"Contrary to the message coming through the news radio and television 'sound bites,'

Scan page 9

the innocent victim is not Kuwait, and the criminal aggressor is not Special Middle East Supplement SOCIALIST ACTION SEPTEMBER 1990 9 The U.S. news media has been inundated with a highly distorted version of events set into motion by Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Only by the most careful scrutiny of the capitalist press can the ordinary reader get an inkling of the truth.

Contrary to the message coming through the news headlines and the radio and television "sound bites," the innocent victim is not Kuwait, and the criminal aggressor is not Iraq.

The blatant hypocrisy of the imperialist rulers of America and the army of professional liars, twisters, and rationalizers who attempt to conceal naked greed behind lofty "principles" like self-determination, democracy, and freedom would try the patience of a saint.

Imperialism and its stooges in the Middle East—not a single democratic soul among them-aided, abetted, and egged on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein when he did their dirty work for them in invading Iran. They did not wince when Hussein used poison gases on his enemies, including Iraqi Kurds who dared to demand freedom from national oppression.

The best the mouthpieces of corporate America (who didn't blink an eye at U.S. atrocities from the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the invasion of Panama) could come up with was: "Gee, that's not nice," without interrupting for a second the flow of moral and material support to Hussein.

But be that as it may, let's take a closer look at the crisis in the Middle East. Let's try to objectively determine who is the criminal and who is the victim.

For over 100 years the Middle East, along with virtually all regions of the planet which had not yet entered the age of industrialization, has been colonialized.

As subjected nations, they have been politically and militarily dominated, their natural resources appropriated, and their toiling masses superexploited by the major industrialized capitalist nations.

The living standards of imperialism's subjugated victims were driven down to a level of impoverishment very often lower than that of chattel slaves.

Under imperialist domination, the normal process of development of these vassal peoples was blocked and their pre-capitalist economies warped and twisted to fit into the world capitalist economy.

To this day, the residual social relations which prevailed centuries ago continue to survive in an unholy combination with capitalist wage-slavery. The result leaves the majority of the earth's population plagued by the evils of both pre-capitalist society and modern capitalism, but benefiting from neither social order's advantages.

The Saudi monarchy, for example, is a feudal regime where women are not even allowed to drive cars. And Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are each ruled by single families who run their countries as private corporations.

Since the end of the last century, the misery of the colonial peoples was intensified when two inter-imperialist world wars raged across their lands. Workers from opposing imperialist camps were dragooned into military service and then sent to kill each other to settle the question of which imperialists would have the right to exploit the toilers of these countries.

Thus, most borders in the colonial and semi-colonial world have little to do with natural boundaries set by mountain ranges and bodies of water. The lines between countries have been arbitrarily drawn and redrawn on maps and approved in peace treaties signed by warring imperialist bandits without the slightest regard for the wishes of their inhabitants. (See accompanying background articles.] Besides marking out spheres of imperialist domination, the artificial boundaries have served imperialism in other ways. The division of peoples into separate states-often despite common language and cultureserves the oppressor's strategy of divide and rule.

Bush acts precipitously

When Iraqi troops occupied Kuwait, President George Bush got on the phone, intent on securing support and collaboration for decisive action against Iraq.

Virtually every important governmental leader having an interest in the Middle Eastern peoples' oil was contacted by him or one of his righthand men. He got a considerable amount of verbal support as well as important commitments to join in economic sanctions against Iraq.

From the outset Bush and Co. dropped hints of full support, including military commitments. However, the major imperialists deriving profits from the rivers of black gold flowing out of the Middle East have been extremely reluctant to take military responsibility for an assault on Iraq.

France declined to send any military forces and Britain has so far declined to commit ground troops to the U.S. invasion force. No major imperialist power has yet agreed to commit troops.

Even Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, whose reign depends entirely upon imperialist military power, needed considerable arm-twisting before consenting to "invite" a U.S. invasion force into his country. He pays a very heavy price by so serving the interests of the hated imperialists.

Arab "peacekeeping" forces?

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak was reported, at first, to have agreed to send Egyptian troops to provide an "Arab" cover for the imperialist invasion. Egyptian officials soon denied having made such a premature commitment.

Instead, Mubarak initiated a "summit" meeting of Arab governments-the Arab League-for the purpose of forming an "independent" Arab military "umbrella" to "defuse" the Middle East crisis. The idea was to send contingents of troops, from as many Arab countries as possible, to interpose themselves on the border between Iraqi and American forces.

