Protective suits can guard against the latter, but not against the shock waves of explosions which are as strong as those of a small atomic bomb, but without the radioactivity. As in Vietnam there was a hypocritical pretext for their use:
then it was to clear the jungle, this time to de-mine the ground and set fire to trench-
After three weeks of such what army would have been in a state to fight, and fight blindly, moreover, coming after two weeks hardly more bearable?
Certainly Saddam Hussein has more reason to accuse the allies — who postponed the land battle in order to profit to the maximum from their absolute superiority * in long-distance attacks — of being cowards, than Bush has to be "proud" of his But it would take a good dose of stupidity to believe that, out of chivalric bravura, the coalition was going to abstain from exploiting a decisive advantage to the full. Quite the opposite. wanted even to avoid the land battle, hoping at the start that the bombing would suffice to put an end to the Iraqi regime
As a result, the war that has just ended has been the most technological, the most capital intensive, in history. Never before has the determination of the troops played such a limited and marginal role as in the coalition's aggression against Iraq. And this was a big change for Baghdad, from the poorly equipped Iranian waves" of the eight-year war. It was quite illusory to draw conclusions from that war that would be valid for this. Both imperialist propaganda, with its talk of
"fourth army in the world", and its deliberate exaggeration of the danger that this presented for the "world order", Iraqi Ba'athist propaganda, exalting the invincibility of troops hardened in battle against a numerically superior enemy,
For anyone not taken in by this double deception, the military victory of the coalition was never in doubt. It was an inevitable result of the unequal strength of the United States and Iraq. We have constantly emphasized this, ruling out, from the start of the bombing, the idea that the Iraqi troops would put up determined resistance even where they could — that is, in
There was no room for illusion on this subject, knowing the nature of the Iraqi regime and its real relations with the population. But, even if the debacle of the Iraqi army was no surprise, the American triumph is nonetheless of enormous significance: Bush has been able to keep his promise that this would not be "another Vietnam". The New York Times has even felt able to affirm, rightly, that Vietnam
— or the Vietnam syndrome - had been "buried in the Iraqi desert." And so it has — militarily and psychologically.
The crowning moment of
Reaganism
The collective therapy represented by this war for the imperialist ideological consensus in the US, both for the morale of the army and the psycho-political conditioning of the population, requires no commentary. From this point of view as well, the war represents the crowning moment of Reaganism. Washington should light a candle to the despot of Baghdad — the ideal enemy - for providing the perfect opportunity by invading Kuwait for a demonstration of its strength — with the bonus of an unhoped for degree of national and world consensus.
Indeed, in keeping quiet, in the interests of mystifying Iraqi and Arab opinion, about the real number of victims, Saddam Hussein shored up the imperialist myth of the "surgical" and "clean" war, depriving the anti-war movement in the coalition countries of a fundamental moral argu-
On the military level, the crushing of Iraq has decisively confirmed the Pentagon's new doctrine, which was worked out precisely in response to the Vietnam trauma. This is the doctrine of a massive strike, based on absolutely overwhelming superiority, in contrast with the gradual and prolonged escalation that undertook in Indochina between 1964 and 1973. That was the main lesson that Washington could draw from its defeat in Vietnam. The human and political factor is a weak spot for the imperialist forces, and time works against it. Thus technology — in which, by definition, imperialism always has the advantage — should be used to the maximum in the shortest possi-
Hitech weapons shown to
By passing the test in Iraq, this doctrine also vindicates the Reaganite choices with regard to developing super-sophisticated weapons, choices that were strongly questioned in their time owing to their prohibitive cost compared to their expected use. Ken Adelman, who was director of arms control in the Reagan administration, can now crow: "Without President Reagan's victories in Congress during the defence battles of the 1980s, we would not be enjoying such Gulf victories in 1991."5
He attributes these successes to what he calls the "four Ss: stealth, sea-launched cruise missiles, SDI-like defenses and space systems". The trying out of these arms on real targets in the Gulf will provide the Pentagon with a powerful argument in the budgetary battles to come. The won by the $100m F-117A
"stealth" fighter, which cannot be detected by radar, will be used for example to justify the production of the S850m-$1bn "stealth" B-2 bomber.
