Aftermath Of A Gulf War : 
Establishing A New World Order
--------------------------------------------------------------------

People :
----------------------------------

Author : Anonymous

Text :
----------------------------------



It is now several months after the conclusion of the Gulf War. The US has
staged its victory parade and fallout from the war continues to be felt,
not the least by the Iraqi people, the Kurdish and the Palestinians.



Southern Kurdistan (northern Iraq), the Persian Gulf and other areas in the
region now contain American troops, ships and aircraft, with a permanent
military presence now being put in place. How did this come about, what was
the background to the war, and why a war in the Middle East?



Prior to the beginning of the war, Luis Bilbao wrote in the Buenos Aires
daily Nuevo Sur,



“In the show of force in the desert, one can now precisely measure
abstract concepts that only months ago were nearly out of reach: a breakup
of the international balance of power and a strengthening of the seven
leading industrialized countries...the conflict of interest between the Big
Seven and the rest of the world is merely beginning to take on its true
shape.”



The background to the war can be traced to recent international
developments, in particular a reconstitution of the global order. This
includes not only the breakup of the Eastern Bloc in 1989 and the ending of
the Cold War, but also the forming of three competing economic blocs:
Europe, Japan-Asia and North America.



One can say that the East-West conflict has shifted to a North-South
conflict or, as Bilbao has already said, a “conflict of interest between
the Big Seven and the rest of the world”. But while it’s clear that the
world economy is now subject to conditions imposed by the G-7, the Gulf War
must be seen first of all as an assertion of US hegemony (a dominant
leadership).

THE NEW WORLD ORDER



The restructuring of international capital, the economic competition rising
from Europe and Japan-Asia, concurrent with the economic decline in the US,
means the US is now capable of asserting its hegemony in an
economic-political-military way.



The Persian Gulf was the proving ground of the New World Order, in essence
an order led by the US which



“dominates its affairs and destiny on the international and regional
levels...the US conquest of the Arabian Peninsula is part and parcel of the
US global policy at this Juncture. The Arabian Peninsula has 66 percent of
the worlds oil resources. Oil is no longer only a source of energy,
although that is important. Oil now means [1] energy; [2] a series of
major, diversified and growing petrochemical industries; and [3] control of
the circulation of international finance...the US has invaded the Arabian
Peninsula to retain its leading world position. By domination of Arab oil,
the US dominates not only the political and economic destiny of this
region, but can also determine the outcome of its fierce competition with
Europe and Japan” (George Habash, the Popular Front for the liberation of
Palestine (PFLP), Democratic Palestine, November-December, 1990).



As well, western and US imperialism has had to contend with various threats
to its power in the Middle East, including the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism (which can be characterized as decidedly anti-western as in
the 1979 Iranian revolution), the Palestinian resistance and the Intifada 
(which has increasingly challenged the western imperialism asset in the
region, Israel), Pan-Arab nationalism, and the Kurdish guerrilla struggle
in NATO’s southern flank, Turkey.



Combined, these factors make the region one of the most unstable in the
world for western imperialism.



In this context, Iraq was another essential factor. Iraq was a major
military power in the region and an oil producing country that worked
against the interests of the US. Not only with the invasion of Kuwait,
which was nothing more than a preconceived context for US military
intervention, but through its oil policies which included raising the price
of oil and limiting production, contrary to the agreements reached by OPEC
and western imperialism.



The Iraqi challenge had to be dismantled to deter threats to western
interests and/or to the security of the Zionist state of Israel and the
pro-US Arab regimes.



The Gulf War was aimed at establishing US hegemony in the New World Order,
gaining control of the Arabian Peninsula, dismantling Iraq and crushing the
liberation struggles in the region.

CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE GULF WAR



Canada’s military involvement in the Gulf War was, in the overall balance
of forces deployed, minor. With only 2,000 troops, Canada’s role was
limited to providing logistical support in sea and air operations.



Despite this, it must be noted that Canada was one of the first
countries--outside of the US--to respond militarily, by sending three ships
to the Gulf on August 24, 1990 to enforce the economic embargo. The
Canadian government also supported, with little reservation, all US-led UN
resolutions against Iraq.

