THE PARADE HAS not yet begun, but the triumphalists are falling silent, their angst on show. It was not meant to be thus. Kuwait is free, yes – free to kill and torture Palestinians and to dispossess a million of its citizens. The Iraqi Army was pounded to bits as it cut and ran; alas, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, the dead of war were not ‘honourably interred’ but shovelled and bulldozed into open pits.
The ‘famous victory’ is not what it was. Instead, normality is reasserting itself, bringing a truth so obvious that even those celebrants who called on us to go to the ‘bitter end’ in the cause of a ‘just war’ appear to be having difficulty remaining in the one spot, rather like weathervanes during a high wind. ‘The victory is being turned into a defeat,’ laments an Observer headline, while, beneath, its columnist calls on the Allies ‘to commit themselves to a democratic and demilitarised Iraq . . .’ (And earlier: ‘But it is wishful thinking to suppose a post-sanctions Iraq would have been much better.’ Does the saving of as many as 200,000 lives qualify for the ‘much better’ category?)66
Normality in much of the world’s affairs is determined by an imperialist logic. This has been the case for a very long time, and there is nothing in current developments to suggest that the historical pattern is about to be broken. On the contrary, unparalleled and unchallenged power, concentrated now in a single imperial source, ensures that the trend is reinforced.
Indeed, editorial writers are wrong to criticise President Bush for ‘prevaricating’ over the present turmoil in Iraq. Bush is conducting US policy in an entirely consistent manner, doing no more or less than Presidents Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon did in the region and much of the world. He is ensuring that a substantial minority – in this case, the Kurds – are crushed so that a reigning tyranny can retain control of a strategically important country and, presumably with the usual help from the CIA, replace the present tyrant with one considerably less uppity and more amenable to Washington’s demands.
As for the anguished call for a ‘democratic and demilitarised Iraq’, contemporary history blows a raspberry at that. The Iraqi opposition say they will support Kurdish autonomy if a democratic regime is installed in Baghdad. The Kurds themselves include democratic and socialist elements. Thus, they are doomed. When the Ba’ath Party – Saddam Hussein included – seized power in Iraq in 1968, it was able to do so thanks in large part to the lists of opponents supplied by the CIA: trade unionists, socialists and assorted dangerous pluralists, many of whom were murdered.
When another tyrant, an ‘acceptable Saddam Hussein’, is duly installed, and thousands of Kurdish and Shi’a dead are added to the 200,000 said to have been slaughtered during ‘Hannibal’ Schwarzkopf’s ‘march’, normality will be resumed. This is already past the planning stage. The Independent last week reported from the United Nations: ‘Fearing the Kurdish rebellion will cause the break-up of Iraq and further destabilise the oil-rich region, the US and other permanent members of the UN Security Council have determined that Baghdad should be permitted to use its fighter and ground attack aircraft to quell internal dissent once it has accepted the Security Council’s plan for a formal ceasefire in the Gulf.’67
While accepting the imperialist logic of this, one might pause to reflect on the recent months of sanctimonious waffle about the ‘new role’ of the United Nations. One wonders what decisions imposed by the Security Council have to do with the spirit of the UN Charter. ‘We, the peoples . . .’ begins the Charter. Tell that to the Kurds, the Palestinians, the Khmer, the Panamanians, the Guatemalans, the Timorese and the Iraqi children now dying from disease in cities and towns bombed by the Allies. ‘We, the powerful regimes . . .’ the preamble should read, ‘We, the underwriters and keepers of the new imperialist order . . .’
Although fighting like lions, the Kurds must be under no illusions. Betrayed by the colonial powers in the 1920s, bombed by the RAF, they have tested the faith of every imperialist ‘saviour’ only to become its victims. In 1975, having been led to believe that Washington looked favourably on their hopes for nationhood, they were told by the CIA to fight on, and given $16 million worth of secret American military aid. But this was a double-cross.
As the Pike Congressional Committee investigating the CIA later revealed, America’s support for the Kurds was not intended in any way to help them, but to strengthen the Shah of Iran’s hand in finalising an oil deal with Iraq. Washington’s true policy, reported the Pike Committee, ‘was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical exercise.’
Unaware of this, the Kurds appealed to Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state: ‘Your Excellency . . . our movement and people are being destroyed in an unbelievable way with silence from everyone. We feel, your Excellency, that the US has a moral and political responsibility towards our people who have committed themselves to your country’s policy.’68 The Shah got his deal; the Kurds were abandoned.
Today, while the killing goes on in Iraq, normality is being re-established elsewhere in the region. President Bush has said he wants ‘a slowdown in the proliferation of weapons of all kinds’ because ‘it would be tragic if the nations of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf were now to embark on a new arms race’.69 Within three days of his making that announcement, the New York Times reported, ‘The US has emerged from the war as the Gulf’s premier arms seller. The White House has told Congress in a classified report it wanted five Middle East allies to buy an $18 billion package of top drawer weapons.’70 This will be the biggest arms sale in history.
When he resigned at the end of January the head of Italian naval forces in the Gulf said, ‘I wondered if, in a certain sense, we hadn’t all been made fools of . . . if they [the United States] hadn’t drawn us into a much larger game. I still wonder about that.’
April 5, 1991