Bush goes overseas to bolster empire
By Fred Goldstein
In the wake of the invasion and colonial
occupation of Iraq, President George W. Bush has embarked on a
diplomatic offensive in Europe and the Middle East to promote
and give momentum to Washington's program for conquest and
empire.
The Bush administration's political agenda dominated the
final pronouncement of the G-8 summit meeting in Evian, hosted
by French Prime Minister Jacque Chirac. The statement, issued
by the seven most powerful imperialist countries plus Russia,
as posted on the summit website, said, "We recognize that the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their
means of delivery poses a growing danger" and "together with
the spread of international terrorism, it is the pre-eminent
threat to international security."
It is important to note that the original G-7 summit
meetings were established for the purpose of dealing with the
world capitalist economy. The summit is supposed to concentrate
on stabilizing the global economy, promoting the economic
growth of world imperialism and combating recession. As such,
it has been a forum primarily focused on inter-imperialist
economic rivalry.
But, at this summit, more than half the documents issued
dealt with "weapons of mass destruction" and "international
terrorism." Vital economic questions concerning the world
capitalist downturn and economic stagnation, as well as the
U.S. currency wars against the euro and the yen, were virtually
ignored by Washington and barely reflected at all in the summit
documents.
The pretext of WMDs
The "weapons of mass destruction" referred to are not those
in the arsenals of U.S., British or French imperialism or those
belonging to the oppressive Israeli occupiers of Palestine.
Only two countries were singled out.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was told to
"visibly, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle any nuclear
weapons program." The statement also declared that "We will not
ignore the proliferation implications of Iran's advanced
nuclear program" and demanded that Iran submit its program to
international inspections.
The statement enumerates "a range of tools available to
tackle this threat." After citing a list of treaties, agencies
and diplomatic measures, it goes on to authorize the use of
"other measures," if necessary, "in accordance with
international law." This is a clear reference to military
measures. And as far as "in accordance with international law,"
U.S. imperialism has all along declared that its illegal,
colonial invasion of Iraq is "in accordance with international
law." Thus the G-8 lent itself to a veiled threat of force.
Both Iran and the DPRK are the immediate targets of the Bush
administration's aggressive designs. Both countries have every
reason in the world to fear an attack by the Pentagon. Both
have watched as imperialist weapons inspectors swarmed over
Iraq as a prelude to invasion. Both have developed nuclear
power for the purpose of providing energy. The DPRK has openly
stated its right to have a weapons program in view of the
aggressive designs of the U.S. The government of Iran has
declared its nuclear program to be peaceful.
The so-called "war against terrorism," with its allied
campaign against alleged "weapons of mass destruction," has,
since the Sept. 11 attack, been the main theme under which the
Bush administration has inaugurated its campaign of "endless
war." It has been cited as reason to carry out the destruction
of Afghanistan and expand U.S. bases into Kirghistan,
Uzbekistan and Georgia. It has been the rationale for sending
troops to the Philippines, Yemen and Colombia. It is given as
the justification for an escalation of the struggle to
overthrow the Cuban government. It was the cover to give
all-out support to Ariel Sharon's war to exterminate the
Palestinian national movement. And, of course, it was the false
justification for the invasion of Iraq.
G-8 go along with Pentagon program for world
conquest
All the G-8 leaders knew very well that in Bush's infamous
"axis of evil" speech, the three countries singled out as
Washington's primary targets were Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Iraq has been invaded. Now Iran and the DPRK are at the top of
the list of those countries being threatened with so-called
"regime change." And despite all the false anti-war posturing
of the French and German imperialists and of the Putin regime
in Russia, after bullying and bribery they have lent themselves
to promoting the Pentagon's program for world conquest.
In fact, according to the New York Times of June 4, "senior
White House officials said that the unusually strong language
was made possible only thanks to the support from France,
Germany and Russia."
The most hypocritical performance at the summit was given by
Chirac. Bush and Tony Blair both left the conference a day
early, in a direct snub to Chirac and the "old Europe." After
they were gone, Chirac fulminated publicly about how he still
considered the Iraq war "illegitimate and illegal." (New York
Times, June 4) But this did not prevent him, while Bush was
there, from promoting the "unifying" statement of the G-8 which
says that "our shared objective is a fully sovereign, stable
and democratic Iraq, at peace with its neighbors and firmly on
the road to progress."
Thus, Chirac opposes the "illegitimate and illegal"
invasion, but approves the equally illegal and illegitimate
occupation and destruction of Iraqi national independence by a
brutal military authority which is the result of that
invasion.
Campaign against Iran
The U.S. government is using the bombings in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, and other recent terrorist bombings as a pretext to
open up a campaign against Iran. Washington has demanded the
apprehension of alleged al-Qaeda members in Iran and has taken
a hard line on Iran's nuclear program. Except for the absence
of charges about chemical and biological weapons, this sounds
like a replay of the campaigns against Afghanistan and
Iraq.
When asked at a news conference about arrests of alleged
al-Qaeda members in Tehran, White House spokesperson Ari
Fleischer replied, "The steps that the Iranians claim to have
taken in terms of capturing al-Qaeda are insufficient." (New
York Times, May 28) As to claims by Iran that its nuclear
program is for peaceful purposes, Fleischer declared that "the
United States rejects that argument as a cover story."
The Washington Post of May 29 reported that "U.S. officials
are watching Tehran's responses closely as the Bush
administration mulls shifting to a policy of destabilizing
Iran. Senior officials were scheduled to discuss policy toward
Iran on Tuesday, but the meeting was postponed until
Thursday."
