the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
Jan 6, 2003
Will the new year be as bad or even worse than the old one? That depends on us.
The workers at United Airlines today face an ultimatum: accept severe wage cuts and a decrease in your pension benefits amounting to almost 38%–or the company will ask the bankruptcy court to completely abrogate the whole union contract.
United–which claims not to have enough money to pay its bills and declared bankruptcy to prove it–is not the only company making outrageous demands. And other companies are not in the bankruptcy courts. Nor did they lose a plane to September 11. But that doesn’t stop them from demanding sacrifices or still referring to September 11.
Almost every worker’s family is seeing their standard of living come under attack. Hundreds of thousands of workers, when they get their first January paycheck, are going to discover that their checks got quite a bit lighter–deductions for their part of the medical insurance premium jumped up. In some cases, the whole cost of the insurance was dumped in their laps with very little advance warning.
More and more workers are facing some kind of unemployment. Some of us will be bounced in and out of the plant for a week or two at a time; some will have our overtime cut way back; some will end up out in the street, permanently. And unemployment is already at an eight-and-a half-year high.
Each person who loses a job knows that if the unemployment goes on too long, they face the risk of losing their home–and homelessness is already at its highest level since the so-called "Great Depression" of 1929-41.
At the same time, every level of government has been singing the same sad song: They don’t have enough money to pay their bills, so we have to sacrifice. They say education expenditures need to be cut; public services in general should "tighten the belt"–meaning more potholes, less bus service, more garbage in the streets, less help to people who are really destitute. And so on, so on, so on.
And there, right in front of us, staring us in the face, is the threat of a new war–one which will make us pay dearly. Not only does this war mean that a new generation of young people is about to be ground up as cannon fodder or turned into the walking casualties of a war in which they find themselves killing civilians–women, children and even babies. This war will also bring new repression on the home field–and an enormous increase in demands for sacrifice. The high tech weapons to be used–not against Saddam Hussein, but against the people of Iraq, people just like ourselves–will be paid for by reductions in every public service, every social program, every field of education on which our lives depend.
This may be Bush’s view of what our lives should be, it may satisfy the greed of the wealthy few who sit on the top of this society–but there is no reason, none at all, for us to accept it.
There is more than enough money in this society to satisfy the basic needs of everyone–but the people who today control it must be forced to give it up. Not a single company that makes a profit should be allowed to lay-off a worker or cut a wage. And if a company can’t make a profit without laying off its workers or cutting wages, then let it be taken over and run in the interests of everyone, not in the interests of high-paid executives and wealthy stockholders.
Not a cent of tax money should be spent on wars, nor on subsidies for big business. This would immediately free up hundreds of billions of dollars to improve our education system, provide housing to those who need it, keep our big cities clean and safe. Medical care should not be doled out by companies whose main concern is to make a profit. Hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical laboratories all should be run in the interest of the whole society. Utilities should be organized to serve our needs, not the interests of speculators.
What stands in the way of this is a very tiny layer of society–perhaps no more than ten% all told, who today benefit, because the majority of society is exploited.
In other words, what really stands in the way is that the majority of people do not impose their needs on those at the top. But we could. That depends on our determination and on our readiness to wage a fight.
Jan 6, 2003
First, Senator George Mitchell declined to head the 9/11 inquiry commission, saying he had conflicts of interest.
Then Henry Kissinger had the same problem, conflict of interests.
Now President Bush has appointed ex-Governor Thomas Kean to head the inquiry.
Evidently Bush doesn’t think it’s a conflict of interest that Kean is a business partner of two major figures to be investigated!
Thomas Kean sits on the board of directors of Amerada-Hess. Amerada-Hess is in a joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia to develop oil fields in the Caspian Sea region. And who owns Delta Oil? Two wealthy Saudi Arabian families headed by Khalid bin Mahfouz and Mohammed Al-Amoudi. Both of these billionaire families are under suspicion as having given financial support to Osama bin Laden–who happens to be the brother-in-law of one of the men.
Who in their right mind would want a business partner of a suspect to be in charge of investigating the suspect?
But maybe that’s the point–at least if you want an investigation which investigates nothing!
Jan 6, 2003
A new treasury secretary has been proposed by the administration: John Snow.
Snow is portrayed as honest, upright–a man to inspire confidence, an example of what government officials should be.