This fit in with President Bush's deceptive description of U.S. goals in sending an invasion force into Saudi Arabia: Ruling out "any immediate invasion of Iraqi-occupied Kuwait [emphasis added]," Bush claimed only the "defense" of Fahd's kingdom against an Iraqi invasion.

But without a doubt, Bush has not too far back in his mind the "possibility" that provocateurs can easily set off an exchange of shots between counterposed "Arab umbrella forces" and Iraqi troops. Such an incident could easily be trumpeted by Bush as an "Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia" —justifying a U.S assault on Kuwait/Iraq.

Such a development is unlikely unless the U.S.-initiated embargo on trade with Iraq breaks down, threatening a victory for Iraq. That possibility, however, cannot be excluded.

On Aug. 9, the Arab summit failed to act on the Mubarak proposal. But the next day, 12 of the 21 members voted to send in their forces. (Three voted against, three abstained or didn't vote, and three expressed reservations.)

Such a "peace-keeping" hornet's nest could put them smack in the middle of a major shooting war on the side of imperialism and (continued on next page)

Scan page 10

... U.S. Out of the Middle East! 10 SOCIALIST ACTION SEPTEMBER 1990 (continued from previous page) Israel and is laced with the potential deployment of poison gas and atomic bombs.

It remains to be seen how many of the 12 will actually send troops, and how many troops each will send. But it is generally acknowledged that the numbers are secondary to the Bush administration's main aim of "legitimacy" to the American armed intervention. Besides, once committing a few troops, it will be hard to fail to send massive reinforcements when and if that becomes necessary.

The United Nations debate The Soviet and Chinese governments also gave political support—and their blessing— to resolutions in the United Nations Security Council condemning the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

(Only Cuba and Yemen abstained; but these two countries subsequently voted for another resolution which condemned the Iragi annexation of Kuwait. Cuba tried to tag on an amendment to this resolution "expressing concern at the buildup of foreign forces in the Gulf and calling for a halt," but it failed. [Reported in the Aug. 10 New York Times.] So far, there have been no further reports of any differentiation by Cuba from the arrogant action by American imperialism.)

Moreover, President Bush has not yet formally moved to put American forces under United Nations auspices, as when President Truman covered the U.S. invasion of North Korea with the UN flag. Such an attempt has not been made at the present time since it would likely fail, constituting a major political defeat for imperialism.

Furthermore, the strong vocal support from virtually all the world's governments can very swiftly change in the course of the highly unstable and complex interaction of contradictory forces in the period ahead.

Even the Israelis, who know their interests as a client state are entirely bound up with the success or failure of the U.S. intervention, are barred by circumstances from joining the American adventure at this very critical conjuncture.

Recent history has altered the roles of some nations. Any war moves by Zionist Israel, an imperialist agency which previously could get away with outrageous acts of aggression, would decisively unite the Arab peoples against the imperialist invasion from the very outset.

The key role of Iran What about the role of Iran, which suffered an eight-year-long war with Iraq? At that time, Iraq objectively served as a stalking horse for imperialism against Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini.

The Ayatollah had attempted to set off a movement of Middle Eastern peoples united by religion and deep anti-imperialist moods in a struggle against imperialism. Khomeini was not the first to make the attempt. Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser tried it in the 1960s, Khomeini in the 1970s, Libya's Muammar el-Qadaffi in the 1980s, and now Irag's Saddam Hussein.

Bush's right-hand men are working overtime to provide inducements to the Iranians to bring them over as far as possible to the United States in their confrontation with Iraq. U.S. spokespersons dropped many hints that Iran, too, was about to make a deal and join up with the "Great Satan's" adventure in the Persian Gulf.

But so far only the Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Velayati and his supporters in that country have come out for siding with the American "devil."

Velayati is reported in an Aug. 10 New York Times piece by Youssef M. Ibrahim, to have argued that "the Iragi invasion represents a golden opportunity for Iran to 'reinsert' itself into the world community, gain badly needed Western financial credit and support and court the rich Arab countries along the Gulf, which sided with Iraq during its 1980-88 war with Iran. ...

"But...increasingly, the United States buildup seems to worry the Iranians more than the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait."