A belligerent Post editorial of the same day entitled "The
Iranian Challenge" referred to "talk of taking preemptive
actions against suspected Iranian nuclear sites, like the
Israeli raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor 22 years ago." The Post
continued: "If a key report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, expected in two weeks, finds that Iran has violated the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it may be possible to
organize concerted multilateral action, in or outside of the UN
Security Counci."
Threats against North Korea
At the same time the Pentagon is making menacing military
gestures toward the North Korean government. "The deputy
secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, all but stated that
American troops would be withdrawn from the demilitarized zone
separating North and South Korea, a move intended to take them
out of easy range of North Korean artillery, and theoretically
position the United States to mount a pre-emptive attack
against the North." (New York Times, June 3)
A senior Pentagon official was quoted in the same dispatch:
"While we can't completely compensate for the fact that North
Korea has so much stuff right up forward on the DMZ, we could
begin taking it down from the first hour of the war, and that
would make a big difference."
"Officials said," continued the Times, "that in case of war,
American and South Korean troops could be dispatched directly
to the interior of the north in pursuit of the North Korean
leadership, a strategy that was inspired, in part, by the
American military experience in Iraq."
Whether or not all this talk is psychological warfare or
not, it reveals the direction in which the Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz grouping is moving: trying to restore
colonial domination of the oil-rich and strategically located
country of Iran, in the same way it has done in Iraq, and
escalating its threat of unprovoked aggression against the
DPRK.
From Evian, Bush traveled to Sharm El Sheik, an Egyptian
resort on the Red Sea, to meet with Arab leaders and press his
"road map" to subjugate the Palestinian national movement and
bring security to Israel. The initial and essential goal of
this U.S. plan is the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance
and/or promoting civil war among the Palestinian people. Bush's
hope is to use Abu Mazen, the U.S.-chosen prime minister, and
the collaborating regimes in the Arab world to accomplish this
goal. Bush hopes to consolidate their commitment to this
reactionary process at another meeting in Aqaba, Jordan.
But even as Bush travels triumphantly throughout Europe and
the Middle East, looming behind him is the resistance to the
U.S. occupation of Iraq.
General admits Iraq war 'not over'
One month after Bush announced the end of the war in Iraq
during a photo op if him landing aboard an aircraft carrier,
Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commanding general of all U.S.
forces in Iraq, declared that "the war has not ended."
(Washington Post, May 30) Instead of pulling troops out of
Iraq, Washington has had to bring in another infantry division
and thousands of military police, bringing the troop level up
to 160,000 U.S and British troops, not counting the 90,000
troops in Kuwait carrying out support operations.
U.S. soldiers are being killed in what appears to be a
coalescing resistance in Baghdad and regions to the north.
Whether or not this resistance can be sustained in the short
run remains to be seen, but long-run resistance is inevitable.
Referring to the resistance, McKiernan stated emphatically:
"These are not criminal activities, they are combat activities.
We are going to address these activities by applying every
resource available to us. The war has not ended. That's the
point I need you to understand."
Michael Gordon, a New York Times military reporter who was
"embedded" with the Pentagon during the invasion, wrote a major
piece on May 30 entitled "How Much Is Enough?"
Gordon refers back to the verbal war in February between
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Army Chief of Staff
Gen. Eric Shinseki. Rumsfeld denounced Shinseki for saying that
it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq.
Not only did Rumsfeld argue with Shinseki, but he had former
Army Secretary Thomas White forced out following a similar
struggle over the force size necessary to hold the Iraqi people
down.
While for the Army chiefs this was partly a struggle over
budgets and resources, at bottom it is a struggle about the
expected role of the masses.
The current crowd in the Bush administration has dreams of
ruling the world with high-tech warfare and special
forces--easily taking out governments that resist U.S.
domination and carrying out smooth "regime change" by fear and
intimidation. They discount the mass of the people, whom they
regard as a docile and submissive element who will dutifully
sit on the sidelines while U.S. imperialism restructures their
fate and prepares their exploitation and the plunder of their
countries.
In light of the Iraqi experience, Gordon of the Times,
undoubtedly speaking for others inside and outside the Pentagon
and the Bush administration, did a nervous review of the forces
available to the Pentagon.
"If the Army's postwar effort to stabilize Iraq is taken
into account," he wrote, "it would seem that the service needs
more troops, not less."
"Certainly," continued Gordon, "the Army does not seem to
have many forces to spare. Of the Army's 10 divisions, more
than four are deployed in Iraq.... Of the remaining Army
divisions, the Second Infantry Division is in South Korea, the
10th Mountain Division is headed to Afghanistan and a brigade
of the First Infantry Division is in Kosovo."
Only two divisions, the First Cavalry Division and the 25th
Infantry Division in Hawaii, are not spoken for at this
time.
The implications are clear. To expand their effort to
control the world, the U.S. ruling class will have to vastly
expand its military forces on the ground and subject the
working class in this country to the horrors of war and
occupation against oppressed people all over the globe. This
comes at a time of growing economic hardship, poverty, racism
and general assaults on the masses, which are the natural
result of capitalism in crisis and are exacerbated by the
reactionary give-to-the rich policies of the Bush
administration.
Under these conditions, Washington's pursuit of empire can
only result in massive resistance, at home and abroad.
Reprinted from the June 12, 2003, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page