LIMITED MILITARY CAPABILITIES



Under Operation Friction, naval and air task groups from the Canadian Armed
forces (CAF) were deployed in Saudi Arabia at Al Quaysuma and Al Jubayl; in
Manama, Bahrain; Qatar; in the southern Gulf; and aboard the US Hospital
ship Mercy. By January 15, the deployment consisted of the three ships,
HMCS Athabascan, Protecteur, and Terra Nova; 24 CF-18 fighters; field
hospitals; and two companies of infantry for security. The role of the CAF
was limited to logistical support: interdiction of cargo ships, escort of
supply ships, escort of bombers and medical aid.



What may at first appear to be another facet of the world-wide myth,
“Canada the peacekeeper”, is in reality the extremely limited military
capabilities of the CAF; only 80,000 personnel in total, outdated and
overworked equipment, and a lack of desert fighting equipment and training.
As well, an activation of more troops would have “placed a severe strain
on the ability of the CAF to take on such tasks as responding to another
Mohawk crisis at home (an unnamed source, Globe and Mail, January 12,
1990).



The Canadian military contribution was limited, but Canada’s economic and
political interests in the war knew no boundaries.

CANADIAN ECONOMIC INTERESTS



Canada’s political and military involvement in the war was determined by
economic interrelation with the US, realized through the Free Trade
Agreement on one level, and international groupings such as the G-7;



“If the war is ended quickly, Mr. Wilson (the Canadian Finance Minister)
said, he agrees with US officials that an Allied victory could help improve
consumer confidence and trigger a rebound in the N. American
economies...All of the countries were searching for ways to make sure the
recessions facing the US, Britain and Canada don’t become severe enough
to trigger a global downturn” (Globe and Mail, Report on Business,
January 21, 1991, a meeting of the G-7 in New York).



In the development of three competing economic blocs (Europe, Japan-Asia
and N. America) Canada’s economic and political destiny now lies with
that of the US. As a participant in and beneficiary of US imperialism,
Canada’s interests are strongly connected with those of the US.



Militarily, Canada can contribute little to the US’s New World Order.
Rather, it will be in the economic and political fields, through Canada’s
position in the IMF, the G-7 and the UN, that Canada will re-affirm US
imperialisms new era of exploitation.

THE FUTURE



The New World Order will be a period of more military interventions,
primarily by the US--the one nation militarily capable of such
incursions--and increased exploitation of the three continents. The effects
of this New World Order, the ending of the Cold War (which was greeted with
such euphoria as opening to an era of “peace”) and the economic
restructuring, can now be seen in the aftermath of the Gulf War.



The struggle continues.



The Gulf War & ‘Internal Security’



Throughout the course of the Gulf War and in the months leading up to it,
North America and Europe experienced unprecedented levels of “internal
security”. The threat of “terrorist” attacks was almost as newsworthy
as the war itself. Soldiers and armored vehicles patrolled airports in
Britain, SWAT teams and bomb squads were deployed at Super Bowl V in
Florida, Arabs were detained, harassed and placed under surveillance. The
massive security campaign had specific goals; repression of Arabs,
repression of opposition to the war in general; propaganda for the war; and
actual security of potential targets of resistance.



If the US and other nations had learned anything from the defeat in
Vietnam, it was that wars can be significantly disrupted from internal
movements. Therefore, the role of counter-insurgency, maintaining the
“inner peace”, controlling dissent to ensure the ability to wage war
from the military-economic centers, and mobilizing social consensus in
favor of the war, was given a high priority.

THE TERRORIST HYPE



The use of “anti-terrorist” hysteria attempted to establish an image in
the social consciousness of a society under siege--not only involved in a
“just war” in the Persian Gulf--but under threat in its own peaceful
backyard. Prior to the war, reports were already filtering through the
media of “terrorist” groups in Canada. This followed the pattern of the
“Libyan hit squads” of the early ’80’s and the IRA unit gunning for
Thatcher at the 1988 Economic Summit in Toronto. Neither of these cases
proved much substance.