Or so says the Bush administration.
We can seen what the administration has in mind when we look at Snow’s history. Since 1991, Snow was president and chief executive officer of the CSX Corporation.
Year after year, Snow’s salary increased. By 2000, his compensation hit 8.7 million dollars.
In that same year, CSX was cited by the federal government for significant track-safety violations. The company also ran into trouble over its merger with Conrail. So Snow recommended he get no bonus on top of his multi-million dollar salary.
The board of directors made it up to him with stock options–and they forgave a 24 million dollar loan they had extended to him in 1996.
This past summer, CSX announced that its third-quarter outlook was poor. The stock fell in value by about a third. Mr. Snow, however, had sold off four million dollars of stock just a month before. What a good piece of "luck" for Mr. Snow!
Snow presents a good example, alright–of corporate greed.
Jan 6, 2003
In an attempt to clean up their image, Senate Republicans replaced Trent Lott as their majority leader. Lott had embarrassed them by openly expressing his admiration for the segregationist stance taken by Strom Thurmond in 1948.
Of course, the Republicans allowed Lott to remain in the Senate, stripping him only of his majority leader status. And the Democrats acceded to this. Apparently, neither party was upset at the idea that an open racist occupied a seat in the Senate.
Jan 6, 2003
Bill Frist, new Republican leader in the Senate, comes from a very wealthy family that made its fortune in the health care industry. Frist’s father and older brother founded HCA, a for-profit hospital chain in 1968. Frist, who was only a teenager, nonetheless derived his wealth from HCA–which today is the biggest hospital chain in the country , controlling directly or indirectly hundreds of facilities. HCA recently came into the news because it was ordered to pay the biggest fine on record–for defrauding the Medicare program! Of course, the Frist family, Bill Frist included, pretended they knew nothing about this fraud. They benefitted from it, however. This is the man who is now to be Bush’s "point-man" in the Senate for selling Medicare "reform." When Bush and Frist talk about Medicare "reform," what they mean is turning Medicare over to the for profit medical care industry–in other words, making it much easier for hospital chains like HCA and the big pharmaceutical companies to get even wealthier off the sickness of elderly people.
Jan 6, 2003
In 1996, Clinton and the Congress wrote some new "loopholes" into the tax code, giving purchasers of SUVs and light trucks a huge tax break–if they can be claimed as a business expense. For example, l38 different truck models could get as much as $24,000 in tax breaks this year. For the more expensive SUVs, tax breaks up to $32,000 can be written off as business expenses.
Car dealers of course were quick to point out this advantage to customers who can qualify as a small business or self-employed or a contractor. So the tax break undoubtedly helped certain vehicle sales to soar–the light trucks and the SUVs, which now make up about half of all sales.
These tax breaks were a huge favor to the U.S. auto industry. At the time the tax break was written, Ford, GM and Chrysler made no secret of the enormous profits from these vehicles, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars in profit depending on the model. Effectively, the government subsidized the rapid growth of these high-profit vehicles. These larger vehicles emit twice as much airborne matter as regular cars and put as much as 40% more carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.
In other words, the government, in order to push up auto industry profits, pushed sales of these gas guzzlers in place of autos which are more fuel efficient. And not only did Congress do this with a tax break, it also passed legislation making these vehicles exempt from fuel economy restrictions.
Oh yes, Congress also gave a tax break to new cars that are extremely fuel efficient, getting 50 or more miles per gallon. But it was only $4,000 per vehicle–not even a quarter of the tax break given to the gaz guzzling light trucks.
These vehicles were pushed by a sales campaign pretending to show that they were safer. Of course, it’s true that in a head-on collision between a SUV and a smaller vehicles, people in the smaller vehicle will die sooner. But that’s not "safety." It’s just a way to kill more people.
A recently released study sponsored by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety finally took on the issue of the real safety difference between larger and smaller vehicles. It turns out that a driver of a Ford Explorer is 60% more likely to die than a driver in a Toyota Camry, a car which is one thousand pounds lighter. Similar results were produced in other comparisons. Among other reasons is the fact that so many people in SUVs die in roll-overs–even when no other car is involved. Since SUV’s were brought on the market 20 years ago, there have been at least 12,000 such rollovers that resulted in the death of one or more people.