It is, however, true, that the main objections to the Reaganite choices were economic rather than military. In this respect the very way in which the war in Iraq was conducted - without regard for cost, because of the importance of the issues — also speaks in favour of adopting the most expensive options. The leap forward in 1. International Viewpoint, no. 200, February 18, 1991. 2. IV, no. 199, February 4, 1991. The Israeli military expert, Ze'ev Schiff, recently made the same assessment of the Iraqi army's ability to resist the allied offensive by regrouping in Kuwait City (International Herald Tribune, February 20, 1991). 3. IHT, February 26, 1991. 4. /V no. 197, December 24, 1991. 5. Newsweek, February 18,1991.
the American administration's military budget will be justified at the expense of social spending, with, in the last analysis, an economic rationality. The Gulf War, has, in fact, firmly established the United States as the undisputed leader in the production of military goods and services, followed a long way behind by France and Britain.
Since a large part of the American armed services and the means they consume is financed by governments other than that of the US — such as the Arab oil monarchies, Japan and Germany — this part moves from domestic consumption, aggravating the chronic domestic budget deficit, to exports, improving the balance
More generally US military-political supremacy is being thrown into the balance to compensate for its relative economic decline. Since the start of the crisis we have described this stake, underlining the fact that it was oil money more than oil which Washington sought to control. This is assured through its hegemony over four states - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar - of a very peculiar kind, states whose specific function is to "recycle" petrodollars in the imperialist economies or in ways from which they profit.
The present world economic situation confirms the considerable importance of this latter aspect. After years of surplus liquidity (according to the logic of capitalism) there has been since 1990 a period of contraction in disposable capital in the
The annexation of East Germany by the
Federal Republic has absorbed and will absorb German financial several years to come. Japan's financial and stock market problems, added to the uncertain international economic outlook caused by the recession in the US, is now leading to a sharp fall in Japanese capital exports, notably long-term. This is taking place at a time when the capital requirements of Eastern Europe are estimated at
$300bn in the coming five years, and the
US requirement for external financing at
$100bn for 1991 alone?
Critical importance of petrodollars
In this global context, the Arab oil monof archies, those suppliers tens of billions of dollars of
"excess" capital, acquire critical importance for imperialism and above all for the imperialist greedy for capital - the
United States. By imposing itself as the main and irreplaceable "shield" of these regimes, American imperialism is guaranteed the lion's share in the various forms of recycling of petrodollars, to the detriment of all its competitors, including its coalition allies. The capitalist
GULF WAR rationality of Kuwaiti investment decisions abroad, and the inclination of the Saudi and UAE rulers to act similarly according to economic criteria, Will be replaced in a lasting way by the politicalgiven to the United States, to whom the oil monarchs will do obeisance in the manner of feudal vassals
However, the subjective will, if not the objective capacity of the oil monarchies untouched by the destruction, to import civilian material equipment has shrunk severely. Less than ever, after the Kuwaiti experience, will they be inclined to increase the mass of workers in their
The million Yemeni workers expelled from Saudi Arabia during the crisis, on the pretext of punishing the government of their country of origin for refusing to join the anti-Iraqi coalition, along with the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians expelled in one form or another from the Gulf monarchies owing to their solidarity with the Iraqi people®, or those from all over the world who have Kuwait, will only be replaced in part, mainly by Egyptian workers, in payment to Mubarak's regime for its role in the
With the exception of Kuwait, the main forms of petrodollar recycling three other monarchies will be, on the one hand, deposits of all kinds — notably the purchase of American treasury bonds, to finance the US budget deficit, which is continuing to grow?
the tens of billions of dollars to be spent sophisticated weaponry, which, of course, will be more than ever supplied by the United States.
In this field, indeed, the Pentagon's murderous toys have proved their worth, and will not be bought solely out of obligation.It is also a safe bet that the last
Israeli inspired resistance in the US congress to the sale of the most modern weaponry to the Arab oil will fall away "Desert Storm", all the more so as Washington's armies of these states is more firmly established. For Kuwait, recyreconstruction. There is a big market here — estimates vary between $40bn and $100bn for the three to five years ahead. The market for 6. TV no. 190, September 17, 1990. 7. IHT, February 28, 1991. 8. Let us note in passing that the imperialist media, present in force in Saudi Arabia since August 2, 1990, and full of concer for workers fleeing Kuwait and Irag after the invasion, have said almost nothing about the plight of the million Yemenis and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians expelled from the fundamentalist kingdom. They have also managed to overlook the ban on leaving imposed on many others who wanted to go home to await the end of the crisis. 15 9. IV 197. 10. Newsweek, February 25, 1991. March 18, 1991 • #202 International Viewpoint
GULF WAR the reconstruction of Iraq is even bigger.
(However the latter is too risky for the moment to be taken into account.)
