Washington Debates Whether Castro Has Germ Weapons

Paul Flewers hatchet.job at virgin.net
Fri Sep 6 14:07:59 MDT 2002


< Is Fidel Castro busy cooking up viruses in Cuban labs to share with
Islamic fundamentalists? To the pro-Castro lobby in America this is nothing
more than a crackpot conspiracy theory devised by Miami's right-wing
extremists. But to some reputable intelligence experts, the case is not so
open and shut. It would be alarmist to warn of an impending attack but it
would be irresponsible to ignore some disconcerting signals and not remain
vigilant. >

I don't think this will be the last example of this sort of tale. In the
build-up to the war on Iraq we will be getting all kinds of lies and tall
tales, rumours and 'intelligence briefings' not merely about Iraq, but about
any regime the USA doesn't like, and that's quite a few.

I consider that the attacks on the USA last September have kicked trends in
international relations along by a decade -- that's the real significance of
the attacks. Most importantly, this means that the tendency of the US
bourgeoisie towards unilateralism, doing what it wants without concern for
others, have been immensely strengthened. Having Mr Bush in the White House
has further quickened this trend, but any US president would have followed a
similar course.

Although, according to the telly news tonight, Russia and China have stated
that they will use their UN veto if the USA tries to get an attack on Iraq
ratified by the UN, I think that the USA will go ahead anyway, even if its
only active support is little Blair in Britain. Bush has made this clear,
and I think that he will go for an attack regardless of the warnings and
objections of other states, and even the use of the Russian and Chinese
vetos.

The real question is domestic support. Blair will try and go ahead with
supporting a US attack on Iraq come what may, he will ignore his party's
conference if it goes against him, and he is likely to get any parliamentary
vote to go his way; I think there are sufficient Tories and boot-lickers in
his own party -- there have only been hints of disquiet amongst the Cabinet,
no even half-way objections -- to ratify an attack in parliament. Blair can
safely ignore opposition as there is no left-wing pole of attraction strong
enough to mobilise enough support to block Blair. There will be big
protests, but this won't stop Blair. He really gets off on having a war, he
loves it; there are plenty of domestic issues in Britain he could be
addressing, but he's spending all the time abroad as Bush's runner.

I don't know much about US politics -- perhaps list members there can fill
in the details -- but, to return to the quote at the head of this posting,
I'm sure that the rumour mills and lie machines will be out in force. Just
tonight I heard Bush -- at the same time as his planes are bombing Iraq yet
again -- saying that Saddam is the most militaristic man on the planet; the
chutzpah of this bloke is breathtaking. It's just not building up a hate
campaign against Iraq, it's about promoting 'threats' to the USA from all
comers. My consideration is that Bush & Co see the Iraq affair as just the
start of a lengthy campaign to reassert US power, first of all in the Gulf,
securing the oil, and then elsewhere. Iraq will only be the start of US
involvement in the Gulf; if it's successful, I can foresee a campaign
against the House of Saud. Then Cuba perhaps, or maybe Venezuala first...
Whatever the order, stupid rumours will be concocted to justify an attack.

It's a high risk strategy, that's why there are the worries from normally
hawkish individuals in the USA (in Europe, worries about Bush are different,
here it's about concern about European imperialist interests in the Middle
East being squeezed out by the USA -- Europe v America starting up again,
this time for real). But Bush's programme is in the nature of post-Cold War
US policies.

Paul F


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list