Gas guzzling, expensive, polluting, dangerous to the point of killing us–why are SUVs and light trucks so popular? As a corporate boss once said, "What’s good for General Motors is good for the country." Congress still agrees with him.
Jan 6, 2003
On December 9, United Airlines filed for bankruptcy. On December 12 and 13, it issued ultimatums to its unions for massive concessions: pilots would have to take 29% pay cuts; mechanics and baggage handlers, 13%; and flight attendants, 9%. All workers will have their holidays and vacations reduced, and their pension benefits cut by 38%. On December 28, the company went to bankruptcy court and filed a motion preparing the way for the judge to completely throw out the unions’ contracts with the company.
As the attacks escalate, union leaders were doing their best to reinforce company demands. The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) put it the most bluntly: "This process will mean further cuts to our contract and a bigger strain on our families." But the union says all this is worth it: "We will not be deterred from our goal of restoring United to the premiere airline in the world.... Those who doubt us will lose. They will not be able to compete with the new United." Too bad for all the flight attendants and other workers at competing airlines–not to mention the workers at United itself. According to the union’s plan, other companies will not be able to compete against the new United–in other words, their workers, too, will have to cut wages and benefits, initiating a downward spiral of ever lower wages and benefits. In fact, this is exactly what the whole airline industry has in mind. The AFA is perfectly happy to work along with management in these attacks: "We are committed to continuing the unprecedented cooperation between employees and management that will be necessary to turn United around and successfully shepherd it through reorganization ."At first glance, leaders of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) appeared to reject the company’s ultimatum. In fact, they didn’t disagree with any of its provisions, only that they, themselves, had not been consulted before the ultimatum was issued. In a statement issued to explain their position, IAM leaders said: "The IAM believes United’s financial problems can best be resolved with a business plan that emphasizes negotiations and partnership with its union-represented employees for the long-term health of the airline, its employees and shareholders."In reality, the stance of IAM leaders is not a rejection of concession demands, it’s simply an attempt to appear militant in the eyes of their members, many of whom had voted against the earlier–and milder–concessions which IAM leaders had negotiated. The mechanics unit of the IAM had voted it down.
The IAM says, "We remain convinced that a comprehensive recovery plan can be a success, for United’s employees, passengers and investors alike." Everyone can win, workers and investors! It’s a ridiculous deception. The company is calling on the workers to make massive sacrifices. The wealthy creditors in bankruptcy court, in front of the judge and the legal system that fully backs them up, want their money back with no losses, that is, they want the workers to pay.
The only way for the workers to defend themselves is to fight to force the executives, the investors and creditors to make the sacrifices. The heads of the unions, including the IAM, are incapable of leading such a fight, since their goal is to remain a partner with the very management which is carrying out the attacks against the workers.
This attack on United workers is the opening gun of a new round of concession demands by all the companies. American Airlines has already demanded that its workers give up a three% raise because of what’s going on at United. And behind the airlines, stands every other boss waiting to see how far down workers can be pushed. The entire working class has every interest in fighting off these attacks.
Jan 6, 2003
Exhausted, closed-in, super-exploited: that is the situation of the young Chinese girls who have barely left their childhood before they begin assembling most of the Christmas toys sold around the world.
Just before the holiday season, a group of non-government organizations denounced the conditions under which most toys are manufactured for the big toy producers of the rich countries. Barbie dolls, Friends of the Forest, and Harry Potter figurines: 70% of the toys of the planet are produced in China.
All the big brands profit from the low wages in China: Mattel, Hasbro, Lego, Fisher Price, etc. This moving of production to low-wage countries has allowed them all to substantially increase their profits.
In China, the workers put in between 12 and 16 hours a day, seven days a week, for the equivalent of between 37 and 61 dollars a month depending on the number of overtime hours and the number of pieces produced. As soon as this seasonal work declines, the workers are thrown out of work.
On the job, they often live in company housing near or even in the factories. In 1992, two fires in toy factories–one in China, and one in Thailand–killed 276 workers.
The bosses, along with some journalists, justify this practice saying it benefits poorer countries, allowing them to carry out an industrial revolution like the one that took place in the wealthier countries in the 18th century. However, in the 18th and 19th centuries, there were men and women who denounced this form of modern slavery. And fortunately, there were social struggles that succeeded in making these practices out-dated.