And Ibrahim reports, for instance, that the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohsen Rezei, has said: "The massive presence of American military forces in the Persian Gulf had more dangerous impact on developments in the region than Iraq's military occupation. For long, the United States was waiting for an opportunity to tighten its hold on the Persian Gulf and the flow of oil in particular."

Rezei is reported to have sharply disagreed with the above-noted judgment of his country's Foreign Minister. "The Iraqi aggression," he said, "had provided Washington the golden chance." [Emphasis added.] The Times reporter goes on to write, "Kuwait...has been a thorn in Iran's side for a decade. Among other things, Kuwait gave Iraq anywhere from $10 billion to $15 billion to finance its war with Iran, a Muslim but non-Arab nation. Besides supporting Iraq in the war, Kuwait deliberately flooded oil markets after 1986 to keep oil prices from rising above $15 to $17 a barrel, thereby keeping down Iran's oil revenues." (And, it should also be noted, keeping down the costs to the industrialized imperialist countries.)

But for the moment, Iran is gaining a windfall resulting from the embargo of Iraqcontrolled oil supplies. In the first five days of the crisis, it sold as much as 26 million extra gallons of oil from its floating storage tankers at sea to Japanese and other Asian customers.

This takes us to the heart of the current desperate conflict between the American-led world of imperialism and the rebellious oil-producing and other Middle East countries. The grave military measures taken by U.S. imperialism—including a virtual blockade of Iraq—suggests that the stakes in this conflict are unusually high.

Arab stakes in the conflict While a major share of the world's oil supplies is owned by the oil-producing colonial countries, a much larger share of oil profits goes to the giant oil companies and other corporate entities. The imperialist corporations have a virtual monopoly on the refineries and other industries which turn oil into various fuels, lubricants, plastics, fertilizers, paints and a multitude of other derivative products.

The industries which consume the variety of products refined from petroleum by the oil companies are connected to them financially by a vast network of overlapping ownership.

Thus while every capitalist is in competition with every other capitalist, in spheres of production such as this they have a common interest in keeping down the cost of raw petroleum. This is true even when the oil corporations also reap a giant share of the profits derived from the sale of oil as it comes out of the well.

There is a good reason for the otherwise anomalous opposition by the imperialists to the rise in price of their own raw petroleum. A much bigger portion of their profits comes from the labor-intensive productive process, which adds much more surplus value to the raw material as it goes from one stage to another in the process of production.

Therefore, the industrial capitalists in the imperialist countries have little interest in artificially forcing up the price of oil as it comes from the well, which they must share with the capitalists of the oil-producing countries.

A price rise resulting from monopoly control by the oil-producers who restrict the amount of oil placed on the market increases the rate of profit on their end, but reduces it on the other. This is, of course, to the great disadvantage of the capitalists in the imperialist countries.

And this is what's behind Hussein's occupation of Kuwait.

Hoping to enforce oil quotas OPEC was the organization through which the oil-producing countries have attempted to control the supplies of oil reaching the market (and thus keep the price from being depressed by the united action of the industrialized countries). But the OPEC members have been unable to stick together.

Some countries, driven by necessity, put more oil on the market than the quotas alloted to them. Others violate the OPEC agreements in direct collusion with the imperialists.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were among the worst offenders. This is partly explained by the enormous wealth concentrated in the hands of the rulers of these countries and invested in the imperialist countries.

Kuwait alone is reputed to have some 49190 che Illiami tera $100 billion invested outside the Middle East, mostly in the United States. This enormous investment indicates a closer identity of interests and puts them closer to sharing the point of view of the capitalists in the imperialist countries.

In the face of the OPEC countries' failure to maintain their unity by common consent, Saddam Hussein's game plan is to win leadership of the producing countries and be in a position to enforce quotas. He-like Nasser, Khomeini and Qadaffi before him-—hopes to accomplish this by a combination of military power and audacious action to inspire the others to follow his lead against imperialist interests.

But, on the other hand, while they need a strong leader to unite the colonial countries against imperialism, the Arab rulers fear both domination by a strong leader and vengeful retaliation from imperialism. And what they fear most, of course, is Hussein's increasingly desperate setting of the masses of poor Muslims against the rich!

Hussein knows that he can't force imperialism to come to terms without encouraging mass demonstrations and strikes and even arming the toilers to help repel the imperialists. All of the Middle East rulers fear, however, that the masses will try to use their power, ultimately, in defense of their own class interests.

