The Gory Dawn of the
New World Order
US War in the Middle East
Mansoor Hekmat
JUDGING by what is being done in the
Gulf, and by what we are told about it by the media, we must all be
thankful for the fact that this is a world of hypocrisy, selective morality
and double standards. Just imagine the chaos if all United Nation resolutions
were to be enforced with equal rigour and resolve. Just imagine how
many thousands of tons of bombs would have to be dropped, to start with,
on Israel for its occupation of Palestinian land and its treatment of
the Palestinian people, on South Africa for its denial of human status
to the majority of its inhabitants, and on the USA itself for uninterrupted
harassment of humanity for decades. Imagine the number of fighter and
bomber 'sorties' and cruise missile launches that would be required
to neutralize weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in the USA, USSR,
China, Britain, France, Israel and all other states with enough cash
to afford them. Imagine the kind of wars which had to be waged if we
were to prevent monopolistic control of not just oil, but also grain,
technology, vaccines, information, etc. Just think of the number of
ships required to blockade all dictatorships; the number of judges and
courtrooms needed to try all war criminals regardless of race, creed,
nationality and table manners; the environmental cost of trying to tame
all trigger-happy global and regional superpowers. And just think of
the cost of it all - no Japan or Saudi Arabia could possibly cough up
that much money. It would be a nightmare. Let it be. It is just safer
as it is. Let us join the parade of self- deception and Euro-American
jingoism. Let us share in the juvenile excitement of our overpaid 'objective
journalists' and TV panel 'experts' over their real life computer war
games.
Or perhaps not. Instead, we must free
ourselves from their assumptions and justifications. We must look at
the real issues involved. This war is not over democracy and dictatorship.
Killing and maiming Iraqi people in their thousands and destroying their
homes, schools and factories is indeed a sick way of liberating them
from political oppression. The war has nothing to do with preventing
oil-starvation of the West. There is no point in owning more oil if
you do not intend to sell it. This war is not for upholding international
law. In the light of the past record of the law enforcers themselves,
from Hiroshima and Vietnam to Grenada and Nicaragua, such suggestions
cannot be taken seriously.
These are not the real issues. These
are exactly what they are: war propaganda. The main clues for understanding
the real causes of this conflict are to be found in Bush's seemingly
harmless allusions to a 'New World Order' and Saddam Hossein's rejected
demand for a 'linkage' (between the future of Kuwait and the resolution
of the Palestinian question).
The New World Order
The conflict in the Gulf is merely one
manifestation of the contradictions and uncertainties in the post-Cold
War international relations. With the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the
old international power structure, based on the military, political
and, to a lesser extent, economic, opposition of the two power blocs
of East and West, also disintegrated. While the mass media and political
commentators in the West rejoiced over the so- called 'collapse of communism'
and promised a future of peace and harmony under the unchallenged sway
of the glorious market, it was evident to anybody with a sober mind
that the post-Cold War world will be ridden with serious economic, political
and ideological tensions and confrontations. Western political commentary
is usually focused on the volatile situation in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe, the so- called North-South divide, the environment,
regional conflicts and so on - i.e. problems which supposedly originate
outside the boundaries of the 'democratic' and 'civilised' West. These
are indeed part of the problems that face the '90s, however, the main
challenge, and the central issue in any attempt to shape a 'New Order',
lies in the West itself. The collapse of the East meant also the demise
of the West as its opposite pole, as a defined economic, political,
military and ideological entity forged to contain and defeat the Soviet
bloc after the Second World War. The old West, both as a concept and
as a politico-economic reality, was erected on the basis of the hegemony,
or the so-called 'leading role', of the United States. The preservation
of this role, or even its extension, in the radically transformed world
of post-Cold War politics, is the essence of the American vision of
the 'New World Order'.
Prior to the recent crisis in the Middle
East, such a vision appeared to lack practical venues for self- realization.
The rise of Japan and West Germany as formidable economic powers, the
march towards European unity and the actual reunification of Germany,
the political shift in Eastern European countries in favour of the pro-market
Right and, last but not least, the political and economic opening of
the Soviet Union itself to the West, undermined every aspect of the
old West. Not only the leading role of the US, but even the actual institutions
that embodied and safeguarded US hegemony, such as NATO, appeared to
become increasingly redundant. The whole American foreign policy lost
its focus. Even some of the most hawkish Cold War warriors on the extreme
right of American politics turned into advocates of isolationism. The
crisis in the Gulf presented the US government with an opportunity to
try to reverse these trends. In a recent speech to a gathering of Religious
Broadcasters, George Bush spelled out US intentions in the war with
astonishing clarity. The aim was to 'restore the leadership' and 'reliability'
of the United States. Once this was achieved, said Bush, international
problems such as the Palestinian question, could be resolved with the
US 'taking a leading role'.
The United States seized the opportunity
created by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to reassert itself as a superpower.
With a massive campaign of propaganda and provocation skilfully carried
out by the high-tech bootlicker journalism in the West, itself a product
of mass political apathy of the 80s, a new 'Evil Empire' was created
overnight. A Third World country of no more than 17 million people,
indebted, totally dependent on its oil exports to the West, and worn
out after eight years of war with the neighbouring Iran, was portrayed
as a global menace. A regional issue that would under other circumstance
be dealt with by the usual political and diplomatic pressures and gestures
was blown out of all proportions into a life and death challenge for
the 'civilized world'. Continental Europe hesitantly fell in line. Kohl
and Mitterrand, figures of an assertive united bourgeois Europe, were
pushed to the sidelines by Bush and Baker, symbols of American omnipotence.
The Japanese giant was reduced to an obedient cashier. Europe was reminded
of the indispensable 'leading role' of the US in the capitalist new
world order.
