By Terry Flew
The rapidity and the destructiveness with which the US-led forces have pursued their attacks upon Iraq and occupied Kuwait since January 16 are matched only by the speed with which thousands in Australia, as part of a worldwide peace movement, have mobilised in various ways to try to stop this war. Although it appears the majority of Australians continue to support the US-led military action and the Australian involvement, those who are opposing the war are doing so in ways that are active, and in the process are raising issues which go beyond the war itself.
In some ways, this sudden upsurge of radicalism is surprising. Within the peace movement, Gorbachev's glasnost in the USSR, and the apparent success of disarmament negotiations and moves to end the Cold War, were welcomed, although they were clearly leading to a decline in the strength of that movement. Among the left more generally, the collapse of the "socialist" regimes of Eastern Europe, while welcomed by most, left a nagging concern as to whether an alternative to market capitalism was possible.
Last year's claims that we had reached the "end of ideology" now look ludicrous, as there is now the greatest global confrontation since World War II. It is apparent that, in focussing so much attention on "East-West" relations, the significance of conflicts between the economically powerful "North" and the dependent "South" (or "Third World") had been underestimated. These conflicts, over questions of unequal trade, debt, resource policy and economic and political dependency, lie behind current global tensions.
Nowhere is the importance of these issues more apparent than in the Middle East. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, while clearly a brutal act of aggression, suddenly focussed world attention upon the militarisation of the region (backed by Western arms and military interests), the Palestinian intifada and Israel's increasingly belligerent response, the feudal nature of many of the Gulf state regimes, the plight of minority groups such as the Kurds and the political economy of oil. The US-led response shows both the stake the West has in the region and the tenuousness of its position in the Arab and Muslim world.
The original international condemnation of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait instilled the hope in some hearts that a "new world order", based upon some form of "collective security" against armed aggression, might become the norm in a post-Cold War world. The fact that such terms now appear to be some form of cruel joke reflects the manner in which, almost as soon as such decisions were made in the UN, the United States began to use cajolery, bribery and other such tactics to forge multilateral support for the pursuit of its foreign policy goals. Once an armed force the
size of that in Saudi Arabia in December had been assembled, the question was always one of when, rather than whether, war would start.
The horrific human and environmental consequences of this war are already apparent, and becoming more so as information circulates about the effects of Allied bombing of civilian targets in Iraq. This death toll would accelerate should a ground war start, particularly on the Allied side.
The antiwar movement must oppose the continuation of this war and support moves currently being made by Iraq, the Soviet Union and countries such as Iran towards securing a cease-fire and withdrawal, as the bases of a negotiated settlement.
This war is the culmination of 10 years of Reaganite economic and foreign policy in the US, based upon aggressive unilateralism in defence of strategic and economic interests, a massive arms build-up and an economy based upon cheap oil rather than more intelligent energy use. A decisive US victory in this war, and the imposition of a puppet regime in Iraq, would be undesirable in terms of world peace, and would only forestall a further major conflict in the region.
Given this, should the antiwar movement support Iraq? A distinction must be made here between sympathy for the Iraqi people facing US-led military aggression, and support for Saddam Hussein's belligerent stance in the region and his militaristic regime. The latter cannot be supported, for moral, political and tactical reasons.
Support for Saddam on purely "anti-imperialist" grounds falls into the worst "Third Worldist" traps, ignoring both his regime's aggression against the domestic population, and his unjustified (and politically stupid) intervention into Kuwait.
Some argue that, whatever the human rights and other faults of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime, it now stands for progressive goals in the Arab world: Arab unity, support for Palestine, opposition to Zionism, anti-imperialism and a fairer distribution of oil wealth in the region.
Whatever the rhetoric, however, Iraq's pre-Gulf War record is that of a state which has squandered oil wealth on militarisation and insane wars (such as the eight-year war with Iran, begun by Iraq), has been opportunistic in its dealing with the Palestinians and has been primarily a beneficiary of US patronage, rather than a champion of Arab sovereignty. The Iraqi popular masses have gained little and suffered a great deal, from the reign of Baath socialism in their country.
The most radical demand to make upon the Middle East is for two quite "liberal" goals: democratic rights and the right to
self-determination for all peoples. Such a stance exposes the hypocrisy of US claims to be the "liberators" of Kuwait while in fact seeking only to reinstall the al Sabah dynasty while establishing bases in Saudi Arabia, exposes the cynicism of the Israeli government in the occupied territories and would also be anathema to the Baathists in Iraq as well as in Syria.
Yet these basic rights are unarguable against, and are central to the aspirations of oppressed people in the region. They should be at the core of any postwar settlement.
Australian forces should not be involved in the war. This stance is not isolationist, but recognises the fact that, as part of the US-led coalition, these forces are aggressors in an unjust and ultimately futile war.
By withdrawing its (largely token) force from the Gulf and refusing to commit further troops, the Australian government would not be abrogating a role in dealing with the conflicts of the region, but rather be able to play a leading independent role in instigating moves for peace. At present Australia is no more than a cipher of US foreign policy, pursuing goals in which we have little material or any other stake.
Two features of the antiwar movement in Australia are its diversity and the links emerging between new activists and existing political groupings. While the antiwar movement of course needs coordinating structures and unity of purpose, a degree of diversity, of both goals and political positions, must be acknowledged and maintained. Nothing would be worse than attempts to subsume the antiwar movement into other goals, or to "crunch out" dissenting positions. In maintaining our breadth, we will be boosting our effectiveness and learning from each other, rather than trying to dictate a "line".
As for the anti-Gulf War movement, I hope that it is limited. In other words, our activities domestically and worldwide contribute to securing a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement to the issues of the Middle East which is fair and just. Should this be the case, we must all remain vigilant in our concern for human rights, economic independence and national self-determination for all peoples of the region. If war continues and escalates, however, we must redouble our efforts to mobilise mass popular support for peace, while at the same time developing our own understanding of the underlying causes of the horrific, unjust and futile war.
[Terry Flew lectures in Social Sciences at the University of Technology, Sydney, and is also a convener of the UTS Staff Against Gulf War group.]