Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 04:11:21 -0800
Subject: M-G: "Blood for Oil" and the threat of war


On 22 Feb. 1998, Rolf Martens wrote: 

> Is the present [USA] war threat [against Iraq] in any basic way about >"blood for oil"? Hardly.

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, he added: 

> the question of whether it is (was) to some extent
> a matter of "blood for oil".
>...
> The fact that, even if people's thinking, and opposing, that the >imperialists are out for "blood for oil", is a good thing so far, those >imperialists are *not* really out for that. 


Of course it's not *just* "about oil," not anymore than US government
support for the apartheid regime in South Africa was just "about
diamonds" or just "about titanium," or the intervention in Guatemala in
1954 was just "about bananas."  But oil played its part.  In the early
weeks of the crisis back in 1990 this was explicit: in the USA gasoline
companies raised their prices dramatically and drastically, bourgeois
analysts repeatedly poited out the percentage of the world's oil supply
that Hussein would control if allowed to keep Kuwait; how much more he
would have if allowed to take Saudi Arabia; how much he could prevent
from getting out by disrupting traffic through the Gulf; etc.  Oil was
on everyone's minds and on George Bush's lips.  Once the domestic cries
started coming about "No Blood for Oil" he changed his tune to one of
defense of a little country who never hurt anyone.
Oil is the constant in politics in the Middle East.  It plays its part
in the US's cozying up to the Saudi monarchy, it was the weapon used by
the Arab League against Israel's supporters abroad, its the stick with
which Iraq is daily being beaten, it's involved in US and Russian
overtures to Turkey and Georgia, its  behind the scramble toward Baku.
But insofar as oil plays its part, it's not necessarily oil for today
that's being played for, but access to it in the future, and perhaps
just as importantly, denial of access to one's rivals.  How many times
have we seen capitalists patent and copyright things they never intend
to produce, just so others won't have that market? How many times have
we seen them buy or seize resources and property they won't use in order
to shut down a competitor or shut them out? 
One can argue that it's not really the US but the oil companies that are
involved in that degree.  However let us remember the saying that "the
business of the United States IS business."  What finally moved the USA
to act against the Arbenz government in Guatemala? Expropriation of
United Fruit lands.  What contributed to the increased pressure on the
Allende government in Chile? Expropriation of Anaconda Copper.  What
soured the US on the Velazco regime in Peru? Expropriation of Cerro de
Pasco Copper.  All vested interests of the US bourgeoisie.

As for "the present threat", let's be clear that this is NOT a
"newly-developing" situation, it's not a "new" crisis, a "new" war
threat.  It is, in fact, the SAME war that imperialism, led by US
imperialism, unleashed on the Iraqi toilers seven years ago, and which
they have been forced to endure for those seven years.  For over half a
decade now, Iraq has been a beseiged country, and the people of Iraq
have borne the brunt of that siege: destroyed infrastructure, raised
infant mortality, shortages of food, near total lack of medicines, lack
even of disinfectant to sanitize hospital wards!  The sanctions and the
blocked have been the real weapons of mass destruction, and they have
been in daily use for seven years.


- Juan Fajardo


     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---