But the result of the Arab League majority's decision to send troops to the Gulf to be the "Arab face" for imperialism has been to force Hussein to more reckless agitation of the masses.

"For the benefit of the foreigner"

Hussein's immediate response was to up the ante and call for a "holy war" against the "colonialists" and the "disfigured petroleum states" they "set up." He explained that it was through these puppet states that the "wealth came into the hands of the few to be exploited for the benefit of the foreigner and those few new rulers." (Aug. 11 New York Times.)

Even more explosive was Hussein's reported declaration that Iraq would withdraw from Kuwait if the Israelis would also withdraw from the occupied West Bank of Palestine! Both Israel and the United States rejected this proposal, revealing the baseless pretenses of their opposition to violation of a nation's right to self-determination.

But demagogy or not, it's easy to understand the powerfully exultant chord struck in the hearts of the super-exploited victims of imperialism when the Iraqi armed forces swept the Emir and all his retainers out of Kuwait.

Iragi President Saddam Hussein, like those who earlier had attempted to lead the Muslim countries against domination, is appealing to EMIUM the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist passion of the masses. Even granting that he is driven first and foremost by the quest for a larger share of the profits for Iraqi capitalists, whose representative he is, the masses fully expect to gain a portion of the benefits.

And if Hussein fails to grant them a larger portion of the increased wealth imperialism may be forced give up, the aroused masses will be sure to move to take them.

Proletarian revolutionists in the Middle East have every reason to independently mobilize the workers and peasants in these countries against imperialism and join in united front action with Hussein against imperialism.

This is because imperialism's real objectives center on the continued domination of all the oppressed nations of the region—not on the protection of the right of self-determination.

And as Hussein demagogically calls for the poor to rise up against the ruling rich, they will accept his "invitation," while keeping their guard up and a watchful eye for treachery from this very temporary ally.

Imperialist stakes in the conflict Obviously, American imperialism on the other side of the exchange relationship between seller and buyer of petroleum has long ago won the position of leadership of the buyers. Thus its strategy is to unite the buyers and to divide the sellers—by force, if necessary.

Imperialism is more acutely concerned than ever before with maintaining its share of profits—in which the price of oil plays a large part. But alongside the panic creeping through news accounts of the developing collision in the Middle East, are increasingly ominous reports of the precarious position of the American economy in particular, and that of the industrialized nations in general.

Economists fear that a rise in the price of oil will tip the American economy into a recession whose depth is said to depend on how high the price will go.

This is, by all indications, not an exaggeration. If anything, their fears are understated. In fact, the dilemma of imperialism is that,