Unfortunately, we now see them reappear in the 21st century.
It is not true that child slavery in the mines of India or the textile factories in Pakistan is a necessary economic stage in the development of poor countries.
Such a development does not benefit society overall, but only the bank accounts of a few modern slaveholders. For society as a whole to benefit, new and bigger social struggles will have to be carried out in the 21st century.
Jan 6, 2003
Since December 2, the opposition to President Chavez has tried to paralyze Venezuela to drive him from office. The bosses’ federation Fedecamaras, the Catholic Church, the big media, the management of the Venezuelan national oil company and the union chiefs of the Venezuelan Confederation of Labor have joined to form the Democratic Coordination. The Coordination has mobilized the petty bourgeoisie of the capital to bang pots and pans and to demonstrate. This situation recalls that of Chile under Allende in 1973. At that time, the Chilean bourgeoisie mobilized the petty bourgeoisie, with the support of U.S. imperialism, against the "left" government, before the army carried out a blood bath against the working class.
The Coordination has declared a so-called "general strike," which has stopped a good part of commerce. Gas no longer arrives at the gas stations, threatening to paralyze the country. But most importantly oil exports are blocked. Venezuela is the eighth biggest oil producer in the world and the fifth biggest exporter. Its oil exports–70% of which go to the U.S.–bring in half the country’s income.
The objective of the opposition is to get rid of Chavez and to exclude him from new elections. The political and economic leaders of the country denounce the dictatorship of the president. In fact, it seems that Chavez, a former colonel, was jailed in 1992 when his coup attempt against the old corrupt government failed. But after two years in jail, he was released and was elected president in 1998. He was re-elected in 2000. If the political and economic leaders are angry at him now, it’s because he has taken, or threatens to take away a few of their privileges.
Chavez wasn’t part of those corrupt leadership circles who became prosperous from the oil windfall and who, in 1989, killed hundreds of people to crush a popular revolt. This is where his popularity comes from, gaining him the support of the lower classes of the shantytowns of Caracas and an entire part of the army. When last April the oligarchy managed to overthrow and arrest him, he was quickly freed and returned to his post by demonstrations from the shantytowns and the paratroopers. Since then, he has continued to speak directly to the population through weekly television broadcasts. He again took up a demagogic–but ineffective–stance in favor of the poor and the oppressed (almost 80% of Venezuelans live below the poverty level.) He appeared with Fidel Castro and made a visit to SaddamHussein.
These little provocations against the bourgeoisie and the United States haven’t gone far. He hasn’t taken on the fortunes of the rich. He’s content to utilize anti-rich and anti-U.S. feelings in the population in order to reinforce his popularity. But that’s enough to make him extremely hated by the oligarchy.
The imperialist leaders, the U.S. and others, appear to consider him unpredictable and so potentially dangerous. But they also know, after seeing what happened last April, that it is dangerous to take him on directly, since he benefits from the support of the majority of the population and the army. The United States tried to intervene through the Organization of American States, recommending a "political solution" and the elections–which the Coordination called for. But faced with Chavez’s refusal, the U.S. hasn’t insisted. And the fact that the Brazilian government, both the previous administration and the new one, delivered fuel to Venezuela to prevent the paralysis of the country, shows that no one wants a bloody test of force.
Chavez, for his part, remains on the defensive, mobilizing the poor layers of the population to support him, but holding back from making an assault on the rich and the corrupt. Right now the army seems to staying faithful to the Constitution and to Chavez, but for how long?
Jan 6, 2003
The Raelian sect has now announced that it has cloned two human beings. A number of scientists have commented that it could be a pure and simple hoax. And this religious sect has so far failed to provide any demonstration or proof of its claims.
Nonetheless, it is not impossible that a human clone could be "built." In 1997 already, the sheep Dolly demonstrated that the attempt to clone a mammal had succeeded. Several other mammals have since been cloned. This created the widespread and sensational image that "exact copies" could now be cloned of almost anything.
In reality, there are immense scientific and technical difficulties, as well as numerous failures which researchers confronted until they could produce just one "presentable" result. Given the current state of knowledge, these results bode badly for reproductive cloning. Beyond the very high rate of spontaneous abortions and early death after birth, the animals obtained in this way very often have serious defects. Among other reasons, the flesh, bones and organs of these "new borns" have the same age as their donor (usually a female) when they are born, and not the amount of time they have been alive. New born clones are biologically aged. So–and serious scientists are the first to say it–this enterprise would be at the very least criminal with respect to human beings.
