Editorial

The Politics of Desperation

Three weeks have now passed since U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the American case for war to the UN Security Council. Far from convincing world public opinion, the American case has been almost universally rejected and opposition to a U.S. war on Iraq has grown stronger and deeper. Millions of people have taken to the streets to oppose such a war. In every country of the world, including the United States, a majority of the population is opposed to a unilateral U.S. war. Never before in history has American foreign policy been so isolated.

Following the report to the Security Council by the UN weapons inspectors two weeks ago, the Bush administration boasted that it would have majority support for a Security Council resolution authorizing war within a matter of days. It warned France and Germany that they risked international isolation if they continued to "thwart the will of the international community" by insisting that the weapons inspectors be allowed more time to do their job. Meanwhile, Powell was sent on a global crusade to threaten, cajole and bribe other members of the Security Council to support the U.S. resolution. However, despite their tactics, it appears that the Americans have made little progress in persuading a majority of Security Council members to submit to their will. Most reports indicate that nine of the 15 members of the Security Council, including three permanent members - France, Russia and China - support a counter resolution calling for at least four more months of inspections. Iraq's decision to comply with a UN order to destroy dozens of its Al Samoud 2 missiles, has further strengthened that position.

Over the past few weeks, two international coalitions have emerged. On the one side is the U.S.-British alliance, supported by the governments, but not the people, of Spain, Italy and several Eastern European countries heavily dependent on U.S. handouts. On the other side are France, Germany, Russia and China who have the support of a majority of European countries and most of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Whether these coalitions will solidify into more permanent alliances remains to be seen, but their positions certainly appear to be hardening. In fact, the contradictions between the two camps have escalated to the point where it is difficult to see how either side can back down without suffering a devastating blow to their national pride and their international standing.

This inter-imperialist dispute is threatening to destroy the United Nations, NATO and possibly the European Union, as well as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral institutions. These are the very institutions which have been the main instruments of U.S. imperialist domination of the world for the past 50 years. Yet the Bush administration actually appears to be relishing their destruction, because, while being institutions of American imperial power, they also impose some restrictions on the exercise of that power.

The failure of the Bush administration to make any headway at the United Nations is reflected in the fact that it has seen fit to raise the stakes. For the past several weeks the Americans have been pounding away at the issue of the need for Iraq to be disarmed and that is even the content of their new resolution to the Security Council. However, one week into the debate Bush has once again added the demand for "regime change", stating that disarmament is no longer enough. Since such a demand violates the UN Charter and contravenes Resolution 1441, it is almost certain to strengthen the position of the opponents of the U.S. resolution. A possible explanation for such a move on the part of the Bush administration is that it wants to bring the debate to an abrupt end and get on with its unilateral war.

The consequences of such a decision will almost certainly be fatal for the political career of Tony Blair and will likely bring down the Spanish and Italian governments. The Americans appear to be leaving their friends and allies to face the music on their own. For its part, the Bush administration could well be in serious political trouble too, especially if it fails to deliver the quick victory it has promised. The situation facing U.S. imperialism must be even more desperate than it appears on the surface for it to risk everything on the hope of a quick victory through a massive lightning attack on Iraq. Those who invented the blitzkrieg tactic also hoped for quick victory; they did not fare so well.