The Militant "endorses" March 15 protest
mikedf at amnh.org
Sun Mar 16 12:51:01 MST 2003
I think your first two sentences are correct. With a major petroleum
source, with all its lucrative and strategic importance, at issue and the
contention between Euros and dollars for the OPEC prize, I wouldn't say it
"simply" isn't a fight over the booty between the U.S. and its European
opponents. I don't think France, Russia and Germany are opposing the U.S.
for humanitarian reasons, but rather for strategic ones. I think the
jockeying that has taken place among oil giants over post-invasion Iraqi
oil-fields, as well as Bushite indications that it will "reward" friends
and "punish" opponents with access to oil fields, are as close to a clear
causal mechanism as you can get. And this is clearly classical
inter-imperialist rivalry. However, as you note, there is much else at
stake. The main axis of struggle runs through Baghdad and Washington, the
world's superpower, and is anti-colonialist in nature. The Militant should
answer the question: Who is the main threat to Iraqi sovereignty (not to
mention life and limb) today?
At 08:30 AM 3/16/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>If that were true, then the Militant's stance would make sense: which one of
>the imperialists has better table manners is really neither here nor there.
>But interimperialist rivalry in this sense, with nothing else at stake, is
>in my judgement a subordinate part of this whole crisis. This isn't simply a
>fight over the booty.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism