traits very similar to far-right organisations. We also have to vigorously oppose attempts by the right to categorize any opposition to the Israeli state as anti-semitism.

There is no evidence that Hussein is now capable of now developing weapons of mass destruction: Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector has said: ‘the worst fears of a retained Iraqi capability, a nuclear device for instance, were without substance’. The London based International Institute for Strategic Studies has stated that ‘it would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile production facilities’ which are essential for the development of a nuclear weapon. Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-intelligence has openly admitted that the US administration has been consistently lying about evidence of Iraq’s weapons building program: ‘basically, cooked information is working its way into high level pronouncements, and there is a lot of unhappiness about it in the intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA’. It seems the US is determined to go to war one way or another: Rumsfeld has stated that if no weapons of mass destruction found then it proves that the Iraqis have ‘successfully defeated’ the inspections process.

During the 1980s there is no doubt that the Baathist regime produced and used chemical weapons and was attempting to develop biological and possibly nuclear weapons. Saddam’s purpose was to use these weapons in his war with Iraq and against internal opposition and to rival Israel’s nuclear capacity. All this was carried out with the complicity, assistance and knowledge of the West and the Soviet block, both of whom saw Saddam as a bulwark against the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. The US was aware of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons since the at least March 1984 when a UN team confirmed Iraqi use. During the 1980s, when Iraq was at war with Iran, the US provided ‘crop spraying’ helicopters to Iraq which were subsequently used in the chemical attack on Halabja. The U.S. seconded air force officers to work with their Iraqi counterparts and approved technological exports to Iraq which assisted Iraq in improving its missile range with the full knowledge that the Iraqi regime were firing missiles at Iranian cities with the intention of killing civilians. So supportive was the Republican administration, with George Bush senior as vice-president, of Saddam that it blocked bills condemning Iraq in both the House of Representatives (1985) and the Senate (1988). The US had no problems with Saddam when he was butchering communists, Kurds and Shia Muslims or invading Iraq. British, American and other European companies sold the technology and arms to Iraq throughout the 1980s.

This is not a war against terror; the secular Baathist regime has no connections with Al Qaeda and played no proven role in the September 11th attack. Most of AQ leaders are members of the Saudi elite, and the only armed AQ operatives in Iraq operate in the northern territories which are outside Saddam’s control since the first Gulf War. This is the Ansar al-Islam group which operates from the territory controlled by the western-backed Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. No evidence of involvement of Ansar in anti-Western terrorism. In a May 2002 US State Department study ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’ there is no mention of an Iraq/Al Qaeda link. Why is Saudi, the most fundamentalist regime in the world, with an appalling human rights record left untouched. This war will actually increase the alienation of Muslims lead to increased support for fundamentalism. There was no talk of an Iraqi link in the aftermath of Sept 11th, only emerged after Afghanistan sorted…rolling campaign.

The newly enlarged EU will rival the US in terms of economic power and market potential, with an aggregate GDP almost equal to the US in 2004 ($9.6 trillion vs. $10.5 trillion). The Euro-imperialists are worried about the war because of the growth of mass opposition to the war. They don’t object to intervention, exploitation and dominance in the developing world, they just object to the US having the sole licence. Hence their enthusiasm for the development of a Euro Army/RRF which would allow them to intervene militarily in North Africa and the Middle East. They are also worried at the loss of influence in the Middle East and damage to the interests of European oil companies in Iraq. They also fear the war would destabilise Middle East and Central Asia for capitalism. Also competition for access to oil resources of Iraq, with French and Russian companies in place to exploit these resources once sanctions lifted and worried about American entry into market. France already has partial ownership of the Iraqi Petrochemical Company. On the other hand western Europe and Japan very dependent on Middle Eastern oil, unlike US (only 20% of US oil imports from Middle East), so US guarantor of supply to these regions..gives them enormous leverage. US/UK companies afraid their European rivals will gain a long-term advantage in the global oil business.

Another possible aim of the US ruling class is also linked with rivalry to a newly emerging Euro-imperialism: To reverse the switch by Iraq from dollar standard to Euro standard (Nov. 2000) and prevent a nightmare scenario where OPEC switches its international transactions from dollar to Euro standard (accelerating the fall of the value of the dollar viz. the Euro, with disastrous consequences for the US economy). This trend already signalled by Iran’s active consideration of switching. If OPEC switched to the euro, oil consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their reserve funds and replace them with euros which could lead to a currency collapse and massive inflation in the US. It is possible that the section of the US elite now in power see the toppling of Saddam as a sort of pre-emptive strike to initiate an increase in Iraqi oil production far in excess of OPEC quotas, reduce global oil prices and dismantle OPEC’s price controls and prevent the cartels switch to pricing oil in euros and perhaps lead to the dissolution of OPEC.

