Americas
Europe
Africa & Middle East
Indian subcontinent
Asia Pacific
News
Analysis
Economy
Environment
Oppression
The Basics
Science &
Culture
Marxist Theory
History
Publications
Links
Australia: Howard sends troops to the gulf to help Bush
Workers Power Global, Melbourne: 9 February 2003
John Howard is taking Australia to war. Troops have been sent to the Gulf and Howard has been an unapologetic apologist for Bush and the US governmentās determination to invade Iraq.
A war with Iraq now seems inevitable. Each time Bush speaks in public and each time Howard apes him the rhetoric becomes more excessive. On 7 February Bush told Iraq ćgame overä ö like he really is playing on a giant x-box.
All this before the weapons inspectors have even returned their final verdict and with three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council saying they are far from ready to go to war.
John Howard may be making friends in the US but here in Australia the percentage of Australians against a war is increasing. While the number who would support a war with UN sanction is still higher than those who would not support it under any circumstances, these figures are also changing.
Importantly prominent ALP parliamentarians have spoken out against the war, even if it is UN sanctioned. While this is still not the official position of Simon Crean or the ALP as a whole, it is an indication of a massive shift since the last Gulf War twelve years ago. And itās a positive sign for the growing anti-war movement in this country.
But the biggest challenge that the movement has to face is not the warmongering of the Coalition leader but what to do if (probably when) the UN Security Council collapses and agrees to president Bushās wishes.
Commentators are right that this situation is a threat to the very legitimacy of the UN. But we should not see this as such a great tragedy. The UN has never been more than a cover for the aims of imperialism, in particular American imperialism.
That right now there are divisions within the UN Security Council shows only that the main imperialist blocs are not united on how or perhaps with what timetable Iraq should be dealt with.
UN resolutions have been over-ridden or ignored before. There are numerous resolutions against Israelās actions in the region ö the continuing annexation of territory, the war they fought in Lebanon ö a great list of human rights violations against the Palestinians. The troops that went into Kosovo were not UN sanctioned, nor was NATO bombing in Serbia. The big world powers simply choose to ignore the UN when it is convenient for them to do so. It has only become an issue this time because the disagreements over what to do are so intense and the USās drive to war so excessive.
But none of this is an argument for a stronger UN.
Simon Crean will support a war in Iraq if the UN agrees to it. There is a real lack of logic in this argument. How does a UN resolution change the number of casualties caused by war? How does a UN resolution stop the devastation of infrastructure? How does a UN resolution change the simple fact that the war is for the control of valuable oil supplies and strategic positioning in the Middle East?
Creanās argument, and that of all of those who will support a war if it is sanctioned by a UN resolution comes down to a legalistic argument. They donāt want to be part of an ćillegalä war ö but a legal one will be just fine.
But the definition of what is legal is one designed by the imperialist nations in the first place. International law, like all law, serves the purpose of the rulers.
A UN sanctioned war might be legal but it cannot be just because it will result in exactly the same US-imposed client regime in Iraq. As well as the diving up of the spoils ö the huge oil supplies, among the victors. The US will have achieved its war aims. Perhaps the politicians will sleep easier in their beds knowing no law has been broken but the people of Iraq will not notice this subtle difference.
The other challenge that faces the anti-war movement in Australia is the emphasis on peace and therefore pacifism.
During the conflict in Afghanistan peaceniks on demos told off those who were chanting slogans about fighting war. The peace activists thought fighting was too violent an image.
These people are against war for purely moral reasons and they donāt distinguish between different kinds of conflict or look at the reasons for them.
It is this influence, which sees the movement in Victoria called the Victorian PEACE Network. It is this influence which has the focus on the victims of war and which talks so much about the death and disablement of women and children ö as if this is qualitatively different from the death and disablement of anyone. As if in fact women in particular are helpless objects in international politics and not able to act in their own defence.
The main problem with peace as an amorphous demand is that it ignores the real political situation. It in fact lets the imperialists off the hook because it focuses on violence rather than the reasons for it. The war becomes bad because people get hurt, not because it is an invasion of a sovereign nation by another for the purpose of making a profit.
To argue only for peace is to ignore the fact that the people of Iraq will need to defend themselves against this invasion. Something many have already said they will be doing ö regardless of how they feel about Saddam Hussein.
Here in Australia we have to be firmly for the defence of Iraq. This means being for the victory of Iraq against the forces of imperialism, in fact against the Australian troops that Howard has sent to the Gulf.
This is an argument, which comes smack up against not just the peaceniks but against Australian nationalism.
During the Vietnam War one of the central slogans was bring the boys home. And while in a situation of conscription this had some resonance and perhaps even relevance, it is a concession to nationalism.
We are certainly in favour of all troops being moved out of the Gulf, but not out of concerns for their safety ö but rather to aid the defence of Iraq.
|
Site search |
More on Australia
What is imperialism?
From anti-capitalism to revolution
Globalisation - a new epoch in world capitalism?
Sweatshops: the new slave labour