Bush in Brussels
US Steps Up Threats Of Wider Mideast War
by Patrick Martin; March 01, 2005
George Bush began his European tour in Brussels with a series of
bellicose pronouncements, putting his hosts on notice that the United
States intends to push ahead with new military threats and
provocations that could expand the current war in Iraq into a wider
conflagration embracing much of the Middle East.
The principal target of Bush’s threats was Iran, but Syria also came
in for a heavy-handed warning. The US president denounced Tehran for
allegedly planning to build nuclear weapons and made clear his
opposition to the strategy, pursued by Britain, France and Germany, of
offering economic concessions to Iran in return for promises to limit
its nuclear programs to energy production. He claimed that Iran had
“breached a contract with the international community. They’re the
party that needs to be held to account—not any of us.”
While this language clearly resembles Bush’s rhetoric before the
attack on Iraq, when he cited Saddam Hussein’s alleged multiple
violations of UN resolutions, Bush went out of his way to deny press
reports suggesting an imminent US military strike against Iran’s
supposed nuclear weapons labs.
Pentagon planning for such strikes—including the dispatch into Iran of
special forces teams to choose targets—was reported by the New Yorker
last month. Pentagon officials have since confirmed they are
systematically updating longstanding contingency plans for military
action against Iran, to take into account the presence of 160,000
American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which border Iran on the west
and east.
Last week, former top US weapons inspector Scott Ritter, in remarks at
a college campus in Olympia, Washington, said that Bush has already
signed off on a June 2005 air strike against selected Iranian targets.
Ritter also claimed that the Bush administration had manipulated the
result of the January 30 Iraq election, reducing the vote of the
victorious Shiite coalition from 56 percent to 48 percent in order to
block the emergence of a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. He suggested
that New Yorker correspondent Seymour Hersh, author of the report on
war planning against Iran, was about to publish an exposé of Iraq vote
fraud.
In remarks to the media Tuesday, Bush declared, “This notion that the
United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.”
He added immediately, “And having said that, all options are on the
table,” provoking guffaws from the press corps.
Equally provocative was Bush’s criticism of Syria as “an occupying
power” in Lebanon. As commander in chief of the US military, Bush
presides over a much bloodier and more brutal occupation of Iraq, with
ten times as many troops. Moreover, he is a fervent supporter of the
government of Israel, which has occupied the West Bank and Gaza for
nine years longer than the Syrians have had a troop presence in
Lebanon.
It is a historical fact that Syria originally intervened in Lebanon
with the tacit consent of both the United States and Israel, to
bolster the right-wing Christian Falangist ruling elite, whose power
was threatened by an alliance of oppressed Shiite Muslims and
Palestinian refugees. In that capacity, Syria presided over atrocities
like the massacre by its Falangist allies of Palestinians at the Tel
al-Zaatar refugee camp.
A quarter century later, the US suddenly finds Syrian domination of
Lebanon intolerable. This is not because of any concern for the
democratic and national rights of the Lebanese people—which both the
US and Israel have long ignored—but because American imperialism, from
its new vantage point as the occupying power in Iraq, sees Syria as
the next obstacle to extending its domination over the Middle East.
Even more ominously, Bush sought to browbeat both China and Russia,
nuclear-armed major powers. He prodded the European Union not to sell
advanced weapons systems to Beijing, while warming up for his summit
with Vladimir Putin with a lecture on the need for Russia to meet US
expectations about democracy at home and weapons sales abroad.
Two leading US senators, Republican John McCain and Democrat Joseph
Lieberman, introduced a resolution February 18 calling for Russia to
be suspended from the Group of Eight industrialized nations because of
actions like the state takeover of Yukos, the largest private Russian
oil company, and Putin’s opposition to Viktor Yushchenko, the
US-backed candidate who took over as prime minister in the recent
Ukraine elections.
Bush’s comments Monday about Russia, demanding it “renew a commitment
to democracy and the rule of law,” were typically hypocritical coming
from an administration whose foreign policy is based on the premise
that the United States will be bound by no law where its perceived
interests are at stake. Bush has repeatedly declared that he will
never be constrained by international law, which he demeans as giving
the United Nations, France or some other country “veto power” over US
military action.