Scan page 11

draw from the occupied West Bank of leaving aside which side ultimately comes the Middle East! Palestine! Both Israel and the United States out on top, the costs of this military advenrejected this proposal, revealing the baseless ture alone can tip the American economy pretenses of their opposition to violation of Evolved went, in a matter of days, from 5000 agreements in direct collusion with the im- stand the powerfully exultant chord struck in to 50,000, then to 100,000, and by Aug. 10 the hearts of the super-exploited victims of imperialism when the Iraqi armed forces worst offenders. This is partly explained by swept the Emir and all his retainers out of that this intervention, unlike the lightning the enormous wealth concentrated in the swoops in and out of Grenada and Panama, hands of the rulers of these countries and inwho earlier had attempted to lead the Muslim countries against domination, is appealing to tion. Even though as of this moment Bush's $100 billion invested outside the Middle the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist pas- intervention seems to have come off better East, mostly in the United States. This sion of the masses. Even granting that he is than expected, serious observers know that enormous investment indicates a closer iden- driven first and foremost by the quest for a successes can quickly turn to ashes. This tity of interests and puts them closer to shar- larger share of the profits for Iraqi capitalists, will be the result if the masses, who are aling the point of view of the capitalists in the whose representative he is, the masses fully ready stirring from northern Africa to Iran, throw their weight into the battle shaping to maintain their unity by common consent, portion of the increased wealth imperialism Saddam Hussein's game plan is to win lead- may be forced give up, the aroused masses if shooting starts, the present uneasy and ership of the producing countries and be in a cranky support of the American people for position to enforce quotas. He—like Nasser, President Bush's intervention will start to go Khomeini and Qadaffi before him—hopes to East have every reason to independently mo- in reverse as their sons and daughters are sent accomplish this by a combination of mili- bilize the workers and peasants in these tary power and audacious action to inspire countries against imperialism and join in the others to follow his lead against imperi- united front action with Hussein against im- perialism's allies (South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia) committed a relative handful of troops to the conflict. If shooting strong leader to unite the colonial countries tives center on the continued domination of starts in the current crisis, we can expect against imperialism, the Arab rulers fear all the oppressed nations of the region—not deep opposition to the Gulf war to grow in both domination by a strong leader and on the protection of the right of self-deter- all countries sending invading forces, in provengeful retaliation from imperialism. And what they fear most, of course, is Hussein's increasingly desperate setting of the masses the poor to rise up against the ruling rich, will be no "peace dividend" from the ending they will accept his "invitation," while keep- of the "Cold War." The real decision-makers ing their guard up and a watchful eye for never once believed this myth. They well alism to come to terms without encouraging knew that the need for U.S. imperialism to mass demonstrations and strikes and even continue to play its role of world policeman arming the toilers to help repel the imperialists. All of the Middle East rulers fear, however, that the masses will try to use their other side of the exchange relationship be- the accumulating evidence of world capitalpower, ultimately, in defense of their own tween seller and buyer of petroleum has long ism's developing economic crisis, revoluago won the position of leadership of the tionary eruptions loom on the horizon in buyers. Thus its strategy is to unite the buyity's decision to send troops to the Gulf to ers and to divide the sellers-by force, if be the "Arab face" for imperialism has been course of all the Stalinists) toward capitalist to force Hussein to more reckless agitation restoration continues to follow its logic to than ever before with maintaining its share the end. The Soviet and Chinese Stalinists of profits—in which the price of oil plays a are falling in line behind American imperiallarge part. But alongside the panic creeping ism's counterrevolutionary action in the through news accounts of the developing Gulf like any one of Uncle Sam's run-of-thethe ante and call for a "holy war" against the collision in the Middle East, are increasingly "colonialists" and the "disfigured petroleum ominous reports of the precarious position states" they "set up." He explained that it of the American economy in particular, and one place, it loses in another: Now the sowas through these puppet states that the called threat of Soviet "imperialism" has all "wealth came into the hands of the few to be but evaporated. It is clearer than ever before exploited for the benefit of the foreigner and oil will tip the American economy into a re- that the current military adventure, this time those few new rulers." (Aug. 11 New York cession whose depth is said to depend on in the Persian Gulf, is motivated by nothing more than the naked interests of capitalist imperialism. Americans will have less reaported declaration that Iraq would withdraw ation. If anything, their fears are understated. son than ever to kill and be killed in defense from Kuwait if the Israelis would also with- In fact, the dilemma of imperialism is that, La nation's right to self-determination.

But demagogy or not, it's easy to underif Iran's Revolutionary Guards, si, has said: "The massive pres- perialists. erican military forces in the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were among the had more dangerous impact on s in the region than Iraq's mili- Kuwait. on. For long, the United States Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, like those for an opportunity to tighten its vested in the imperialist countries.

Persian Gulf and the flow of oil Kuwait alone is reputed to have some ported to have sharply disagreed 4u990 che stiami Herald ve-noted judgment of his coun1 Minister. "The Iraqi aggres1, "had provided Washington the =." [Emphasis added.] s reporter goes on to write, s been a thorn in Iran's side for nong other things, Kuwait gave re from $10 billion to $15 bilce its war with Iran, a Muslim • nation. Besides supporting Iraq Suwait deliberately flooded oil PREMI r 1986 to keep oil prices from $15 to $17 a barrel, thereby n Iran's oil revenues." (And, it e noted, keeping down the costs ialized imperialist countries.) le moment, Iran is gaining a iting from the embargo of IraqI supplies. In the first five days it sold as much as 26 million of oil from its floating storage a to Japanese and other Asian us to the heart of the current aflict between the American-led serialism and the rebellious oilid other Middle East countries. ilitary measures taken by U.S. -including a virtual blockade of its that the stakes in this conflict i high. stakes in the conflict rajor share of the world's oil wned by the oil-producing colo's, a much larger share of oil to the giant oil companies and ite entities. The imperialist corre a virtual monopoly on the reother industries which turn oil uels, lubricants, plastics, fertilund a multitude of other derivaries which consume the variety imperialist countries. expect 10 gain a portion of the benefits. fined from petroleum by the oil In the face of the OPEC countries' failure And if Hussein fails to grant them a larger e connected to them financially vork of overlapping ownership. : every capitalist is in competi- will be sure to move to take them. ry other capitalist, in spheres of Proletarian revolutionists in the Middle ich as this they have a common eeping down the cost of raw his is true even when the oil also reap a giant share of the ed from the sale of oil as it alist interests. perialism. the well. But, on the other hand, while they need a This is because imperialism's real objecgood reason for the otherwise position by the imperialists to ce of their own raw petroleum. ger portion of their profits mination. the labor-intensive productive And as Hussein demagogically calls for ch adds much more surplus aw material as it goes from one of poor Muslims against the rich! er in the process of production. Hussein knows that he can't force imperithe industrial capitalists in the treachery from this very temporary ally. ›untries have little interest in reing up the price of oil as it Imperialist stakes in the conflict le well, which they must share italists of the oil-producing Obviously, American imperialism on the resulting from monopoly conclass interests.