In the present world economic climate this is really a godsend, in particular for an economy in the middle of a recession, as is the US. Before August 2, 1990, the US provided only 12% of Kuwaiti imports.
behind the European
Japan. Now the Americans are grabbing the majority of the orders - of 181 post-
Kuwaitis, 130, or 72% have gone to US companies. These are worth some $270m out of a total of $356m - that is 76%.°
On the stock markets of the US, as well as in other countries expecting to get a slice of the cake, the shares of construction, and oil and infrastructural equipment companies have been rising
The economic circuit set up by this war for the US is mind-boggling. American arms such as the Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1.3m apiece rendered surplus to requirement by disarmament on the European front, have been destroyed in Iraq
Now they can be entered into accounts under the heading "war effort" and to a large extent paid for by the US's rich protégés. They have, meanwhile, massive destruction, which, in the case of
Kuwait at least, gives rise to big orders benefiting American companies, notably in the oil sector, often tied to the industries that supply the arms.
The military-industrial-oil complex in charge
The genealogy of the firms involved, as well as the CVs of the leading actors — such as Bush himself, whose ties with the oil sector are well-known - are quite revealing. We find, for example, that the FMC Corp. of Chicago which builds the M-2 Bradley armoured troop carriers is going to supply oil installations; that Raytheon, which makes the Patriot antimissile missile is going to contribute to the reconstruction of Kuwait City airport; that the godfather of the Tomahawk programme in the 1970s, W. P. Clements, joint Defence Secretary under Nixon, is an oil tycoon, and was twice governor of Texas subsequently; or that among previous top directors of Bechtel, the firm which is placed to pick up a large part of the reconstruction work, are to be found George Schulz and Caspar Weinberger, industrial-oil complex that is pulling the so on. It really is the militarygolden chestnuts out of the fire of the Gulf
All the above listed factors have to be taken into consideration, and not only military spending, if we want to assess the effects of the war against Iraq on the American recession. The guarantee of a 16 fively insensitive to the leave of in, elat politically motivated capital inflow, relaInternational Viewpoint #202 • March 18, 1991 rates, can make it possible to keep these rates at a level low enough to be compatible with a relaunch of economic activity.
Kuwaiti orders, along with arms orders can also give a decisive pull to key sectors of the economy. There are however too many imponderables in the present highly unstable economic situation to allow confident predictions. But what must be underlined here is that, far from being a
"sacrifice" for Washington in the minds of the decision makers, the Gulf War has been a juicy enterprise, if not for the
American economy as a whole, then at least for those sectors to which they are most closely tied. They, furthermore, put their money on a short war and won their
From the global strategic point of view, the US have come out as the big winners from this massacre. In the immediate term, Bush has gained all his objectives.
American military supremacy has been effectively invested to renew and reinforce their global political leadership and to improve the terms of the economic competition with their imperialist partners. Europe has appeared disunited and unable to collectively and independently affect the course of the conflict, although its interests were even more directly involved than those of the US. The famous European defence seems a distant dream today. The French social democrats have proved faithful to their Atlantiand have liquidated the Gaullist heritage.
The attempt by the Soviet Union, meanwhile, to climb back in through the window after leaving by the tradesman's entrance, failed. Under Shevardnadze's reign as Soviet foreign affairs minister,
Moscow sold off its influence in the Middle East, in the building up of which it had invested so much. The Gorbachev leadership approved the use of force against Iraq in exchange for dollars from the oil monarchies."
Pressure from the Soviet army, disturbed at the strategic implications of the Gulf war and the disastrous effects of the abandonment by the Kremlin of its former Iraqi ally, pushed Gorbachev to try to regain centre The last minute Soviet peace proposals were aimed at saving Saddam Hussein's regime, and notably the elite Republican Guard, the main defence of the dictatorship, from collapse.
Moscow seeks to save
Saddam Hussein
If the attempt had been successful the result would have been the maintenance in power of a Saddam, who, although much weakened militarily, would still have disposed of not inconsiderable resources. The Iraqi despot would also have kept intact his prestige in the eyes of the Arab and Muslim masses, including in the Asian republics of the Soviet Union itself. Finally, Iraq would have had no choice but to depend more than ever on
Moscow to rearm, as well as rebuild, given the complete degradation of the country's relations with imperialism.
Thus, the maintenance of the Ba'athist regime is firmly
Kremlin, which, with the Palestine Liberation Organization now in the same basket as Saddam Hussein, while preserving its authority among the Palestinian masses, would have continued to dispose of very important political instruments in the
Thus it is understandable why Washington systematically worked to block Gorbachev's manoeuvres. In the final days of the conflict the issue was no longer war or peace, but the aftermath of the war.