The anti-war movement is not anti-American. This war is not in the interests of the American people. In fact the US gov. is using the ‘War against terror’ to repress democratic/civil rights in the US. Just as the ‘war against communism’ led to the McCarthyite witch-hunt of leftists and liberals, this war has meant open season on Muslims and Arabs in the US and may well extend to left/liberal critics. Thousands of people have been imprisoned without trial under the anti-terror laws introduced by the Bush regime. In fact this is part of an offensive against the rights of the American people by the elite Bush represents.

The position that this war would be ok if only it had UN sanction is ridiculous. This would not change by one iota the reasons why the war was being prosecuted or its effects on the Iraqi people. The UN is simply an organised clique of regional powers competing or cooperating to divide the spoils, with the US increasingly dominant. While it is objectively positive that the US faces difficulties in imposing its dominance because of blockages in the UN structure this should blind us to what the UN really is. We should not forget that it is the UN that imposed the criminal sanctions on Iraq. Sanctions have killed half a million Iraqi children and have strengthened the Baathist regime. The elite have not suffered; it is the masses that have paid the price. They have to concentrate on survival rather than resisting the regime. In a war it would be ordinary people who would suffer (in the last war 100,000 Iraqis died).

What alternative does the anti-war camp offer?

Firstly, this is an imperialist war, so we have no obligation to offer any alternative means by which imperialist can control Iraq. The only obligation we have is to outline how the Iraqi and Kurdish people might be assisted in their liberation struggle and how the threat to regional and world peace might be tackled.

We must increase our solidarity work with progressive Iraqi and Kurdish forces. The left played a leading role through CARDRI in the70s and 80s. This solidarity work must be renewed as an integral part of the anti-war campaign.

We must continue to campaign against sanctions which are causing immense suffering for the ordinary people of Iraq. The lifting of sanctions would improve the material conditions of the population and open the possibility of increasing opposition to the Baathist regime. Revolutions sometimes happen when things begin to improve and people can look up from the task of survival.

All states harbouring weapons of mass destruction must be opened to international inspection. A start would be conformity by all states to international agreements regarding such weapons. Top of the ‘rogue’, list of course, is the USA.

Ireland & the War:

The Irish ruling elite are faced with a major dilemma by this war, with three competing forces exerting pressure:

The inordinate importance of US trans-nationals to the stability of the economy and thereby continued elite dominance is certainly a factor pushing them towards all out support for the war drive. This is combined with an ideological orientation towards the US as the standard bearer of unfettered capitalism, a position most clearly expressed through the PDs. Added to this is intense pressure from the US on the Government. This pressure arises from the relatively minor role that Ireland plays in the advancement of US dominance in Europe. The strategic importance of Shannon Airport as an important and secure transit point for US military forces heading for the Middle East or further east in Asia is not inconsiderable. In the shorter-term there is the American desire to split the European camp, or at least counter the ‘pro-peace’ Franco-German axis. Ireland therefore is positioned in a somewhat similar stance to the central and eastern European applicant states. In fact the Governments pro-war stance may partially stem from a fear that US Tran nationals may relocate there, or that new investment will flow eastwards. We must not forget, however that trans-nationals never locate to provide employment, rather to exploit labour so as to generate profit. These corporations are located in Ireland because of our skilled labour force, weak unions, and our existence as a sort of beach head for the penetration of American capital into the new pan-European market.

A second contrary pressure has been to maintain our position in the development of the new European super state or at least to continue to benefit economically by remaining at the heart of this project. This requires a more nuanced approach, favouring UN backing, making serious efforts to avert the war if possible etc. This pressure can be seen working at its most effective in the stance taken by the intellectual and political sections of the elite represented by the Labour Party but also in FG hopelessly vacillating role.

The third and dramatically increasing pressure is from below. The spectre of huge numbers of ordinary people expressing their total opposition to war has undoubtedly tilted the balance of elite opinion to at least a more cautious approach. This has particularly manifested itself in FF. Being a large populist party it is especially vulnerable to mass pressure from beneath. Bertie’s sudden change of tack and the grumblings of the more nationalistic elements of the Party reflect this. Undoubtedly the very idea of mass mobilisation strikes fear into the elite, given the potential it reflects.

We should be under no illusion that the establishment will ride rough shod over democratic rights, if they deem it necessary, using the so-called threat of terrorism as an excuse. This is already clear in the stationing of troops at Shannon and the new ‘anti-terrorism’ law being introduced by the Government with the backing of Labour and Fine Gael and which defines as terrorists anyone who wishes to overthrow the social or political system. In fact it has been quite apparent with the treatment of demonstrations over the last year or so that even legal protest is now viewed by key sections of the establishment as subversive. Add to this a partially corrupt, unprepared and predominantly conservative police force and you have a very worrying scenario for radical activists.

ISN, 2002 .