Not easily discouraged, “terrorist units” appeared in the headlines on
January 21, 1991: “Terrorism hits home--Canadians believed targeted by
radical supporters of Iraq.” [1] This report originated from the
expulsion of three Iraqi diplomats in Ottawa. Diplomats it was later
discovered, to have “had suspected links with Arab terrorist cells in
Canada”. Suddenly, “terrorist cells” appeared ad nauseam: “Small
cells of the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah had been uncovered in Toronto
and Montreal...Also involved were cells of the Shiite party known as Al
Da’wa. Meanwhile, terrorists linked to Iraq may be trying to infiltrate
the US through Canada...it is possible we will see terrorist attacks in the
coming week.” [2]



No such attacks occurred in N. America, nor were there any spectacular and
“high-level” actions of the sort security officials could even
attribute to Arab guerrillas (one action, six pipe-bombs found near a US
naval base in Virginia turned out to be an insurance scam by three
businessmen).



Undaunted by this conspicuous absence of attacks, security agencies
continued with their campaign. Arabs in Canada continued to be interrogated
by Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) agents, [3] to the
point where the Canadian Arab Federation was forced to hold news
conferences on the issue and distribute a brochure on CSIS. The CAF
received over 60 complaints by Arabs who had been followed, questioned at
length or photographed by CSIS. CSIS claimed their activities were merely
to learn more about the politics of the middle East. However, such overt
and aggressive surveillance techniques have less to do with information
gathering and more to do with repression via intimidation. The Arab
community and particularly the radical elements were to be neutralized--not
because they were “potential terrorists”--but because they offered the
strongest orientation of resistance, because they had the ability to expose
the real goals of the war, and to provide a perspective that went beyond
the “No Blood for Oil, Bring Our Troops Home” sloganeering of the
anti-war movement.

THE USE OF IMMIGRATION AS CONTROL



Along with the highly publicized activities of CSIS, the use of immigration
laws and refugee status was used to further silence the Arab community.
Throughout N. America and Europe, Arabs and particularly Palestinians and
Iraqis were detained, denied entry, had their visa’s revoked or denied
extension. In the UK, Iraqi nationals were barred from entry and those
already living in the UK were required to register with police. By the end
of the war, up to 200 Iraqis and Palestinians had been detained. In
Germany, the surveillance of Arabs and new laws against immigrants required
doctors, lawyers and public officials to give the government all
information they had on immigrants. In Spain, some 6,000 Arabs were
“suspect” and entered into computer files under “Operation Duna”.
In France, a similar program was enacted under “Vigipirate”.



In Canada, among other cases, was the example of an Iraqi couple arriving
at Toronto’s Pearson airport allegedly carrying false Saudi passports,
who were detained on January 9, 1991. The couple applied for refugee
status, and the man was a member of the opposition Da’wa party and had
fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. He was found to be
carrying a notebook with a list of weapons, which he claimed he compiled
during the Iran-Iraq war.



Initial government efforts to have the couple detained as security threats
were overturned when immigration adjudicator Dennis Paxton ruled that the
government’s arguments were “to be generous, unlikely”. [4] However,
his decision to order the couple released was overruled by a “national
security certificate” filed by then-Immigration Minister Barbara
McDougall and Solicitor-General Pierre Cadieux.



The certificate, used for the first time, is issued under section 40 of the
Immigration Act if both the Immigration Minister and Solicitor-General
“are of the opinion, based on security or criminal intelligence
reports” that an individual poses a threat to the safety of Canada. On
march 12 the Federal Court of Canada ruled the government lacked any
evidence that the couple were a security threat. In his ruling, the judge
stated that the couple “appeared to have a genuine refugee claim based
upon their opposition to the regime of Saddam Hussein.” Interestingly,
the use of the couple as propaganda shifted from “potential terrorists”
prior to and during the war, to refugees fleeing the Iraqi regime after the
US military “victory”.

A “POTENTIAL FOR SABOTAGE”



Along with the CSIS surveillance and the use of immigration laws was the
actual security presence:



“A vast array of strategic facilities--everything from airports and
border crossings to power plants--are on the alert...Security at nuclear
plants in New Brunswick and Ontario has been strengthened.” [5]



On January 15, 1991 the National Energy Board issued directives to oil and
gas pipeline companies to increase security at key installations. “It’s
a quiet reminder of the crisis in the Persian Gulf and of the potential for
sabotage.” [6]



The heightened security ran from the highest levels of state agencies such
as the national Security Coordination Center down to local police forces.