The US had to attain its main objective of the final weeks of the war whatever the cost. Not so much the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - an accessory objective not worth big risks by Bush! _ but the massed in southern Iraq. The problem for the American unlike in Grenada and Panama, it does not have a satisfactory replacement for the
Iraqi dictator. The Iraqi opposition is a conglomerate of tendencies, going from pro-Iranian Shi'ite fundamentalists to pro-
Soviet Communists, to which should be added the Kurds, themselves divided into several tendencies.
### Washington fears destabilization
All told, Washington would prefer even
Saddam Hussein to such successors. The
United States administration wants to avoid persisting chaos in Iraq that would threaten the stability of the whole region. Such catastrophe scenarios have been ruled out from the start: "A vitiated, leaderless Iraq might be even more dangerous for US interests. The defeated nation could fall victim to the same internal feuding and exteral pressures that have tom apart Lebanon for 15 years. "13 Newsweek magazine in October 1990, referring to the Shi'ite and Kurd problems and Turkish, Syrian and Iranian ambi-
The magazine continued, referring to US secretary of state James Baker: "US policymakers are prepared to live with an armed, still hostile Saddam for the foreseeable future, but he would be held in check with a continuing embargo of military hardware and a "tripwire" of Arab or UN forces along Iraqi's borders with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."
This option was presented as an alternative to war. In fact, it is coming to pass now, via a war whose objective was to destroy the offensive military potential of the Iraqi army and to reduce its size by two thirds. In this way the threat this army presented to imperialist order in the region would be removed, at the same time leav-
ing the Iraqi state the means to defend itself against internal and external dangers, which, in destabilizing Iraq, would destabilize the entire region.
Washington wants to see Saddam Hussein overthrown from within his own entourage, so that the regime can be both preserved and redirected. However a revolutionary overthrow of the tyrant would be a worse outcome for the United States and its Arab protégés than his remaining in power.
The American administration has lost no opportunity to restate its commitment to the "integrity of Iraq". This clearly means that it opposes the right of self-determination of the Kurdish although it has just employed half a mil lion troops to defend the "rights of the Kuwaiti people." What this latter principle means in practice can be gauged from the first act of the restored Emirate: martial law, installing wholly arbitrary rule, has been decreed, to the great annoyance of the Kuwaiti liberal bourgeois opposi-
The ruling family has fixed as its first task the hunting down of undesirables -Palestinians and others — and the disarmament of the population that stayed behind in Kuwait. This is the least privileged part of the Kuwaiti population, without the means to go into gilded exile as many Kuwaitis were able to do, who have picked up the arms left behind by the fleeing Iraqis. The heir to the throne calls this "the cleanup". The stupidity of believing that the imperialist war would lead to the introduction of "democracy" in the region is already clear.
### Threat of expulsions
The Iraqi defeat is a bitter pill for the
Arab mass movement to swallow, and above all for the Palestinians threatened with new expulsions from their territories.
This is a time of great danger for all the anti-imperialist struggles fronting a United States now more arrogant than ever. Cuba is particularly threatened. We should not be discouraged. On the contrary, it is necessary to redouble our efforts to prepare for the next round; at present we must oppose any further embargo against exhausted Iraq and demand the immediate withdrawal of the imperialist troops from the Gulf region.
Imperialism has won a battle against an adversary of its own choosing. It has not won the war, and cannot, indeed, win it, since it endlessly produces its own gravediggers. Even the military victory over
Iraq has much enlarged and radicalized the anti-imperialist front of the Arab masses. This will rebound against imperialism in the medium or long term.
11. /V no. 199, February 4, 1991.
12. IV 200.
13. Newsweek, October 29, 1990.
The lesser
evil THERE are few precise facts about what is now happening in Iraq. Contradictory reports are still coming, mainly from four sources: the Iraqi opposition and its backers in Teheran and Damascus, the Iraqi regime, US sources, and the refugees fleeing the "unrest" in southern SALAH JABER - March 8, 1991
NE thing however is already obvious: the tone of the imperialist governments in dealing with Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has moderated considerably. Yesterday's incarnation of evil has become again a lesser one, in comparison to the forces challenging his rule.
The form of the present strife in the country is the natural consequence of the type of defeat inflicted upon the Baathist regime. The coalition deliberately chose to smash Iraqi power within certain limits, leaving the regime with the means to survive against its internal foes.