But even apart from the current practical problems, the idea of cloning human beings would be perfectly reactionary in every sense of the term. Cloning–that is, asexual reproduction–goes against the whole evolution of species, including human beings, since the appearance of sexuality. Sexual reproduction has permitted the diversification of species, their proliferation and their development up to the appearance of our distant ancestors. Poetry, the arts, literature, feelings and human society itself would all be unthinkable without sexuality and without sexual reproduction, which makes each human being a unique individual.
Cloning has no place, outside the head of some crazy scientist or, more probably, con artist who smells the possibility of a swindle in it. It makes no difference who proposes to carry out the procedure–whether a sect like the Raelians or equally unscrupulous con men like Zavos in the United States or Antinori in Italy, who both say they are about to announce human clones they have produced.
Obviously, it’s not shocking that this society would seek to protect itself from such people; on the contrary. Moreover, the scientific community supports such prohibitions. But, in some cases, for example in France or to some extent in the United States, this prohibition has been extended to another domain–that is, cloning for medical purposes, called for this reason therapeutic cloning, which depends on some of the same techniques as reproductive cloning but uses them for much different aims.
Cloning for therapeutic purposes depends on embryonic stem cells, which are the first cells to appear after an egg is fertilized and are capable of producing the entire range of cells which make up a future human being. This science is still at a very early stage, but such cells eventually might be used, for example, to provide the material to replace damaged heart muscle cells after a heart attack; or, in the case of diseases like Parkinsons, to furnish neurons capable of migrating toward areas of the brain where certain cells are deficient.
Obviously, the experiments that this implies must be carried out within a careful framework. But the prohibitions which exist in certain countries against all research involving stem cells, affecting all forms of cloning, are not aimed at establishing such a framework. These absolute prohibitions, when aimed against cloning for therapeutic ends, result from the sensitivity by politicians to reactionary sectors of opinion. For example, there are some organizations and religions that condemn abortion, denying women the right to control their own bodies. These same organizations oppose the utilization by scientists of aborted embryos, even of fertilized eggs which are unused in the case of assisted fertilization.
In Europe and North America, the legislation is sometimes more, sometimes less, restrictive. In the United States, the restrictions issued by Bush are hypocritical–refusing to let stem cells be produced on U.S. soil ... but not prohibiting their importation from other countries. It’s obviously only a way to respond to the needs of scientific research, while keeping reactionary layers of society happy. Such an arrangement is aimed also at preserving the interests of private capital, which doesn’t want to miss the opportunity to invest in this sector. That’s why there has been no prohibition on issuing patents in this domain–even when they concern parts of the human body.
Jan 6, 2003
Baltimore city officials have finally hooked up temporary showers in a trailer promising to install permanent showers–six months after workers who work on the Baltimore sewer system protested the lack of showers at work. The city also agreed to provide laundry service although so far it has not provided any.
The sewer workers–and their families–run serious health risks if they don’t shower immediately after working in underground sewers or if they use washing machines at home for their work clothes. Occupational and public health experts have known for years that hepatitis A and other illnesses carried in sewers could contaminate home laundry.
Yet, in what’s sometimes dubbed the "world’s leading country," this basic sanitation measure is still not required under state and federal workplace safety rules.
It took 21st century sewer workers in a major port city putting forth their demands to finally win 19th century basic sanitation.
Jan 6, 2003
Even before the snow fell in the early December storm, the schools in Washington D.C. had plenty of leaking roofs, faulty furnaces and 14,000 work repair orders not completed.
Then came the snow and cold, making things worse. Recent cutbacks mean that maintenance staff can’t go into schools Sunday night to turn up the heat. That means students enter schools on Monday when temperatures in classrooms hover around 55 degrees.
"My toes have gone numb every hour," one teacher said. "I can’t even think in this environment, much less teach, and it’s really unfair to the kids. I know if I can’t focus to teach them, they can’t learn, either."And why don’t the D.C. schools have enough money? Because Congress, which controls their budget, is cutting back on "non-essentials"–among which Congress clearly counts education for Washington’s children.