In Toronto, city police met with public department heads. According to Nick
Vardin, commissioner of Toronto’s Public Works Department, they had a
“strategic meeting with police to discuss what would be expected in the
event of an emergency or terrorist attack...that we would be expected to
provide manpower and any resources to help out.” [7]



In Vancouver, Jewish Congress chairperson Dr. Michael Elterman stated his
organization had “had discussions with Vancouver police and worked out a
plan” in the event of “terrorist actions.” [8]



There was also a marked increase in policing of anti-war demonstrations in
Vancouver with higher numbers of police including the use of riot-equipped
police on the international protest day of January 26 (this occurred after
demonstrators assailed a militia armory, destroyed recruiting signs and
proceeded to a recruiting center, presumably to do similar actions). In
other demonstrations when more radical demonstrators blocked streets in
downtown Vancouver to further disrupt traffic and “business as usual”,
the police were quick to point out that the people involved were “fringe
groups” and that the police “knew who they were and were keeping an eye
on them”.

THE EMERGENCIES ACT



The final phase of such security would have been enactment of the
Emergencies Act, requiring only a simple declaration by the federal
cabinet. The Emergencies Act, which replaced the War Measures Act in 1988,
contains all the necessary instruments to launch an internal war on
“dissent”. [9] Under the Act, a “war emergency” can be declared
which is a “war or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving
Canada or any of its allies that is so serious as to be a national
emergency”. With this, the government can make any “orders or
regulations” that it believes “on reasonable grounds, are necessary or
advisable”. Another aspect of the Act is the “international
emergency”, which enables the government to regulate “any specified
industry or services” and control the travel of any Canadian citizen. in
this way, any substantial increase in resistance, such as workers strikes
involving military equipment or armaments, widespread sabotage, could
prompt implementation of the Emergencies Act.

SOMETHING WAS MISSING!



But where was this wave of “terrorism”? Certainly, armed attacks
occurred in many countries throughout the world--but even
counter-insurgency “experts” claimed it wasn’t from Iraqi or
Palestinian groups but in fact endemic (local) guerrilla groups. Even with
this, the offensive of armed actions was primarily in the Three Continents
and relatively limited in the major western states.



According to Yigal Carmon, adviser on “terrorism” to Israeli prime
minister Yitzak Shamir, this was due to the increased vigilance in the
west:



“Carmon noted western countries had taken an unprecedented range of
countermeasures to detect and deter terrorism...Among other measures,
maintenance workers and cleaners of Arab origin were dismissed from jobs in
European airports, government buildings and military installations. Asked
if such dismissals violated civil rights, Carmon said he assumed such
measures were all legal because the countries concerned were all
law-abiding (!!!-ed.). He pointed with approval to western countries that
have ‘investigated and restricted the movements of Arab nationals and
have detained and deported them.’” [10]



However, the reality of this “vigilance” in deterring armed attacks can
be seen in the actions which did take place: the Red Army Fraction
machine-gunning of the US embassy in Bonn, bombings by the November 17
organization in Greece, bombings throughout Turkey, scores of firebombings
of military recruiting centers, corporations and US interests throughout
the US and W. Europe, and most striking of all, the February 7 IRA mortar
attack on No. 10 Downing St.--the very nerve center of the British
government--while the prime minister met with his war cabinet!



Clearly, when radical groups have the ability and determination to carry
out attacks, any level of security can be breached or avoided.



The actual security of targets is in many ways a side-effect of the
ultimate goals. That is, while security of military, government and
corporate property is of importance (more so in the Three Continents), such
security also has political goals aimed at a level of social control that
goes beyond more guards and razor-wire. The guards and razor-wire are
necessary, but they are used to also mobilize people into acceptance and
even support for the military force used against Iraq, and de facto Arab
people, because not only is there a war “over there” but also an
“inner threat” here. The crudest manifestations of this social control
politic was the upsurge in racist violence against Arab people. Vandalism,
assaults, firebombings and even shootings occurred. The Canadian Arab
Federation documented over 100 violent anti-Arab incidents. Another effect
of the racist war hysteria was an increase in anti-semitic attacks on
synagogues, Jewish schools and businesses. Clearly, many of these actions
can be attributed to the extreme right/fascist groups who, if they
weren’t fully supporting the war, were railing against the war as yet
another “Jewish conspiracy to rule the world”, such as Tom Metzger’s
White Aryan Resistance, which instructed its members not to fight for
“Jews or camel-jockeys and sand-niggers”.