They were concerned not to jeopardize the stability of Iraq, a key to the stability of the imperialist order in the whole area, and this meant that the coalition chose to dismantle the Iraqi troops that occupied
Kuwait, including their spearhead - that part of the Republican Guard massed in southern Iraq at the border with the Emi-
Other parts of the Iraqi army came off relatively lightly. This was the case of the troops in Kurdistan, on the Kurdish and
Turkish borders, the function of which is undoubtedly even more oppressive than was that of the troops occupying Kuwait.
Had the former been pounded as the latter were, the Kurdish people would have been in a position to liberate their lands in
But liberating any people from oppression was not the goal that the coalition forces had set themselves. They were only interested in freeing the assets of the
Who could really believe that the coalition would seek a better fate for the Arab and Kurdish masses of Iraq than that suffered by the populations of Saudi Arabia and Syria, two of its key Arab components?
Southern Iraq has been the exception.
Not because the population there is overwhelmingly Shiite, as is stated by journalists seeking simple explanations, but
GULF WAR first of all, because it is the area where, due to the political-military choices of the coalition, the repressive apparatus of the Baathist regime has been most weakened. The southern Iraqis did what any other segment of the population of their country, including the people of Baghdad, would do, had they faced the same provisional
It is not a matter of religious sectarianism, but the deep resentment of a whole population against the tyrant who has submitted them to one of the harshest totalitarian rules of this second half of the century and who has led them into two
Teheran, to be sure, is interfering in the turmoil going on in southern Iraq. It is probably helping its own Iraqi supporters from among those who took refuge in Iran from Saddam's butcheries, to get back and take part in the uprising.
But the uprising is nevertheless spontaneous, as acknowledged by various sources, if only because no organized structures have survived in Iraq after years of bloody dictatorship. Baghdad has had to shift troops from Kurdistan to the capital and the south to quell the rebellion, thus opening the way for the Kurdish population, in the north, to take control of some of its cities. Here once again, there are many indications that
The Iraqi opposition, based in Damascus and Tehran, is made up of Islamic fundamentalist factions, mainly Shite and pro-
Iranian, various kinds of bourgeois nationalists including pro-Syrian Baathists, the pro-Moscow Communist Party and the
Kurdish movement, involving semi-feudal and petty-bourgeois nationalists linked to Syria or Iran.
Last December all these forces formed a front in a bid to replace Saddam's regime
They sent a common delegation to Saudi
Arabia, which them in an attempt to keep an eye on any possible alternatives to the Iraqi Baathist regime.
But Saudi Arabia has also been nurturing its own candidates to succeed Saddam, of a type more congenial for both them and their US protectors; that is, candidates who can come to power through the existing repressive structure, and not through a revolutionary overthrow of the regime.
But the Saudis and their US masters still have no credible alternative to Saddam that would really suit them. And as long as this is true, Saddam will remain in their 17 eyes a lesser evil. * March 18, 1991 • #202 International Viewpoint
Down with the aggression against Iraq!
Imperialist troops out of the Gulf!
THIS international appeal was drafted before the cessation of the war against Iraq and adopted by the Xilith World Congress of
GULF WAR
N THE name of justice, a new massacre is being carried out. In the name of liboil and financial magnates.
We denounce those who do not hesitate to waste billions in order to crush Iraq, while they refuse to the Fourth International (see /V 201 and p. 25 again. In the once democracy, a whole country is of this issue), with the intention of proposing being smashed by bombs. After it for signing to a wide range of revolutionary so many others, it is now the turn of Iraq. Who will be next?
organizations of various backgrounds united
The goal of the assault which is in their common principled stand against now being carried out by the imperialism. We publish it again below with a army of the United States, its social-democratic governments, and its Arab and other supporters
(fundamentalist monarchies or dictatorships) in the Persian Gulf goes far
Kuwait" and the alleged defence of "international law". The actions of this coalition of oppressors of peoples, as always, are quite opposite to the "values" they claim to be upholding.
In reality, for the imperialist powers, it is a question of decisively establishing a
"new world order", where every attack on their vital interests will be punished by the same treatment as is being received by
Iraq today. This "new order" is more than ever subject to the political-military hegemony of the United States, whose terrorising arrogance now knows no bounds. The policy of collusion with imperialism followed by the Soviet leadership, far from opening up a new era of peace, has greatly encouraged the governments of London,
Washington and Paris to carry out their most criminal plans.