Jan 6, 2003
Two professors from Boston and Chicago recently carried out an interesting experiment. They mailed out 5,000 resumes in response to job offers appearing in newspaper ads. The same resumes were sent to various employers, but carrying different names–half typical of black names, half typical of white. For example, black women’s names included LaToya, Tanisha, Lakisha and Tamika, while typical white women’s names were Kristen, Carrie, Laurie and Meredith. It turned out that resumes with typically white names received twice as many offers to come in for an interview as did the very same resumes with black names attached.
We often hear reactionaries assert, "black people are always complaining about what happened under slavery, which has been over for 140 years." Well, people have a right to complain–and, more important–to put up a fight, when everything that happens shows that racism is alive and still kicking.
Jan 6, 2003
On September 30, workers went on strike against Azteca Foods, a tortilla factory in a Chicago suburb. Almost all the strikers are Mexican, as is the owner, Art Velasquez, who made a name for himself as a "progressive" serving as a department head under Mayor Harold Washington. When it comes to parades on Mexican independence day and on other occasions, Velasquez is pointed to as a leader of the Mexican community.
This "community leader" was perfectly happy to employ Mexican workers–paying them only $9.44 an hour. He enforced very rapid production speeds, leading to numerous accidents. Then when the workers went on strike, he threatened them by referring to what happened to Rudy Lozano, who helped lead a strike at another tortilla factory and who was killed by gangs at the bidding of the owner.
In the strike, Velasquez hired recent Mexican immigrants through temporary agencies to act as strikebreakers, taking advantage of their precarious situation.
Velasquez’s Mexican heritage doesn’t make him any more sympathetic to Mexican workers. On the contrary, although he plays on it, he is a boss like any other. He has numerous connections with businessmen who will give him support to last out a strike. And he can rely on the U.S. government to protect him in employing strikebreakers and against energetic action by the strikers.
The strikers may be few in numbers. But they can find power in their own connections with other workers, who face similar conditions, no matter what boss they work for.
Jan 6, 2003
On December 28, three days after Christmas, 780,000 workers were cut off of unemployment benefits. Congress had gone home for the holidays without passing the bill that would have kept their checks coming.
Each week that passes, another 95,000 or so workers will be cut off as their eligibility runs out.
Of course Congress kept some other checks coming. And not only coming–since Congress raised its own pay by 3.1%.
This was the final act in a staged election-year drama. Last March, President Bush signed a bill that Congress had passed extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks–just in time for the 2002 election campaigns. But the hook was that the bill expired–in December 2002, that is, just as soon as the elections were safely past.
Now Bush and Congress are making speeches about how the first order of business in the new Congress will be to restore some unemployment benefits. It’s another game–which will be played out with lots of hearings, debates, wrangling, etc.–that is taking lots of time.
Of course, Congress doesn’t always act so slowly. It didn’t take them but a few minutes to vote down an amendment offered by one senator to freeze their own pay while unemployment is so high.
It all depends on what’s important to Congress–and the plight of the unemployed certainly isn’t.
Jan 6, 2003
Included in documents the Iraqi government released to the United Nations Security Council on December 7 are details of how some of the biggest corporations in the U.S. and Europe aided Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Listed in the report are the names of 24 companies based in the U.S. that sold Iraq components to make weapons of mass destruction. These include some of the biggest and most well-known companies in the country: Honeywell, Semetex, UNISYS, Sperry, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Eastman Kodak, Union Carbide and Bechtel. In addition, the foremost U.S. laboratories, including the nuclear weapons laboratories at Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Scandia also provided important support to build rockets, components for nuclear weapons, as well as chemical and biological weapons. And this was all not just OK’d, but also coordinated by various departments of the U.S. government, including the departments of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture.
As the documents show, from 1975 up until the eve of the 1990 Persian Gulf War, these companies, as well as many other companies from Europe, provided entire complexes, building elements, basic materials and technical know-how for Saddam Hussein’s programs to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. They also supplied rockets and complete conventional weapons systems.
How else could Hussein have gotten these weapons? Iraq was not a heavily industrialized country. It has always been forced to import most of the technology that it needs for its weapons industry, not to speak of its entire economy.
Of course, these details are overlooked by Bush when he talks about Saddam Hussein’s use of these weapons in the past. The five permanent members of the Security Council–led by the United States–opposed publishing any report of these companies’ involvement, just as they have for the last 12 years, that is, since the Persian Gulf War.
