Bush gets a break:UN Security Council legitimizes war on Iraq
President George Bush won a diplomatic victory by making up with his French and Russian competitors on the question of Iraq. On June 8th, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution 15-0 legitimizing the occupation of Iraq by u.$. forces with an Iraqi puppet prime minister installed by the CIA. Most regrettable were the Third World lackey votes for the resolution, including Algeria's. All the kow-towing to u.$. imperialism in the current United Nations is one reason MIM fights for a proletarian United Nations, an organization of nations to put u.$. imperialism into receivership. A proletarian UN would have sent troops or other activists necessary to prevent an imperialist attack on Iraq. To have such power it is necessary that a proletarian-led UN conquer the United $tates first. To take away u.$. imperialism's "freedom" to attack other countries, a joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations is necessary. Bourgeois diplomats will always cut deals that reflect the current imbalance of power instead of struggling for justice and the difficult organizational changes necessary for peace. The bourgeois diplomats have to be replaced by socialist statespeople from the oppressed nations. What the UN Security Council resolution means is that the imperialists have played all their cards to quiet the Iraqi people opposing U.$. imperialism. If the Bush administration succeeds along these lines in Iraq and elsewhere, the government will reason that there is no need for a draft. The UN resolution also clears the way for Bush to bribe other countries into sending troops to Iraq if need be. This is unlikely for the moment only because of the fierce resistance of the Iraqi people. Many countries are reluctant to send troops into obvious danger. One might ask if the resolution does not provide UN troops, then why did Bush propose it. Unlike many diplomatic maneuvers aimed only at u.$. public opinion, this one aims squarely at both U.$. and Iraqi public opinion. If the Iraqi people keep fighting, the Democrats will not be able to say that it is on account of Bush's strategy not to seek a UN mandate. That's why the UN Security Council vote is a victory for Bush but also a last card to play. The UN-recognized U.$.-puppet regime in Iraq now has the UN authority to ask troops to leave Iraq completely. The UN resolution also specifies January 2006 as the last days of an international force occupying Iraq. By itself, this resolution is likely to set back the anti-war movement in the united $tates as more watery petty-bourgeois elements decide that Bush has started to pay attention to diplomacy. In contrast, the proletarian parties will oppose the UN-backed puppet regime regardless of the waiverings of the petty-bourgeoisie. The UN resolution will also serve as effective propaganda against the anti-draft movement, because it encourages the public to think that the need for troops will be gone by February 2006. Thus far, none of MIM's predictions about the draft and Iraq are wrong. We said that Bush supporters would be surprised when troops do not come out of Iraq July 1. To mollify those people, who are especially afraid Bush will lose to Kerry, Bush went to the UN to get this resolution, a sort of bone in place of troop withdrawal. Realistically, the ball is in the Iraqi people's court. The question is whether this UN resolution placates the Iraqi people. If they continue to fight hard against the occupiers, the Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie will also see the merits of withdrawing U.$. troops. If the Iraqi people do not fight hard and even disarm, look forward to Uncle $am's rigging elections in Iraq with the possibility of U.$. troops in Iraq in 2007 and beyond just as in Germany and southern Korea. In other draft-related news, as MIM reported before, Uncle $am offered to pull all troops out of Korea. Now it is definite that one-third will leave, up from even the 3,000 discussed just recently. 12,000 will now leave(2) and Kim in northern Korea will no longer be able to target them. It is noteworthy that this may open the way for bombings in the minds of U.$. military analysts, as northern Korea has fewer U.$. troops to retaliate against. Also noteworthy on the draft issue, Bush ordered "stop loss" measures for troops in Iraq which Democratic candidate for president John Kerry called a "backdoor draft."(3) This is more or less an admission that refusing to let troops end their enlistments and also refusing to let them transfer units amounts to a draft in effect already, for people with military experience. Without the measures, the Pentagon complained that 25% of units would be missing, thus making them short-handed. Not to be outdone, Kerry proposed doubling the "special forces"(3)--forces originally used against national liberation movements since president J.F. Kennedy. Special forces have psy-war training, language competence and a lighter profile than larger more regular army units. The rhetoric of Kerry and the later actions by Bush suggest that the government is taking seriously the idea of deploying against "terrorism" and not nations. Somehow they have succeeded in labelling Iraq a "terrorist nation" in their minds and the minds of their yahoo supporters. Nonetheless, this is the rubric of flexibility allowing a shift of resources from places like Korea and Okinawa to Iraq. As we said before, neither candidate will touch the draft before the 2004 election. They both want to appear to be doing everything possible to make a draft unnecessary. Yet we warn our readers that the economic system that caused the wars against Iraq is still in place. The for-profit motivations to trade in weapons of mass destruction are still there. Capitalism cannot bring real long-term stability no matter how many Security Council resolutions end up passing.
Note:
|