The aggression against Iraq biggest air attack in history. It is the first major electronic war, with Iraq being used as a vast testing ground for the latest murderous gadgets from the imperialist military array. The immediate aim of this attack is no longer in doubt: it is the total destruction of Iraq's military-industrial potential. American imperialism wants to remove from the scene a regional power liable to challenge its oil interests and capable of counterbalancing the power of the Zionist state, the USA's main ally in the region. In order to achieve this, the
Pentagon is prepared to consider thing, including the use of nuclear weap-
Nothing can justify this barbaric attack on the people of Iraq. Neither the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait nor the nature of the
Baghdad regime can justify the US and its allies setting themselves up as police and
18 arbiters of the world. We know all too well to what degree these "dispensers of
International Viewpoint #202 • March 18, 1991 first list of signatories.
justice" respect the rights of peoples.
Only yesterday, they supported the Iraqi dictatorship in its war against Iran and closed their eyes to the massacre of the
Kurdish people. It is these "liberators"
who have equipped and financed the
Israeli army of occupation in Palestine, and who are even now multiplying this support, as the Zionist government is openly planning to expel a large proportion of the Palestinian people once more from their own land.
Faced with this offensive, whose real motives are eminently reactionary, anti-imperialist movements cannot be neutral. They are on the side of the people of Iraq, subjected to bombing by the coalition forces. They are for an immediate and unilateral end to the aggression, for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of imperialist forces from the Gulf region, for the right of the Arab peoples to freely decide their own fate without interference from the big powers. In particular, they must defend the Kurdish and Palestinian peoples' rights to self-determination against all their oppres-
To be anti-imperialist today being unconditionally for the defeat of imperialism, alongside the peoples of the Arab region and the Middle East, who have massively expressed their solidarity with the people of Iraq. It means being against the governments of the coalition and against those who take refuge in a neutrality and join blockade of Iraq, rather than supporting its people who are under threat of death.
We will step up our effort to strengthen the world movement against the aggression, creating the broadest possible unity so as to impose a halt to the bombing and the withdrawal of the imperialist troops. We refuse to pay the costs of this criminal war, undertaken in the interests of the cancel the debt which weighs down the Third World and reduce the provision of basic social needs everywhere.
Together with the workers of the world, we shall unite to block the imperialist war machine. We will support the youth, the soldiers, the reservists who, in the coun tries of the aggressive coalition, refuse to take part in this massacre.
Against the oppressors' "new world order", we stand for a new world solidarity of all struggles against oppression! *
SIGNATURES
Algeria: PST - Socialist Workers Party
Australia: Democratic Socialist Party
Belgium : POS/SOP - Socialist Workers
Party
Britain: Socialist Workers Party
Euzkadi: LKI - Revolutionary
Communist League
France : LCR - Revolutionary Communist
League
Germany : VSP - United Socialist Party
Greece: EAS - Alternative
Anti-capitalist Regroupment
OSE - Socialist Revolution
Group
Israeli State: Revolutionary Communist
League
Italy : Bandiera Rossa
Jordan: Communist Party of Jordan -
Revolutionary Line
Lebanon: Revolutionary Communist
Group
Mexico: PRT - Revolutionary Workers
Party
Poland: NLR - Revolutionary Left
Current
Jozef Pinior, coordinator of the
Socialist Political Centre
Portugal: PSR - Revolutionary Socialist
Party
Senegal: OST - Sociallist Workers
Organization
Spanish State : LCR - Revolutionary
Communist League
Sri Lanka: NSSP - New Socialist Party
Syria: Communist Action Party
Sweden: SF - Swedish Peace
Committee
Socialist Party
Tunisia: Organization of Revolutionary
Communists
Turkey: Revolutionary Communist
League
SI - Socialist Struggle
Uruguay: PST - Socialist Workers Party
USA: Fourth Internationalist Tendency
Socialist Action
Solidarity
USSR : Alexander Buzgalin, member of
Central Committe of CPSU, member of club "Marxism-XIst
Contury"
Darkness at noon
THE WAR IS OVER, but its wounds will not be healed soon. We are not referring here only to the other wars that will follow throughout the Arab and Muslim world. We are thinking of the nightmarish ecological effects on an area the size of Europe, which threaten to spread to a large part of Asia. GEORGE MITRALIAS W HEN, a few months ago, physicists, ecologists, meteorologists and other scientists published a warning from London about the likely consequences of the setting on fire of the Kuwaiti oilwells, they were treated in many "respectable" quarters as hysterics, if not apologists for Saddam Hussein. The allied defenders of International Law meanwhile decided to ignore the issue.