It’s obvious why they won’t publish these details: these facts don’t just condemn the barbaric nature of the Hussein dictatorship, but also condemn the very members of the Security Council, starting with the U.S., that now oppose him.
When details of the report finally began to be leaked to the press, they were published mainly outside the U.S. The U.S. news media–which claims to be so "free" and "fair"–studiously ignored any mention of the role that U.S. companies played. On December 21, The New York Times finally did publish an article about the Iraqi documents. But the article mentioned only two companies based in the U.S.–both happened to be owned by Iraqi businessmen and are now out of business.
What the U.S. corporations, with the aid and support of the U.S. government, did for the regime of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s,they do for dictators all over the world all the time. The U.S. suppliers of weapons are by far the largest in the world. Obviously, for them this is a highly profitable industry–among the most profitable in the world. But besides that, dictators (like Hussein) then use these weapons to secure corporate profits, that is, to impose the imperialist order all over the world–through the worst, most barbaric violence imaginable, through war and repression.
Standing behind these dictatorships is the one power with more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world combined–the U.S. government. The government which today justifies a war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein for at one time having the very weapons that it supplied him with.
Jan 6, 2003
The year 2002 was marked by a permanent threat of war against Iraq. Unfortunately, this threat is still present and, in fact, growing.
Having added to the destruction and desolation in Afghanistan, the Bush administration then turned Iraq into a target for its next war, without bothering to offer any proof of its allegations. It simply flooded the airwaves, the TV channels and the press with accusations and threatening words, aimed at manipulating U.S. public opinion first, but also international public opinion.
No one can know when Bush and his team will choose to unleash this new war, and still less can we know what will come of it. But each day the preparations for war are more obvious. The U.S. military recently announced that 60,000 men had landed in the countries bordering Iraq, adding to the 60,000 troops with 400 planes already stationed there–an entire military arsenal surrounding Iraq, with several hundred thousand troops available nearby. And, as Bush himself recently announced, the U.S. is prepared to use nuclear weapons if it "suspects" that Saddam Hussein is about to deploy biological weapons.
Is it a bluff? Perhaps. Is the whole build-up a bluff? Perhaps–since top commanders in the military continue to question the wisdom of such a war. But, it’s equally possible that this is the buildup for a real war.
Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has used bloody methods against all the different peoples who live on Iraqi soil. This could be seen long before the politicians and journalists began to talk about it. In fact, many of the ones who today denounce him used to call this dictator their friend, or at least someone worth doing business with.
Bush and his advisors never have been worried about the fact that Saddam Hussein oppresses his own people and are not worried about it today. The United States has often supported other dictators equally or more bloody than Saddam Hussein, when it didn’t simply put them in power. The politicians and commentators who today talk about a possible future intervention against Iraq as a sad but necessary episode–part of the crusade against evil–know full well that this is not the issue.
What purpose will this war really serve? Colin Powell inadvertently let a small part of the truth slip recently when he declared: "If the forces of a coalition must reach the zone of oil fields, we’ll do what’s necessary to protect them, we’ll assure that they are utilized for the benefit of the Iraqis and not destroyed or damaged by a weakened regime..."Of course we know what it means when Powell talks about utilizing the oil fields for the "benefit of the Iraqis" or later on when he declares that, "the oil fields are the property of the Iraqi people." For Powell, the "Iraqis" he refers to are ExxonMobil and the other American and British companies that even today are taking enormous profits from the country.
For Bush and his advisors, "civilization" in Iraq consists essentially of the oil companies, the industrial companies and the banks. The real people in the area don’t seem to exist.
Powell’s comment–if we needed another proof–shows that this war isn’t our war. Not only won’t it contribute to freeing the Iraqi population from the yoke under which it suffers, but it aims to impose another yoke, just as horrible.
Moreover, the consequences of such a war will weigh also on other people, including the U.S. population. In order to carry out such a war, the government will impose greater restrictions on our liberty–it has already put in place the legal framework for carrying out repression against those who might oppose such a war or any other actions proposed by the government. And invoking the priority of the war, they will also try to make us pay for it, and attack us for "undermining the war effort" if we try to defend our own standard of living.
All wars are paid for by the people, to the profit of the major industrialists and bankers.