Shift of Strategy in Imperialist 'crescent of Crisis'

Scan page 4

EVERY major peace treaty between Israel and its neighbouring Arab states has been a signal for a renewed aitempt to smash the Palestinian resistance.

Last week's attack by Israel on the Palestinians in Lebanon is no exception.

US imperialism had forced Israel into exchanging the Sinai Peninsula for recognition by Egypt of the legitimacy of the Zionist state. But the resulting peace agreement in no way limits Israel's determination (and the US's) to solve the *Palestinian question" by liquidating the Palestinians as a national entity.

Using the assassination of an Israeli diplomat as an excuse, the Zionists last week launched bombing raids on Palestinian bases, on refugee camps, and on a number of major towns in Lebanon. Many Palestinians have been killed.

The Israelis also shot down two Syrian Mig 23 jet fighters and destroyed part of the Syrian SAM missile batteries in Lebanon.

According to Begin, this murderous action which could have sparked off a wider war in the Middle East was only "a warning to the Palestinians".

In fact, of course, it is further evidence of the expansionist logic of the Zionist state, which, having dispossessed the Palestinians, is forced to carry its war against them mto the neighbouring territories where they live as refugees.

On Saturday 24_ April, the Bradford Labour Movement Campaign for Palestinian Solidarity held a day school on the Middle East.

The speakers, Moshe Machover, Elfi Pallis, Andrew tive of the PLO representadealt both with the recent events in Israel and the occupied territories, and also with the background to Zionism and imperialist activity in the region.

The article below is based on Andrew Hornung's opening speech on imperialism in the Middle East.

DESPITE upheavals on the tips of what Time magazine calls 'the crescent of crisis' - in Iran to the East and in Ethiopia to the West -compared with the two decades from 1952 to 1972, the last ten years have shown a steady rise in imperialist strength throughout the Middle East.

Almost thirty years ago, a group of Egyptian army officers overthrew the government of King Farouk. Soon Gamal Abdel Nasser became the undisputed leader of the 'Free Officers' Movement' and the government.

Under his leadership British troops were forced to withdraw, and a series of bold economic measures -land reforms, nationalisations, confiscation of British and French property after the Suez affair, and big infrastructural projects - transformed the country.

Nasser also turned to Eastern Europe for arms and money, advice and expertise.

Similar moves towards nationalism took place in Syria (1954) and Iraq (1958).

And in 1956, when Britain and France in collaboration with Israel attempted to retake the Suez Canal and bring down Nasser, they were forced by the US to withdraw. In addition, while the nationalist movement in Iran led by Mossadeq was defeated in 1953, Britain could only win this victory by cutting the US in on a share of Iran's wealth.

So the older imperialists were being battered by revolts in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and later Algeria and Aden, though a younger, more powerful, US imperialism was increasing its strength in the Middle East.

In 1958, when the Chamoun government in Lebanon considered itself threatened, it was the US and not France, the Lebanese Christians' historic protector, that intervened.

The period from those tumultuous years to the early '70s was a period of big Soviet involvement and influence in the Middle East. The volume of trade between Egypt and the USSR increased more than elevenfold between 1953 and 1957; in 1957 almost half of Syria's machinery and equipment imports came from the Soviet Union.

Huge credits were also forthcoming from the USSR, the most notable being $200 million for the building of the Aswan Dam, as were increasingly big shipments of arms. At the same time, these more or less radical nationalist regimes managed to severely restrict the possibility for imperialist investment in their countries.

Crack

The first big crack in the picture came in 1972. In July of that year President Sadat (who had succeeded Nasser after the latter's death in 1970) expelled Russian military advisers from Egypt.

Sadat's plan was to regain the Sinai peninsula, reopen the Suez Canal, attract foreign investment, and reprivatise sections of Egyptian industry. The 1973 October War was fought by Egypt precisely to force the US to intervene and secure a peace treaty in exchange for the Sinai peninsula.

War And it worked. Despite US military support for Israel in the 1973 War, it was able to squeeze the USSR out of the peace negotiations to make itself the sole godfather of the. final agreement.

Sadat's peace moves went hand in hand with his 'Infitah' policy, opening up: Egypt for imperialist investment in partnership with the Egyptian bourgevisie.