il-producers who restrict the But the result of the Arab League majorplaced on the market increases ofit on their end, but reduces it This is, of course, to the great necessary.

Imperialism is more acutely concerned of the capitalists in the imperiof the masses.

what's behind Hussein's occu- "For the benefit of the foreigner"

rait.

Hussein's immediate response was to up to enforce oil quotas the organization through producing countries have at¡trol the supplies of oil reach- that of the industrialized nations in general.

(and thus keep the price from Economists fear that a rise in the price of id by the united action of the countries). But the OPEC been unable to stick together. Times.) how high the price will go.

ries, driven by necessity, put Even more explosive was Hussein's re- This is, by all indications, not an exaggerle market than the quotas al.. Others violate the OPEC 'ER 1990 into a crisis.

The estimated numbers of U.S. troops inas high as 250,000!

Moreover, media analysts are guessing By MICHAEL In 1961, when Kuwait will go on for an unforseeable time period. dependence from Brit These speculations are not without founda- claim to the territory ar on the border. The Briti troops to Kuwait to "invaders," just as the I allies are doing today.

Few people in this cou boundaries between Ki not set by the people those countries but by t ruled the area.

For centuries, the cour Gulf had no fixed borr small emirates and sheil porated into the empi Turks.

A handbook for Britis in the early 1900s obse aries of the Kuwait priz most part fluctuating a are, at any given time tribes which then, eithe der compulsion, own Sheikh of Kuwait."

The area of Kuwait B nomadic clans from the in the early 18th century head of the Al-Sabah f ruler (his descendants until the recent Iraqi invi Nominal allegiance Ottoman Turks, who ‹ part of their Basra pro British, in order to prot interests, did what they autonomy of the Ku against the Ottoman Em By the late 19th cent British saw the need measures; Germany : imperialist rivals, had lines and ports in the reg In 1896, Sheikh Moh was assassinated by Mubarak, who seized il 'Just as the subdivided the up. behind the ba The capitalist news media also know that Arab people, 1 States seeks to own solutio back from the Gulf region in bodybags.

During the Vietnam War, American im- himself. Though the Br anything to do with the ments show that Mubar: company with the Briti just before the assassina In 1899, Mubarak sig ment making Kuwait a l portion to their casualties. As part of the pact, the Finally, it should now be clear that there pay a yearly subsidy to keep him in power.

During the next few ye tegrated into the colonia the Persian Gulf a vi Native handicrafts and has not diminished. pressed, as they had bee On the contrary, when account is taken of times. The subject peo] buy British goods that 1 British ships.

Kuwait, like other ", virtually every corner of the globe. countries, was limited t Furthermore, Gorbachev's course (and the pearls. When, during th local traders attempted tr beyond the framework the British blockaded Kı During the World Wa quered the Arab portio Empire. The northern t mill allies and vassals. mandated to France (W But while imperialism gains from this in seize the area in 1920)

Britain awarded itself Ira The desires of the peor independence, as well were thwarted. After pi rebellions in Iraq, the place Faisal, the forme whom the French had e on the Iragi throne. of corporate profits. In 1922, Sir Percy '

Scan page 12

to Najd..."

----- pull-quotes -----

U.S. Out of the Middle East! No VietnamWor in the GULF! Joseph Ryan/Socialist Action

Published Aug. 14, 1990 headlines and the Iraq."

SAUDI ARABIA