RACISM IN THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT



The response in much of the anti-war movement to this racism was to
reinforce it. Aside from other critiques of the anti-war movement, such as
its lack of clear analysis as to how to resist the war, its sexism and lack
of class consciousness, was its own racism.



Seemingly unable and/or unwilling to go beyond slogans and perspectives of
the 60’s, or more correctly the media image of that movement, anti-war
opposition relied on opportunistic slogans: Bring Our/The Troops Home (to
which one must ask why--to suppress another Oka or enforce Martial law?),
and No Blood for Oil (to which one must ask, whose blood--white
Anglo-Saxons’ blood?). The movement in general played up to white
supremacy and patriotism as it attempted to depoliticize every aspect of
imperialist war except self-interest: Hell No, We Won’t Go, We Won’t
Die For Texaco. What mattered most to the “official” peace movement was
the numbers of people it could attract to demonstrations and vigils where
its sacred rituals of pseudo-dissent were enacted like a broken record. A
broken John Lennon record!



But at whose expense?



The failure to link the Palestinian and Kurdish struggles with the war, to
analyze the economic and political conditions which have ensured there has
not been one day of peace since World War 2, the absence of an attempt to
develop a perspective for resistance to the war and not just protest, meant
that the anti-war movement was circumscribed. It had come to a dead end
even before it started. Who was absent from its programs and platforms:
people of color and particularly Arabs. The crystallization of this process
was the Jan. 26 mobilizations in which the Vancouver “disarmament”
group End the Arms Race refused to allow a member of the Arab community to
speak on a platform they controlled. Allegedly to avoid “controversy”,
it was yet another attempt to retain the depoliticization EAR had worked so
hard to achieve, and in the end can only be seen as furthering the efforts
by the state to silence the Arab perspective: collaboration is the
definitive term.

CONCLUSION



In conclusion, the use of “anti-terrorism” and security plays a special
role in social control. It creates the conditions for selective and if
necessary widespread repression. In this way, the argument that armed or
militant actions create repression is shown to be an absurdity; the state
constantly organizes its repressive laws and apparatus and constructs the
necessary conditions to implement them.



However, it isn’t only counter-insurgency that can weaken or even destroy
oppositional movements. Nor is it the state which is solely responsible for
widespread racism, or in the context of the Gulf War, attacks against Arabs
and support for the wholesale slaughter of Arabs. This is something the
“peace” movement can also lay claim to.



In this way, the question must also be asked: what role does false
opposition play in social control? Certainly, as long as movements of
opposition do not attack causes and instead rally around effects, and do
not direct themselves against the determining point of conflict between the
exploited and exploiter, they fulfill the role of reaffirming the
“pluralistic democracy” by acting as the (false) voice of dissent.



Above all, the security measures taken during the Gulf War need to be
understood and, in future conflicts as well as now, countered by breaking
through the limitations imposed by the state and the “official” peace
movement. Limitations not only in our analysis, but in our actions and
solidarity work.

FOOTNOTES;


[1] Vancouver Province, January 21, 1991.


[1] Vancouver Province, January 21, 1991.


[2] Ibid.


[2] Ibid.


[3] See also Resistance no. 14.


[3] See also Resistance no. 14.


[4] Globe and Mail, February 6, 1991.


[5] Globe and Mail, January 12, 1991.


[6] Globe and Mail, Report on Business, January 15, 1991.


[7] Globe and Mail, January 18, 1991.


[8] Vancouver Province, January 22, 1991.


[9] Enacted in October 1970 during the FLQ “October Crisis”.


[10] Globe and Mail, February 14, 1991.



     From : TheAnarchistLibrary.org

Events :
----------------------------------

     Aftermath Of A Gulf War -- Added : January 28, 2021

     Aftermath Of A Gulf War -- Updated : January 07, 2022

About This Textfile :
----------------------------------

     Text file generated from : 
http://revoltlib.com/