Control over the economy was shifted from state bodies to boards which included representatives of foreign capital. Enterprises investing in the Canal Free Zone were exempted from taxes and duties, and new enterprises in the rest of Egypt from paying taxes on profits for a period of five to eight years.

Businesses and investment banks were freed from currency controls. All confiscation of property was declared illegal and its consequences void.

Harsher conditions for the peasantry resulted from the abolition of the peasant courts, from higher rents, and from a change in law allowing payment of part of the rent in kind.

Soon ventures sponsored by the World Bank and the banks of the Gulf States controlled much of the economic activity of the counLIV. though Egypt was bulging not so much with investments as with debts.

The trajectory of Egypt's development away from state capitalism, radical nationalism and close relations with the USSR is paralleled by similar trends in Iraq and Syria, although neither has as yet gone as far as Egypt.

There are several reasons for this reorientation. At bottom, however, they demonstrate that even the most radical nationalist regimes headed by representatives of the bourgevisie and the petty bourgeoisie in the Third World do not serve to break once and for all the domination of imperialism.

As Mohammed Haydar, once vice-premier of the Council in Syria, admitted in 1976, "It's a fact that a new bourgeoisie has developed in the shadow of the (ruling) Ba'ath Party. Having been able to adapt itself to the new system we established, it is richer and more widespread than the earlier owning class"

Iraq's shift to the right is reflected in its changes of position on the Palestine question, its attempts to develop a series of joint projects with Saudi Arabia, and above all its recent bid, by making war on Iran, to become imperialism's gendarme in the Persian/ Arabian Gulf.

These developments are also connected with the huge increase in oil wealth in the Middle East. Not only does European and Japanese imperialism base itself overwhelmingly on the import of oil and natural gas from the Middle East, but today the US, once an exporter of oil, imports some 10% of its oil needs from that region. • Since the oil price rise of 1973 the region has become even more crucial to imperialism. States like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates have gained enormous incomes, whose recyc!ing has become one of the critical elements in the world capitalist system today.

Between 1979 and 1977, for instance, the gross domestic product of Saudi Arabia measured in money terms increased by over 1000%: that of the Gulf Emirates, 8004, and that of Kuwait Libya, 400%.

With their fabulous financial resources, the ultra-conservative sheikhs of the Saudi house now play an important political role in Egypt, in North Yemen, among the Palestinians, and even in the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.

This oil wealth has been one of the reasons for the stunning rise in imports to the Middle East. In 1970 they rose 10%, next year 17%, then 24%, 40% in 1973 and 76% in 1974. Of thise enormous increase, 62% comes from just six countries - the US, West Germany, France, Japan, Britain and Italy.

Vast profits are also being made from the sale of services like construction.

"URKEY SYRIA CYPRUS LEBANON ISRAEL JORDAN EGYPT SUDAN The Wall Street Journal quoted one British construction engineer working in the Gulf region as saying, 'A lot of money is being poured down drains. This whole area is becoming a boondoogle belt..

"Thank god for that. These countries are developing their own systems for recycling petrodollars -spend, spend, and spend some more. The oil money is coming back to people like myself and companies like ours' The Middle East has also been one of the chief destinations of the US's booming arms sales.

• The 1981 estimate was that the Middle East received $18 billion of the $32 billion worth of foreign military sales agreements. IRAQ-• IAMRAIN OMAN SAUDI ARABIA YEMEN P.D.R.

YEMEN

SOMALI ETHIOPIA DJIBOUTI In addition, the US now has a score of military bases and facilities it did not have 20 years ago. Besides those in the approaches to the Arab East (Greece, Cyprus, Turkey and the vast base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia), the US now has facilities in Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Oman, Somalia, and Israel.

The use of Egypt as a staging post for Carter's abortive attempt to retake the hostages in Iran, the use of Egypt and Sudan for exercises for the marines and the Rapid Deployment Force, and the vast US build-up on. Masirah Island off the coast of Oman, are all indications of an unprecedented US military strength in the region.

AFGHANISTAN

Scan page 5

Socialist Organiser no.82 April 29, 1982 Page