While Iraq is the theatre of war, the
central issues that are to be settled by this war lie primarily in the
West. USA's show of force and 'leadership' in the Middle East is to
ensure it a commanding position vis-à-vis its allies, and rivals,
in the post-Cold War West; a precondition, also, for a global US supremacy.
But USA's endeavour runs against the political and economic logic of
the present-day capitalism, which calls for a fundamental revision of
the old balance and the emergence of a new bourgeois economic and political
configuration. The fragile nature of the 'Coalition', in contrast to
the cohesion displayed for decades by the Western alliance in their
confrontation with the Eastern bloc, underlines the historical limits
of the American endeavour.
The Linkage
In the opposite trenches we find not
Iraq, as a country or a political regime, but Arab nationalism as a
regional force - another contestant in the struggle for shaping the
New Order. This is not the old populist, anti-colonial Arab nationalism,
but the banner of the post-OPEC Arab bourgeoisie. It derives its militancy
not from the desperation of the Arab poor or the plight of the Palestinian
people, but from the material possibilities opened to Arab bourgeois
states to improve their standing in the regional and international power
structure and the world economy. For long these aspirations were thwarted
by the old East-West confrontation and balance. Western influence in
the Middle East rested on Israel and Iran as pillars of the policy of
containment of the Soviet Union. Even pro-West Arab countries, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia and later Egypt, found themselves unable to affect the
same level of economic and political integration with the West that
was enjoyed by Israel and Iran under the Shah and was essential for
capitalist development and technological advance. Moreover, long before
its eventual collapse, it had already become evident that the Eastern
bloc could not offer any framework for economic growth in the countries
within its sphere of influence. But Arab states, with a total population
50 times that of Israel and vast economic resources, oil and labour,
could not find a correspondingly strong voice in the world economy and
international politics, as long as broader global considerations tied
the West to Israel.
And here is the undeniable linkage -
whether or not Arab statesmen care an iota about the plight of the Palestinian
people (which they generally don't), the Palestinian question has become
an index of USA's and the West's attitude toward the Arab world. Israel
and the Palestinian question stand in the way of full economic and political
integration of the Arab world with the West. Arabs want to be with the
West 'not as slaves, but as partners', says Arafat. Egypt attempted
to achieve this objective by distancing itself from the Pan-Arabic cause
and attempting a separate accommodation with Israel. The strategy failed.
Militant nationalism hopes to achieve the same objective by show of
strength. It is fighting the West in order to join it on more favourable
terms. The initial occupation of Kuwait was a straightforward military
act on the part of Iraq for its own national interests. For Iraq the
best scenario would have been a quiet annexation without immediate regional
repercussions. But once this was forcefully resisted by the West, exactly
because of its real linkage with the future of Israel, and once a US
military intervention against an Arab state became imminent, the aborted
Iraqi act was embraced by militant Arab nationalism as a contribution
to the broader regional cause.
It is not difficult to see why for Arab
nationalism the field of action appears to have widened and why even
a destructive war may still count as a political advance. The collapse
of the Soviet bloc has undermined the strategic significance of Israel
for the West. Sooner, rather than later, the economic and demographic
realities in the region are bound to impose themselves on Western policy.
The old political geography of the world is bound to be revised, as
is already evident from developments in Europe, the Soviet Union, Yemen
and Korea. Moreover, the international division of power between bourgeois
states must be revised to take account of the new economic and political
poles that have emerged outside the boundaries of the advanced capitalist
zones as a result of post-war technological advance and internationalization
of capital. The rigid balance imposed and maintained by the old East-West
polarization has broken down. Emerging regional forces can hope to influence
their destiny through resolute action.
Some of the objectives of militant Arab
nationalism have already been realized. Whatever the military outcome
of the war, a dramatic change in the region to the detriment of Israel
is already in progress. Improvements in US-Israeli relations, symbolized
by the delivery of cash and missiles to Israel, will prove hard to sustain.
The end of the war will also intensify Western, or at any rate European,
pressures on Israel. Arab nationalism has already managed to force upon
the West a recognition of the economic and political weight of the Arab
world. Already the West has committed itself to far greater concessions
on the Palestinian issue than it ever had. There have also been fringe
benefits. In the Arab world, nationalism has regained the initiative
from Pan-Islamism. Islam has been forced back to its secondary role
in Arab politics, as a tool for mass mobilization for the essentially
nationalist political action. Even in Iran, the recent conflict has
helped to seal the fate of the Pan-Islamic Hezbollah faction. For Iraq,
its mere survival, after having put up a respectable military resistance,
would be a political, and in the long term even military, victory. US
occupation of Iraq or long term American military presence in the region
will definitely backfire and turn the current war into a second Vietnam
for the USA, a development which is likely to lead to a split within
the new Western alliance and the isolation of US from Continental Europe.
Short of this, however, the position of Iraq as a leading state in the
Arab world will be consolidated after the war.
The War must be Stopped
This war must be stopped first and foremost
for the barbarity that it represents. It has already claimed thousands
of innocent victims. The whole idea of 'surgical' bombing is a myth.
A whole country is bombed to the ground. Adults and children are killed
by bombs and missiles and die of lack of water, electricity, medicine
and sanitation. The horrors of this war for innocent Iraqi civilians
cannot be hushed up by the Western media for long. When the facts emerge,
as is gradually happening, the whole humanity will be put to shame.
This war must be stopped for the political,
cultural and moral retrogression it imposes on the world as a whole.
The signs are already here. Superpower military interventionism, colonial
mentality, national chauvinism, racism, patriotism, religious prejudice,
terrorism, and lackey journalism are some of the dark forces already
unleashed by this war on both sides of the conflict. These are the real
features of the so-called New World Order that is in the making.