France and Iraq

Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu
Wed Sep 4 11:59:16 MDT 1996


On Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:58:04 +0200 (MET DST) Rolf Martens
<rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:


> Barkley R. wrote:
>
> >     There is more to the disdain by France of US actions
> >in Iraq than mere legalities, which the French have never
> >been known to respect when it has not been in their
> >interests.
> ........
>
> >     Furthermore, France has in the past had lots of
> >military trade deals with Iraq and would like to do so
> >again.
> ........
> >     Finally it should be noted that Iraq was once ruled by
> >the British.  However, according to the imperialist
> >British-French Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, France was
> >supposed to get the area in northern Iraq around Mosul
> ........
> >  A bit of French resentment
> >over this long ago loss may also be playing a role here.
> >Barkley Rosser
> >
>
> Certainly there were some own bourgeois interests involved.
> But it was a very good thing that France protested anyway.
>
> This matter again shows the importance and correctness
> of Mao Zedong's 1974 "three worlds" analysis, pointing to
> an element in the international situation which still exists,
> the fact that countries like France are not in the same
> situation as the USA and (still today) Russia.
>
> Despite the of course bourgeois character of the Saddam regime
> too, the US missile attack was an outrage and must be protested
> against.
>
> Rolf M.
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
     For once I agree with Rolf.  The French and the
Russians are right about this, essentially.  The US
response is pure "we're Number One" muscle flexing in a
region central to US imperial interests, in particular the
main oil supplies of the world in the Gulf.  In the midst
of a presidential campaign, a pot smoking, draft-dodging,
adulterous president is going to play tough guy with a
tough, wounded war veteran opponent breathing down his neck.
There is no real justification for this.
     BTW, I think those who suggest this is about raising
the price of oil are engaging in materialism so vulgar that
it is just plain out to lunch.  Big Oil is not funding
Bill.  They gain from higher oil prices (see my "The
Emergence of the Megacorpstate and the Acceleration of
Global Inflation," _Journal of Post Keynesian Economics_,
Spring, 1981).  But higher oil prices do NOT lead to
US presidents getting re-elected, as Jimmy Carter learned
in 1980 and Bill Clinton most surely has not forgotten.
And getting re-elected is all Bill Clinton cares about.
--
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb at jmu.edu




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list