As for his declaration that that the US “stands for a free press, a
vital opposition, the sharing of power,” the trend within the United
States itself is precisely the opposite: a cowed media, a token
opposition, and unchecked power for an administration that stole the
2000 election and only narrowly won last November’s vote.
In relation to China, Bush claimed that a plan by the European Union
to lift a 15-year ban on arms sales would “change the balance of
relations between China and Taiwan.” His real concern, however, is not
the balance between China and Taiwan, but between China and the United
States. Both Pentagon officials and right-wing US think tanks see
China as the most formidable future antagonist of American
imperialism, especially if China’s economic weight and enormous
population are combined with advanced technology supplied by Europe.
There is particular concern in Washington that China could acquire or
develop high-tech command-and-control systems and targeting
capabilities comparable to American AWACS and “smart” weapons. This
would make obsolete the current American war planning in the Far East,
based on using air and naval power to control the Taiwan Strait.
The American media obediently followed the direction of White House
spin doctors, portraying Bush’s bullying in Brussels as a “charm
offensive” in which the US president sought to bury the hatchet with
European leaders after the bitter conflicts over his decision to
invade and occupy Iraq. The reality is that the tensions between the
rival imperialist powers are even greater than in 2003, although
masked by diplomatic formalities.
This conflict emerged sharply in the discussion at the NATO summit
Tuesday on support for the training of Iraqi security forces. All 26
member countries of the US-led alliance ultimately agreed to
participate, although six refused to send military trainers to Iraq,
consenting only to host the training of Iraqis outside the country.
French acquiescence was particularly begrudging, as President Jacques
Chirac ultimately agreed to supply a single French officer to help
coordinate the NATO training effort.
Bush welcomed this acceptance in principle of the legitimacy of the US
occupation regime in Iraq. “Twenty-six nations sitting around that
table said it’s important for NATO to be involved in Iraq,” he said.
“That’s a strong statement.” Asked about the French contribution of
one officer, he replied, “Every contribution helps.”
While the NATO agreement does little to assist the US materially in
Iraq, the political significance of this capitulation is unmistakable.
It arises not merely out of fear of the United States or adaptation to
the reality of a reelected Bush administration. More fundamentally,
the European powers are preparing for their own Iraqs and
Afghanistans, as the conflict between the rival imperialist powers
over control of critical resources and strategic positions
intensifies.
Not one of the 26 governments cares to state what they all know to be
true: the US intervention in Iraq is illegal, a war crime under
international law, and all those who collaborate in that effort are
themselves war criminals under the Geneva Conventions and the
precedents set in 1946 at Nuremberg. For the European imperialists, as
for their American counterparts, such charges are only for defeated or
second-tier war criminals.
But in the midst of Bush’s tirades against Iran, Syria, China and
Russia, there came a sharp reminder that the driving force of American
aggression in the Middle East is the weakness, not the strength, of
American capitalism. US stock markets plunged Tuesday after a report
that the South Korean central bank was planning to hold more of its
reserves in other currencies rather than the dollar, because of the
sharp depreciation of the US currency against the euro and the yen.
This report sent shock waves through financial markets, with the
dollar falling sharply against the euro, the yen, the British pound,
the Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. The price of oil—calculated
in dollars—rose sharply as well. The price of gold jumped $7 an ounce
in a single trading session.
Central bank officials in South Korea and Japan hurriedly announced
that they had no plans to sell dollar assets from their enormous
foreign exchange reserves—$850 billion in Japan, $200 billion in
Korea—a pledge that temporarily stabilized the markets. But the
implications of this episode are clear: American imperialism may hold
military sway over the world at present, but from an economic
standpoint, it is an unstable and declining power, forced to borrow
over $600 billion a year (more than the entire Pentagon budget) simply
to balance its books.
This acute contradiction between superficial military strength and
underlying economic weakness is what lends such an explosive, even
deranged character to American foreign policy. In that sense Bush,
with his semi-literate banality and messianic bluster, is not an
accidental figure. He personifies the crisis and historical blind
alley of American imperialism.
.
|
